20041026Qwest Answer to Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

STOEL
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the Secretary RECEIVED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
OCT 2 5 2004
Boise. Idaho
October 25, 2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
Re:Docket #GNR- T -04-
Citizens of Soldiers Meadow Area v. Qwest Corporation
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission is an original and seven (7) copies of QWEST
CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very tml y yours~t~
Mary s'~bson
:blg
Enclosurescc: Service List
Boise-177432.0029164-00102
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900
Boise. Idaho 83702
main 208.389.9000
fax [phone]
www.stoel.com
MARY S. HOBSON
Direct [phone]
mshobson(?Ystoel.com
Oregon
Washington
California
Utah
Idaho
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson~stoel.coln
Idaho Pubjic Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
OCT 2 5 2004
Boise , Idaho
Adam L. Sherr (WSBA #25291)
Qwest
1600 7th Avenue - Room 3206
Seattle, W A 98191
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
adam. sherr~qwest. com
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CITIZENS OF SOLDIERS MEADOW
AREA,
Case No. GNR-04-
Complainants,
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
vs.
QWEST CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to
Idaho Code 9 61-626 and IPUC Rule of Procedure 331.05 hereby answers the petition for
reconsideration dated October 12 2004, by Vlado and Vivian Maras ("Complainants
).
Qwest
requests that the petition be denied.
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 1
Boise-177312.10029164-00102
THE ISSUES
Complainants ' petition takes the form of a one-page letter setting out three issues upon
which reconsideration is requested. Complainants ' first claim that the Commission s decision
was "unreasonable, unlawful and erroneous" because the Commission failed to take into
consideration Idaho Code 99 62-610A-F. Complainants contend they are "legally entitled to
receive" benefits under those statutes.
Second, the Complainants contend that the Commission should consider whether it can
assist Idaho citizens who request telephones" by using the "FCC Universal Service Fund.
Complainants state that they seek the Commission s support to work with Qwest to extend
service using this program.
Finally, Complainants ask that the Commission consider including Complainants "in a
geographic support area or service area.
This response addresses each of these issues and demonstrates that Complainants
petition for reconsideration of Order No. 29597 should be denied.
II.DISCUSSION
Expansion of Qwest's Service Territory.
In their petition Complainants state
, "
we request consideration to be included in a
geographic support area or service area." This request, like the remainder of Complainants
petition, is directed primarily at the Commission and does not mention Qwest. While it is
theoretically possible that the Commission could grant reconsideration to decide whether these
Complainants could be placed in the "geographic support area or service area" of another
telephone corporation, the record does not contain evidence that any other wire line telephone
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 2
Boise-177312.10029164-00102
corporation 1 is willing or able to serve the Soldiers Meadow area. Nor have Complainants
offered to produce additional evidence on this point if reconsideration is granted. Accordingly,
for purposes of this response, Qwest assumes that the Complainants wish the Commission to
reconsider its decisions that Soldiers Meadow is outside Qwest's service territory and that "
would be unreasonable to require Qwest to change its service boundaries and installiandline
service facilities to the Soldiers Meadow area." Order No. 29597 at 3.
IPUC Rule 331.01 provides that "petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically
the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the
order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of
the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is
granted." Complainants' petition does not meet these regulatory requirements. Complainants do
not point to any evidence that the Commission s decision concerning the limits of Qwest's
current boundaries is erroneous or unlawful; nor do they offer new evidence to suggest that the
Commission should reconsider its conclusion that it would be unreasonable to require Qwest to
expand its exchange boundaries.
The Commission s decision is supported by the record, which demonstrates that even if
Qwest were to annex Soldiers Meadow, Qwest's line extension policy would require payment by
the affected customers in amounts that they have admitted they are unwilling to pay. In fact, the
evidence shows only nine of the 19 potential customers indicated a willingness to pay anything
to receive service. The decision is also supported by the fact that only seven potential customers
were full-time residents of the area. Under these circumstances the Commission correctly
There is evidence, however, that most of the residents of the Soldiers Meadow area have wireless service.
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 3
Boise-1 77312.1 0029164-00102
concluded that it would not be in the general interest of the public to compel Qwest to extend
service to Soldiers Meadow.
The only new support for Complainants' position offered in the petition is the suggestion
that some form of state or federal universal service funding may be available to extend facilities
to Soldiers Meadow. However, as the discussion below demonstrates, the determination whether
an area is included within a telephone corporations' service area must be made before a company
can turn to the question whether universal service fund ("USF") funding may be used to offset
some the expenses incurred in serving a particular area or group of customers. Because the
Commission has correctly decided that Soldiers Meadow is not presently within Qwest's service
territory and that it is not reasonable to require Qwest to change those boundaries, the notion that
USF funding may change the result for these Complainants is misguided.
Federal Universal Service Funding.
The petition suggests that the "FCC Universal Service Fund" could provide some relief
for their situation. Complainants ask that the Commission lend its "support under this program
to work with Qwest to extend service." Attached to the petition is a two-page document taken
from the FCC's website providing "Consumer Facts" relating to the Federal Universal Service
Fund ("FUSF"). This document points out that there are four components to the FUSF. The
Complainants specifically ask that the Commission consider the second of these:
High-Cost. This program provides financial support to companies
that provide telecommunications services in areas of America
where the cost of providing service is high.
In citing this FCC information the Complainants apparently do not understand that the
FUSF only provides funding based on a rural company s embedded costS.2 There is no
Rate-of-retum carriers my receive federal high-cost support for intrastate services through the high-cost
loop support mechanism and Local Switching Support ("LSS"). Presently Qwest does receive LSS to
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 4
Boise-177312.10029164-00102
mechanism under the FUSF to apply for or obtain advance funding to construct facilities. Nor
do federal regulations permit potential customers to obtain funds for use in securing services for
their area. Thus, the costs for serving Soldiers Meadow could be considered for FUSF funding
only if they were included in a qualifying company s request for FUSF.3 Moreover, the Soldiers
Meadow costs could be presented only if (i) Soldiers Meadow were included in the company
service area, and (ii) the company had already used other funds to build the facilities. Unless
these requirements are met, the company cannot submit the financial data associated with the
Soldiers Meadow facilities to the National Exchange Carrier Association ("NECA") for
inclusion in its cost models. Furthermore, even if Qwest were to annex the Soldiers Meadow
area and build the facilities (without collecting the increased costs through its line-extension
policy), the portion of the costs recovered from the FUSF cannot be predicted. Any remaining
costs of construction would have to be recovered from the general body of northern Idaho
ratepayers.
Because the Commission has correctly determined that it would not be reasonable to
require Qwest to annex this area, and because it would not be in the public interest to require the
costs of serving the area be spread to existing customers, the FUSF is not a solution for these
Comp lainants.
offset some of the intrastate costs of its northern Idaho operations. Qwest receives no high-cost loop
support in northern Idaho or anywhere else in its service territory.
In a July 16, 1996 order the FCC clarified that its "frozen study area boundary rule" by identifying
circumstances under which rule waivers would not be necessary. Concerning the Definition of "Study
Area " Contained in Part , Memorandum Opinion and Order, IIFCC 8156 (1995). Such circumstances
include
, "
if a separately incorporated company is establishing a study area for previously unserved
territory .
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 5
Boise-177312.10029164-00102
State Universal Service Fund.
Complainants also suggest that the Commission was remiss in not mentioning Idaho
Code 9~ 62-610A-, which they apparently believe would assist them in securing service for
Soldiers Meadow. Once again Complainants labor under a misunderstanding.
As the Commission is well aware, in 1998 the Idaho Legislature enacted Idaho Code
99 62-610 A-, authorizing the Commission to establish a neutral funding mechanism which
would operate in coordination with federal universal support as a new intrastate USF. However
due in part to an industry-wide debate over the efficacy and application of competing models for
determining costs and pinpointing high cost areas, in 2000 the legislature amended the statutes
and eliminated any deadline for the Commission to establish the new Idaho USF. Since that
time, although the Commission has conducted proceedings to determine the how cost models
will be used to identify and rank high cost areas using a forward-looking cost methodology,4 the
new Idaho USF has not been established.
What this means for Complainants is that the new Idaho USF has not been established
although progress has been made in drawing the rough outlines as to how the fund might operate.
To date no surcharges have been imposed under Idaho Code 9 63-610F(2), nor has the
Commission determined the procedures for applying for funds, or the criteria under which funds
would be awarded. The Idaho USF contemplated in Idaho Code 99 62-610A-F does not offer
any relief to the Complainants.
See In the Marter of the Investigation to Determine an Appropriate Cost Model Using Forward-Looking
Economic Costs for Calculating the Costs of Basic Telecommunications Services in Idaho, Case Nos.
GNR-97-22; GNR-OO-
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 6
Boise-177312.10029164-001O2
III.CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Complainants' petition for reconsideration does not comply with
IPUC Rule 331.01 in that it does not identify grounds for conclusion that the Commission
Order No. 29597 is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. The
Commission has correctly concluded, based on the record evidence, that the general interest of
the public does not require Qwest to extend landline facilities to Soldiers Meadow.
Submitted this 25th day of October, 2004.
Qwest Corporationr;a~
Mary s son
Stoel Rives LLP
Adam L. Sherr
Qwest
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 7
Boise-177312.1 0029164-00102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of October, 2004, I served the foregoing QWEST
CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon all parties
of record in this matter as follows:
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
iiewell~puc.state.id. us
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Vlado Maras
Vivian Maras
O. Box 280
25314 Soldiers Meadow Road
Winchester, ill 83555
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Herb Weed
Trudy Weed
O. Box 467
43529 Yellow Pine Avenue
Winchester, ill 83555
&a%d/ /f?dL~~Brandi L. Gearhart
Legal Assistant to Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
QWEST CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Page 8
Boise-177312.10029164-00102