answer_reconsdrtn.doc

Deputy Attorney General
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, ID 83720-0074
Tele: (208) 334-
Idaho Bar No. 3283
FAX: [phone]

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED’S TARIFF ADVICE NO. 00-05 FOR APPROVAL OF ITS COLLOCATION SERVICES.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GTE-T-00-7

COMMISSION STAFF’S ANSWER TO VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC.’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, pursuant to Rule 331.05 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 331.01.01.331.05, files this answer to the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Verizon Northwest, Inc., formerly known as GTE Northwest Incorporated.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2000, Verizon filed Tariff Advice No. 00-05, a proposed tariff to provide the terms, conditions and prices for elements that make up Verizon’s collocation services. The Commission on May 16, 2000, issued Order No. 28378 suspending the proposed effective date for the tariff, and provided for processing the tariff advice by Modified Procedure with a 45-day comment period. Comments were filed by Staff, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. and Verizon. Both AT&T and the Staff recommended the Commission reject Verizon’s collocation tariff.
The Commission subsequently issued Order No. 28490 rejecting the proposed tariff and closing the case.
VERIZON’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION MERELY STATES
ITS ARGUMENTS PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE COMMISSION
Rule 331 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure requires Petitions for Reconsideration to “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.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Paragraph 3 of Rule 331 requires the Petition to state whether the petitioner requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories, none of which were identified by Verizon in its petition. The Supreme Court has stated that Petitions for Reconsideration are to bring to the attention of the Commission any questions determined in the final Order and thereby afford the Commission an opportunity to rectify any legal mistake made by the Commission. See e.g., Washington Water Power Company v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). It is clear that the purpose for reconsideration is not merely to re-argue points decided against the petitioner in the Commission’s order. It is instead an opportunity to present to the Commission information of a significant factual nature or legal mistake that renders the Commission’s order incorrect.
In its Petition for Reconsideration in this case, Verizon merely restates the argument it presented in its comments filed with the Commission. The Commission after due consideration of those comments rejected Verizon’s arguments and determined to reject the proposed collocation tariff. Verizon presents no new information or legal authority in its Petition for Reconsideration, and merely rehashes and rewraps its previous arguments.
Although Staff believes the Commission need not consider or address Verizon’s re-stated arguments, Staff nonetheless cannot let some of the incorrect arguments go without brief comment. First, Verizon points out that the Telecommunications Act permits Bell Operating Companies to file Statements of Generally Available Terms (SGAT) and contends “nothing in the Act forbids a company from similarly employing a tariff.” The Act’s provision for SGATs clearly is irrelevant to Verizon since Verizon in Idaho is not a Bell Operating Company. Verizon’s argument for a tariff by association also fails because an SGAT is not filed or accepted by state commissions as a tariff. Indeed, the SGAT recently filed by Qwest Communications was permitted to become effective without review by the Commission. See 47 U.S.C. 252(f)(3)B(4).
Second, Verizon’s contention that the FCC ordered it to file collocation tariffs in the states as part of its merger with Bell Atlantic also is specious. Without express federal or state legal authority, the FCC cannot order state commissions to review and accept complex collocation documents as tariffs. The portion of the “Merger Order” cited by Verizon reveals the FCC’s appreciation for that limitation, as the quoted portion requires Verizon to “file a tariff or offer to amend interconnection agreements in each Bell Atlantic/GTE state where Bell Atlantic and/or GTE have not done so already….” Staff believes the option given for Verizon to either file a tariff or offer to amend interconnection agreements is recognition by the FCC that not all states have legal authority for filing collocation tariffs.
Third, Verizon’s reference to Idaho Code § 62-606 is improper and the accompanying argument irrelevant. Verizon is not subject to regulation by the provisions of Title 62, Idaho Code, but instead is regulated pursuant to the Commission’s authority in Title 61, Idaho Code.
Finally, Verizon’s attempt to re-characterize its proposed collocation terms as something other than optional is contrary to its earlier representations to the Commission. A competitor carrier desiring interconnection can totally reject Verizon’s proposed collocation terms and negotiate or arbitrate different terms. Verizon cannot change the optional nature of the proposed terms by unilaterally promising to feel bound by them.

CONCLUSION
Verizon does not properly identify a factual or legal mistake made by the Commission in Order No. 28490. Instead, Verizon restates the arguments it previously made. Verizon presents no new argument and does not identify any legal grounds for the Commission to accept its proposed collocation tariff. The Commission Staff contends the Commission properly determined to reject Verizon’s collocation tariff and that Verizon’s Petition for Reconsideration must be denied.
RESPECTIVELY submitted this day of September 2000.

Deputy Attorney General

vld/N: GTE-T-00-07_ws3

COMMISSION STAFF’S ANSWER
TO VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC.’S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 4