HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030509min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
May 9, 2003 – 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Dennis Hansen, and Marsha Smith.
The first order of business was APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS on March 31, April 8, April 16, and April 21, 2003. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the minutes, a vote was taken, and the minutes were approved.
The next order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA, items 2—11. There were no questions or discussion. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Joe Cusick’s May 7, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint Regarding Verizon Northwest’s Implementation of 211.
Mr. Cusick stated that on May 7th, the Commission received a letter that was attached to the memo from Ms. Deb Crumb representing 211 Idaho. The purpose of the letter was to file a formal complaint against Verizon regarding the cost of providing 211 in its service territory. The 211 has been implemented in all areas of the state except for the Verizon Territory. All of the companies say Qwest implemented the service without a charge. Qwest implemented for a one-time charge to the state for $300, and then $30. per office translated. Verizon has quoted the 211 Idaho a fee of $420. per office for translations, or for implementation. 211 Idaho has asked that a case be opened and staff agrees to open the case and investigate Verizon's implementation of 211. The question before the Commission is do we wish to open a case to investigate the formal complaint of 211 Idaho?
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there were any questions or comments. Commissioner Smith moved to open a formal investigation for complaint filing. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
John Hammond’s May 7, 2003 Decision Memorandum re: the Matter of IAT Communications, Inc. dba NTCH-Idaho, Inc. or Clear Talk for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, Case No. GNR-T-03-8; and in the Matter of the Application of NPCR, Inc. dba Nextel Partners Seeking Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, Case No. GNR-T-03-16.
Mr. Hammond reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith asked that he refresh her memory on page 4 of the memo that referred to the staff’s previous memo on Clear Talk’s petition. Mr. Hammond replied that Clear Talk’s filing was filed prior to Nextel Partners by several months. The Commission decided to process it by modified procedure and received Nextel Partners filing very shortly after, and staff thought it would be worth while to ask the Commission to delay sending the notice and asked that we process both in the same proceeding.
Commissioner Smith asked why on a filing on February 3, 2003, the Commission did not receive comments before April 28th.
Mr. Hammond said all he knew it was noticed up on April 17th, the Clear Talk or IAT’s petition was brought before the Commission for consideration. The delay in processing he couldn’t explain. He thought staff was evaluating what to do with it since it was an issue of first impression.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there were any questions or comments.
Commissioner Smith asked what were the comments that were received.
Doug Cooley explained that the comment period didn’t actually begin. On the April 17th memo, the Commission chose to go modified procedure, but we didn’t notice and begin the 28-day clock.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there further questions or comments. He moved that they accept staffs recommendation to combine the applications and proceed as outlined by staff as far as time lines were concerned, and to keep it on the modified track until we need to do else wise.
Commissioner Smith asked if the motion includes a recommendation on the request by Clear Talk for an interim order designating them an ETC. Commissioner Kjellander said no it didn’t. That’s not included in the motion but willing to have a discussion on that if it’s warranted.
Commissioner Smith asked if the staff had a problem with an interim designation pending comments.
Mr. Hammond replied that there is a difference in the standard between being granted ETC status and Qwest service territory versus a rural telephone company service territory. The standard is much lower for granting in those non-rural areas. He thought their request, not speaking for Qwest, anticipates the process or the designation will be easier to obtain there. Until we know what Qwest’s position will be on that, he thought that it would be premature to grant the interim status. He also thought it may be easier to grant that status versus the rural issue.
Commissioner Smith noted that Ms. O’Leary was in the room, and asked if she could be allowed to respond.
Ms. O’Leary responded that it is a benefit to them in a competitive field. They filed the application back in February, and now they are in a situation where another carrier that they compete with has filed and will be treated in the same procedure as Clear Talk, and they would like to have the advantage of going ahead with their filing. It doesn’t appear that it’s going to happen, so the next thing that seems appropriate at this point is to go ahead with the designation in the Qwest territory where Mr. Hammond indicated the standard is much more straight forward, it’s just a matter of technically whether they are in fact providing the designated services which she didn’t think there was any factual dispute on.
Commissioner Smith asked if Nextel was asking for more than Clear Talk in terms of coverage.
Mr. Cooley responded that going with what he had read, he believed there is a certain amount of overlap. They are very similar coverage areas. Commissioner Smith said it looked like Clear Talk is looking at US West territory along the interstate. It looked like Nextel’s coverage includes a lot more than that. Mr. Cooley said there is some discussion with the companies about which rural areas would be affected by the ETC status, and part of the analysis as we process through the case would to look at the exact exchanges. It is clear that they both want the Qwest areas along the Snake River and along the interstate. Commissioner Smith asked if it would be confusing or administratively burdensome to give them interim certificates for serving in Qwest area while we process the application.
Mr. Cusick responded that Nextel Partners did not ask for Qwest territory, they had only asked for independent companies. The map they provided was their coverage area, one of the things they had concern with Albion Telephone where they have noncontiguous exchanges besides Albion; they also had Arco and Mackay. Commissioner Smith said she is not worried about Nextel, she thought we should include Clear Talk in with this and put it all off, or if the request is limited to only Qwest area, and that’s not going to be contentious or at least the standard is lower whether it’s appropriate to give them the interim designation since the application has been here 4 months.
Joe Cusick replied that designation as an ETC in Qwest’s territory was not contentious. He said that Qwest may disagree with that, but the law is fairly clear; are they providing these services, are they advertising it, if so, on an non-rural company they did get designated as an ETC. The Commission, not even on an interim basis could find that ETC status in the Qwest territory was granted and then continue on with the issue of whether or not the public interest was served by granted in the rural areas. We have also talked to Clear Talk about whether or not it would be cleaner to modify their application, and actually file two different ones, one for Qwest and one for the rural exchanges.
Commissioner Smith replied that in light of the discussion, she supported the motion and made additional motion with regard to Clear Talk, we grant them ETC designation for serving in Qwest territory, but that the issue of serving in independent company areas is part of the case with Nextel.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if she wanted to deal with that as two separate motions. Commissioner Hansen had no preference. Commissioner Kjellander said they would make that one decision unit. He asked if there was further discussion. Being none, vote was taken and motion carried.
Lisa Nordstrom’s May 7, 2003, Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Investigation of Atlanta Power Company’s Rates and Customer Service. Case No. ATL-E-03-1.
Ms. Nordstrom discussed the memo. She said it is within the Commission’s discretion to decide. Commissioner Smith moved that they give 10 more days for Mr. Stevenson to respond and the customers would be adverse to their own best interest that they opposed it because that means 10 more days at the current rates. Ms. Nordstrom replied that she didn’t think a rate change has been put forth yet, although they would like a reduction that is not going to happen.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there was further comment, hearing none, vote taken and motion carried.
Two items under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS, and Commissioner Kjellander stated that the Commission would deliberate on it privately. He then adjourned the meeting.
DATED this _____ day of May, 2003.
______________________________________
ASSISTANT COMMISSION SECRETARY