20071217final_order_no_30474.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 17, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MOUNTAIN STATES, INc.,CASE NO. QWE-06-
COMPLAINANT
vs.
QWEST CORPORATION,ORDER NO. 30474
RESPONDENT.
On November 28, 2007, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. and
Qwest Corporation filed a Joint Motion requesting that the Commission issue an expedited Order
accepting the parties' settlement of their complaint case and dismissing AT&T's complaint with
prejudice. Joint Motion at 1. Each party would bear its own costs and attorneys fees. Given the
parties' settlement , we dismiss AT&T's complaint with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
In August 2006, AT&T filed a complaint against Qwest alleging that Qwest had
entered into "secret" interconnection agreements with two other telecommunications carriers.
AT&T alleged a breach of contract arguing that Qwest violated terms of the interconnection
agreement between AT&T and Qwest by not disclosing the "secret" agreements. Section
252(e)(1) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that "(a)ny interconnection
agreement adopted by negotiation or arbitration shall be submitted for approval to the State
(regulatory) commission.47 D.C. 9 252(e)(1); see also 47 US.C. 9 252(a)(1). AT&T
claimed that the secret agreements provided lower rates for certain telecommunications services
and had these "secret" agreements been disclosed, AT&T would have had an opportunity to also
obtain the lower rates. 47 US.C. 9252(i).
Pursuant to the Idaho Supreme Court's opinion in McNeal v. Idaho PUC 142 Idaho
685 , 132 P.3d 442 (2006), the Commission found that it had authority to interpret and enforce
the AT&T-Qwest interconnection agreement. The parties subsequently engaged in extensive
prehearing motions. In Order No. 30247 issued in February 2007, the Commission directed the
ORDER NO. 30474
parties to develop a schedule to process this case. In accordance with the modified schedule
AT&T filed its direct testimony on August 16, 2007.
While the Commission s proceeding was under way, AT&T also filed "a materially
identical complaint" in Idaho State Court in January 2007. AT&T served its state Court
complaint on Qwest in May 2007. On June 19 2007 , Qwest removed the state Court complaint
to federal Court and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. The federal Court
scheduled oral argument for November 27,2007.
Given the federal Court proceeding, Qwest filed a Motion for the Commission to stay
its evidentiary proceeding. Over AT&T's objection , the Commission granted Qwest's Motion to
Stay in Order No. 30407 issued September 24 2007, so that the federal Court action could run its
course.
THE JOINT MOTION
Having settled their dispute, both parties move the Commission for an Order
accepting the settlement and dismissing AT&T's complaint with prejudice. Motion at 1. The
parties assert that the settlement is consistent with state and federal law and in the public interest.
Id. at 2. The parties further state that the settlement is "of essentially a private dispute that has
no significant implications for regulatory law or policy, or for other utilities or customers and is
therefore, appropriate for the Commission s summary acceptance under Rule of Procedure 274.
Id.
The parties also indicate that the settlement resolves proceedings in nine other states
as well as other unrelated claims that Qwest has pursued against AT&T. The Commission
acceptance of the settlement "will serve to implement the parties' global settlement" in all the
other states. Id. Consequently, the parties request that
the Commission accept the negotiated resolution of the parties as a settlement
of a private dispute pursuant to Rule of Procedure 274, and enter an
expedited order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and with each party
bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Joint Motion at 2. The parties did not submit the settlement terms or any settlement materials
with the Motion.
DISCUSSION
As the parties correctly indicate, Rule 274 prescribes the Commission s procedures
for reviewing settlements. Under Rule 274 the Commission has the discretion and flexibility to
ORDER NO. 30474
adopt appropriate procedures when considering settlements offered by parties. "For example, the
Commission may summarily accept settlement of an essentially private dispute that has no
significant implications for regulatory law or policy or for other utilities or customers upon the
written request ofthe affected parties." Rule 274, IDAP A 31.01.01.274 (emphasis added).
Because the parties did not file the terms of the settlement, the Commission is unable
to determine whether the settlement "is consistent with state and federal law and in the public
interest." However, there were no intervenors in this case and the dispute was between Qwest
and AT&T. The Commission recognizes that the parties have negotiated a settlement of their
dispute. Based upon their resolution of the dispute, we find it reasonable to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion filed by AT&T and Qwest
dismissing AT&T's complaint with prejudice is granted. Consistent with the Motion , each party
shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. QWE- T -06-
17 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code 9 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30474
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this /7,
;-/1
day of December 2007.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:QWE-06-17 _dh4
ORDER NO. 30474