20100728reconsideration_order_no_32039.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
July 28 2010
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GRACE JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 148, )
CASE NO. QWE-10-
COMPLAINANT,
QWEST CORPORATION,ORDER NO. 32039
RESPONDENT.
On May 6, 2010, the Commission received a "formal complaint" from Brian
Stutzman on behalf of Grace School District No. 148. In the complaint, Mr. Stutzman claimed
that a power surge caused by Qwest Corporation damaged telephone equipment at one of the
District's elementary schools. Mr. Stutzman requested that Qwest pay $1 500 to partially cover
the cost of replacing the damaged telephone equipment. He also asserted Qwest had not been
responsive to his claims for damage reimbursement.
In Order No. 31099 issued June 3 , 2010, the Commission dismissed the complaint
finding it does not have the statutory authority to award damages under the Idaho
Telecommunications Act Idaho Code 99 62-601 et seq. The Commission also found that
although "Qwest may have been more responsive to (Mr. Stutzman s) calls and letters, we
cannot find that (Qwest) was entirely non-responsive." Order No. 31099 at 5. While "Qwest did
not respond to every letter or phone call, . . . what is clear is that Qwest denied the District'
liability claim.Id.
On June 17 2010, Commission Staff received a request from Mr. Stutzman asking if
Order No. 31099 could be amended. He asserted that Order No. 31099 "made it look like there
had been regular and constant responses from Qwest. It has been nothing of the sort." Having
reviewed Mr. Stutzman s request and our prior Order No. 31099 , we deny the request to amend
the Order.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Mr. Stutzman asserts in his e-mail that the Commission s Order does not accurately
portray the exchange of communications between himself and Qwest. More specifically, his e-
mail states in part:
ORDER NO. 32039
I would ask that part of (Order No. 31099) be corrected to include that I called
Qwest's Joni Duran at least three times each month of December , January and
February, for a total of nine times, and received zero response except for 2
form letters. It was only after I drove to Denver to try to meet with her that
she left 2 after hour voice mails for me. To this date, she has never returned a
call during business hours.
Your (Order) made it look like there had been regular and constant responses
from Qwest. It has been nothing of the sort.
Can you amend (the Order) to reflect this?
The Commission s Procedural Rule 326 addresses the amendment of final orders.
Rule 326.01 provides that any person may petition "to rescind, alter or amend a final order
pursuant to Section 61-625, Idaho Code.This rule further provides that a petition to amend
must state that "there have been changed circumstances or new information that has become
available since the order was issued, or that there are other good and sufficient reasons for
rescinding, altering or amending the order." IDAPA 31.01.01.326.01.b. For purposes of our
review, we shall treat Mr. Stutzman s e-mail as a Petition to Amend our final Order No. 31099.
Having reviewed Mr. Stutzman s e-mail and our prior Order, the Commission finds it
is unnecessary to amend our prior Order No. 31099. We believe the prior Order captures the
tenor ofMr. Stutzman s complaint that Qwest did not return each and every one of his telephone
calls. .We note that Mr. Stutzman s complaint does not succinctly state that he called Qwest nine
times (three times each month in December, January and February). However, Order No. 31099
specifically states the Commission agreed with Mr. Stutzman s claim that "Qwest did not
respond to every letter or phone call, but what is clear is that Qwest denied the District's liability
claim." Order No. 31099 at
The Commission s prior Order noted that "While Qwest may have been more
responsive to the calls and letters, we cannot find that the Company was entirely non-
responsive.Id. Again as we found in the prior Order, the gravamen of this complaint was the
District's claim for damages. When the District submitted a written damage claim to Qwest on
December 7 2009, the Company sent a reply letter denying the claim on December 16 2009. Id.
at 1. When Mr. Stutzman sent another claim request on February 5, 2010 , to Qwest, it was
denied in writing on February 18 2010. Id. at 5.
ORDER NO. 32039
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Stutzman s request to amend Order No. 31099
is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION.Any party
aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.
QWE-IO-04 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law
and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code 9 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this J. fl1-I-
day of July 2010.
~~~
D. KE~PTON, RESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
\.6W
MACK A. REDFORD, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~fJ ~J1
D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
bls/O:QWE-IO-dh2
ORDER NO. 32039