staff.doc

CHERI C. COPSEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
Idaho Bar No. 5142

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND AVISTA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. §252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. USW-T-99-8

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Cheri C. Copsey, Deputy Attorney General, in response to Order No. 28063, issued June 7, 1999, submits the following comments.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, U S WEST Communications and Avista Communications, Inc. filed a Joint Application on May 21, 1999, requesting approval of an agreement for an amendment to their Interconnection Agreement, approved by the Commission on December 18, 1998. According to the Joint Application, the amendment to the Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations between the parties without resort to mediation or arbitration.
The Joint Application states that the amendment provides for collocation of Avista’s microwave antenna equipment on the roofs of the U S WEST’s Central Office Buildings and collocation of transmission equipment. The equipment will be limited to only that which is necessary for local interconnection of Avista’s network facilities to U S WEST’s network or access to U S WEST’s unbundled network elements.
Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C.  252 (e)(1). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiation only if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a telecommunication carrier not a party to the agreement or implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C.  252 (e)(2)(A). If the Commission does not act to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days after its submission, the agreement is deemed approved. 47 U.S.C.  252 (e)(4). The Commission’s decision is not reviewable by the state courts. Id.
U S WEST and Avista jointly assert that the Agreement does not discriminate against other telecommunication carriers and that it is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.
The Commission reviewed the filings of record in Case No. USW-T-99-8 and determined that the public interest may not require a hearing to consider the issues presented and that the issues raised by the Application may be processed under Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submission rather than by hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed the language of this agreement and found the terms and conditions are not discriminatory. Staff concurs with the U S WEST’s and Avista’s claim that the amendment to the Interconnection Agreement previously approved is consistent with the pro-competitive policies of the Commission, the Idaho Legislature and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and finds that the Agreement is consistent with the public interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission approve this amendment to the Interconnection Agreement as filed.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of June 1999.

______________________________
Cheri C. Copsey
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Wayne Hart

M:uswt998_cc3.doc

STAFF COMMENTS 2 June 28, 1999