20000905Motion to Strike.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, IDAHO 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION OF ROBERT RYDER, DBA RADIO PAGING SERVICE, JOSEPH MCNEAL, DBA PAGEDATA AND INTERPAGE OF IDAHO, FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER AND RECOVERY OF OVERCHARGES FROM U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-99-24

COMMISSION STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE AND OPPOSITION TO INTERVENTION

COMES NOW the Commission Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Cheri C. Copsey, Deputy Attorney General, and files this opposition to the Motion of the Personal Communications Industry Association for Leave to Brief the Issues of General Applicability Raised in Order No. 28473. Staff further moves to strike the Brief of the Personal Communications Industry Association and that portion of the Petitioners’ Brief on Reconsideration that argues that the state legislature has authorized the Commission to enforce federal law the role pursuant to Idaho Code §  62-615. In their Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioners did not challenge the Commission’s ruling that Idaho Code § 62-615 does not provide a basis for the Commission to review and modify the prices or conditions at issue in this proceeding.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 24, 1999, Robert Ryder dba Radio Paging Service, Joseph McNeal dba PageData and Interpage of Idaho filed a Petition for Declaratory Order stating two counts for relief. All Petitioners are one-way paging companies that have purchased the use of facilities off of U S WEST (Qwest) Communications, Inc.’s price list (“Price List”). On July 5, 2000, the Commission dismissed both counts. Order No. 28427.
On July 20, 2000, the Petitioners filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration alleging only that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules obligate the Commission to enforce federal law – namely the TSR Wireless Order. However, the Petitioners did not explain how the Supremacy Clause obligated this Commission to enforce federal law in the absence of an express delegation from the state legislature. Petitioners did not request reconsideration of the Commission’s ruling on the applicability of Idaho Code § 62-615 or any other state statute.
On July 25, 2000, Staff filed an Opposition to Reconsideration, recommending that the Commission further require all parties to carefully brief the issue of how the Supremacy Clause obligates this Commission to enforce federal law without an express delegation from the state legislature. On July 27, 2000, U S WEST (Qwest) filed its Answer to Petition for Reconsideration. While Qwest supported the Commission’s July 5 order, Qwest believed that it is appropriate for the Commission to grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the TSR Memorandum Opinion and Order, if any, on its decision.
The Commission agreed to reconsider Order No. 28473 and specifically ordered the parties to brief the following two limited issues:
First, the parties should address this Commission’s obligation to enforce federal law in the absence of an express delegation from the state legislature. Second, because the TSR Order potentially implicates this Commission’s ratemaking authority, the parties should address the TSR Order itself.
Order No. 28473 at 2.
On August 31, 2000, the Petitioners, Personal Communications, U S WEST (Qwest), and Staff filed briefs. Petitioners incorporated by reference the Personal Communications’ Brief. Both Petitioners and Personal Communications argue that the TSR Wireless Order is legally and factually sound, that federal policy and the Commission Order are irreconcilable, that the Commission is preempted from asserting jurisdiction over the Complaint “in a manner inconsistent with Federal law” and that the Commission has been delegated authority by the state Legislature to enforce federal law in Idaho Code § 62-615.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS’ PETITION TO
INTERVENE SHOULD BE DENIED

Although couched as a Motion for Leave to Brief certain issues of general applicability, Personal Communications is clearly requesting intervention at this late hour. Intervention should be denied. Personal Communications’ Motion is clearly untimely and should be dismissed. Moreover, Personal Communications has not identified a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome of this proceeding. Intervention is controlled by Commission Rules 71-73 (IDAPA 31.01.01.071-073).
This request for intervention is untimely and Personal Communications has not stated a “substantial” reason for its delay in requesting an opportunity to participate. In fact it has not stated any excuse for its dilatory filing. More particularly, the Commission rules state:
Petitions to intervene must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the date set for hearing or prehearing conference, whichever is earlier, unless a different time is provided by order or notice. Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for delay. The Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing, to prevent disruption, prejudice to existing parties or undue broadening of the issues, or for other reasons. Intervenors who do not file timely petitions are bound by orders and notices earlier entered as a condition of granting the untimely petition
IDAPA 31.01.01.073. The Commission issued Order No. 28473 on July 5, 2000. This was a final order dismissing both counts of the Petitioners’ complaint. The time for filing a request for reconsideration (which may be filed by any interested person) ended on July 26, 2000. This Motion is more than one month after that deadline. Therefore, it should be dismissed.
In addition, Personal Communications does not state a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome. It states at page 2 that it is “an international trade association which has as members a broad cross-section of wireless telecommunications carriers who are intended beneficiaries of the pro-competitive policies embodied in the 1996 Act. Like the Paging Companies, many of the PCIA’s members are providers of one-way messaging services who have a substantial stake in preserving the interconnection regime established by the 1996 Act.” At no place does Personal Communications indicate it represents paging companies operating in Idaho who are operating without an interconnection agreement. Therefore, Personal Communications does not state a “direct and substantial interest” as required for intervention and the Commission should deny intervention.
Finally, intervention should be denied because Personal Communications’ Brief inserts new material not previously included in the record and attempts to broaden the issues on reconsideration. Contrary to Personal Communications’ assertion, the Commission did not invite the parties to brief the impact of the TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S WEST, (“TSR Wireless Order”) on the interconnection issues before the Commission or to brief the “nature and extent” of the obligation of the Commission to enforce federal law “in light of the authority granted to the PUC by the state legislature.”
The Petition for Reconsideration was confined to a very narrow question – whether in the absence of legislative authority, the Supremacy Clause standing alone obligates the Commission to enforce the FCC TSR Wireless Order. The absence of legislative authority is and always has been the prime reason for the Commission’s decision. Moreover, the issues in this proceeding are not interconnection issues. They are related to the prices and conditions for ordering items appearing in a price list where those items are no longer regulated by the Commission. They are essentially contractual issues. To the extent Personal Communications desires to broaden the issues on reconsideration, it should have filed a timely cross-petition. See Idaho Code § 61-626; Eagle Water Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997).

PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE COMMISSION’S DECISION REGARDING THE ROLE OF IDAHO CODE § 62-615 IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECONSIDERATION AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN
The Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration alleged only that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules obligate the Commission to enforce federal law – namely the TSR Wireless Order. Specifically, Petitioners wrote as follows:
The facilities charges that Petitioners have objected to are clearly unlawful. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal communications laws and regulations apply in all the states, including Idaho, and the states are obligated to observe and enforce them. A state regulatory agency may not turn a blind eye to a statute or regulation that has the force of law in a state just because it was enacted or promulgated at the federal level.
Petition for Reconsideration at 1-2. In their July 26 Petition, Petitioners did not explain how the Supremacy Clause obligated the Commission to enforce federal law in the absence of an express delegation from the state legislature. They merely relied on the existence of the Supremacy Clause and did not allege state law compelled the result they requested. Petitioners did not request reconsideration of the Commission’s ruling on the applicability of Idaho Code § 62-615 or any other state statute.
The Commission agreed to reconsider Order No. 28473 and specifically ordered the parties to brief the following two limited issues:
First, the parties should address this Commission’s obligation to enforce federal law in the absence of an express delegation from the state legislature. Second, because the TSR Order potentially implicates this Commission’s ratemaking authority, the parties should address the TSR Order itself.
Order No. 28473 at 2.
In response to the Commission Order, both U S WEST (Qwest) and Staff confined their briefs to a discussion of how the Supremacy Clause operates in the absence of an express delegation from the state legislature. There was no discussion of how Idaho Code § 62-615 operates. The Petitioners have clearly introduced new issues on reconsideration not identified in their Petition. Therefore, those portions of their brief that re-argue the issue of whether Idaho Code § 62-615 engrafts certain aspects of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 into state law should be stricken. See Eagle Water Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997).
Although Eagle Water involves the scope of a cross-petition for reconsideration, the analogy is clear. Reconsideration is controlled by statute. Under Idaho Code § 61-626(1) the scope of for reconsideration is limited to those issues raised in the petition for reconsideration. Therefore, because the Petitioners (Personal Communications) did not challenge the Commission’s decision regarding the application of Idaho Code § 62-615 to this complaint, they are foreclosed from briefing it now and the Commission should strike those portions of the Petitioners’ Brief and the Personal Communications’ Brief that address that issue.
THE STATE LEGISLATURE EXPRESSLY REMOVED THESE SERVICES FROM THE COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY
Petitioners re-argue that Idaho Code § 62-615(1) authorizes the Commission to find the Price List provisions void because they maintain that the state Legislature delegated it “wholesale” authority to implement and enforce “FCC policy,” including the TSR Wireless Order. See Petitioners’ Brief at 4; Personal Communications Brief at 11-12. However, the Commission expressly ruled that:
[t]his statute declares the Legislature’s intent that the Commission act in accordance with “applicable” federal law. It does not incorporate federal law. It does not override existing Idaho statutory law and does not make the Commission the “handmaiden” of the FCC. It only allows the Commission to implement those portions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that specifically delegate or recognize state Commission authority to act. It does not require the Commission to enforce FCC rules or actions independent of a specific statutory delegation to the Commission or recognition of existing Commission authority. The Commission agrees with Staff that there are many FCC rules on such things as “advanced services,” “broadband services,” tower sitings, cable TV, or pornography and they have not been engrafted into state law.
Order No. 28473 at 8-9. The Commission was correctly concerned about a wholesale adoption of the entire Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Petitioners fail to recognize that in every instance where the Commission acts to fulfill some responsibility found in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, there is a corresponding express or implied authority in state law. For example, the Commission has always had authority over certain aspects of interconnection between telecommunications providers. See for e.g. Idaho Code §§ 61-318, -319 and Idaho Code § 62-608. Moreover, even in interconnection, Congress was sensitive to the state-federal relationship and provided a fall-back mechanism to cover those times when the Commission did not act. Sections 251 and 252 of the federal Act do not create authority in the Commission to void these items in U S WEST’s (Qwest) Price List or require the Commission to so act.
Furthermore, although the Petitioners cite Rosebud Enterprise, Inc. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 128 Idaho 609, 917 P.2d 766 (1996), to support their argument, in fact, that case supports the Commission’s decision. Rather than rely on the federal law to authorize the Commission’s actions regarding the implementation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), the Idaho Supreme Court found that the Commission had the requisite state statutory authority to implement the federal act by virtue of its implied authority found in Idaho Code §§ 61129, 61-501 to 61-503, 61-612.
In this case, where the state Legislature has clearly and specifically allowed companies to deregulate certain activities and remove them from Commission authority, a federal order creating certain rules for that activity cannot operate to create authority expressly removed by the Legislature. Therefore, the Commission should not entertain this argument and should reconfirm its order.
THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERS CANNOT BE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION AND CAN ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE FCC OR THE STATE DISTRICT COURT
To the extent the Petitioners are requesting the enforcement of the FCC TSR Wireless Order, they should make their requests to the FCC. Let the FCC enforce its own orders.
Furthermore, in their original briefing, the Petitioners suggested their purchases off the Price List are subject to contract law and in its order, the Commission agreed. Order No.28473 at 13. To the extent the Petitioners are asking the Commission to allow them to avoid paying the costs incurred by them when they ordered dedicated lines, etc. off the U S WEST (Qwest) Price List, they are asking the Commission to void a contract. The Commission has no authority to void a contract. It is well settled that the Commission has no authority to interpret or determine contractual illegality. Afton v. Idaho Power Company, 111 Idaho 925, 729 P.2d 400 (1986); Bunker Hill Company v. Washington Water Power 101 Idaho 493, 616 P.2d 272 (1980). Therefore, if the Petitioners wish to argue that their contract is “illegal” and therefor unenforceable, they have the option of requesting relief from the District Court.
Under Idaho Code §§ 62-606 and 62-616, because the Petitioners admit that the charges for services and facilities billed to them conform to those offered in the Price List, the Commission’s authority is limited. Idaho Code § 62-616 very specifically limits the Commission’s authority to adjudicate claims regarding price listed activities to “whether price and conditions of service are in conformance with filed tariffs or price lists.” Idaho Code § 62-616. Given the admission that the rates charged and the conditions for service are in conformity with the Price List, the Commission should not change its original ruling.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this day of September 2000.

Cheri C. Copsey
Deputy Attorney General

Staff: Joe Cusick

M:uswt9924_cc8
On June 30, 2000, U S WEST, Inc. the parent and sole shareholder of U S WEST Communications, Inc., merged with and into Qwest Communications International Inc. and on July 6, 2000, U S WEST was renamed Qwest Corporation. Qwest’s Answer to Petition for Reconsideration, footnote 1.

TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S WEST, Memorandum Opinion And Order, (adopted May 31, 2000 and released June 21, 2000), File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-15, 98-16, E-98-17, E-98-18.
Although the Petitioners filed this as a Declaratory Judgment action, the parties did not follow the procedure prescribed for declaratory judgment actions. Therefore, the Commission should make clear in whatever final order is issued that this is treated as a complaint and only binding on the Petitioners.
Potentially, this decision only affects those paging companies who purchase trunks, lines or T-1s off a price list where those services and facilities are not regulated under Title 61.

TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S WEST, Memorandum Opinion And Order, (adopted May 31, 2000 and released June 21, 2000), File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-15, 98-16, E-98-17, E-98-18.

“After an order has been made by the commission, any corporation, public utility or person interested therein shall have the right, within twentyone (21) days after the date of said order, to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined therein. Within seven (7) days after any corporation, public utility or person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other corporation, public utility, or person may crosspetition for reconsideration in response to any issues raised in any petition for reconsideration. Crosspetitions for reconsideration may be granted if any petition for reconsideration to which they respond is granted on the issues to which the crosspetition is directed, but crosspetitions for reconsideration will be denied when the petitions for reconsideration to which they are directed are denied.” Idaho Code § 61-626(1).

The Personal Communications’ Brief addresses this issue at pages11-12 and the Petitioners’ reargue this issue at pages 3, 6-7.

“The commission shall have full power and authority to implement the federal telecommunications act of 1996, including, but not limited to, the power to establish unbundled network element charges in accordance with the act.” Idaho Code § 62615(1).

COMMISSION STAFF MOTION TO
STRIKE AND OPPOSITION TO INTERVENTION -8-