20100429Answer.pdf

-;\"".ve1mn
\G~ 56
Verizon Northwest Inc.
20575 NW Von Neumann Dr.
Suite 150
Beaverton, Oregon 97006-6982
Mailcode: OR030156
Fax [phone]
April 28th 2010
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretar
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
RE: VZN-T-1O-03
Dear Ms. Jewell,
Please find enclosed an original and seven copies of Verizon' s answer to the above
mentioned complaint. This answer is being served electronically and via overnight mail
to the Commission and to Mr. Hammond representing Mr. Brewster. Please contact me
at [phone] if you have any questions.
ee M. Wiler
Verizon Governent Affairs
503/645-7909
OCr'Cnf
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMissidN-"jC_C"
ZûlD APR 29 lUi 10: 51
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JOHN BREWSTER,
Complainant,
CASE NO. VZN-T-IO-03
vs.
ANSWER
VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.
Verizon Northwest Inc. ("Verzon") answers as follows:
1. V erizon admits that Complainant now seeks a line extension of over 7,900
feet from Verizon's facilities to his residence outside of Harson, Idaho.
2. Verzon admits that the construction of line extensions by Verizon is
governed by Verizon's I.P.U.C. Price List No. i ("Idaho Price List").!
3. Under Verizon's Idaho Price List, Verizon wil provide Complainant a
constrction allowance of up to $3,000 towards the cost of his line extension; however,
the Complainant must pay all costs of the line extension over $3,000.1 Also under its
Idaho Price List, Verizon is entitled to request advance payment, either in whole or in
par, prior to performing any work. 3
4. Verizon admits that due to the length of the proposed line extension, 15
pedestals as well as load coils and other telecommunications equipment must be placed
on the line extension and attached (spliced) to the main copper wire.
i I.P.U.C. Price List No.1, Section 4, Line Extension Charges, Sheets 66-68, Accepted for Filing
December 1, 2005, and Section 4, Constrction of Outside Plant Facilities, Sheets 69-71, Accepted for
Filing March 11, 2007, (hereafter referred to as "Idaho Price List").
2 Idaho Price List, Sheet 68, Accepted for Filing December 1, 2005.
3 Idaho Price List, Sheet 66, Accepted for Filing December 1,2005.
5. Verzon admits that it has provided Complainant with several cost
estimates depending on the lengt of the line extension and the natue of the work to be
done, and that all of the estimates exceed the $3,000 constrction allowance. The
estimates provided to Complainant stated that the estimates were only valid for 30 days
from the date of the estimate. Because Complainant refused to pay the estimated
amounts in advance within 30 days of the estimate date, new estimates were prepared
upon Complainant's request using what were then the current labor rates for the expected
hours to be incured and the cost of materials. As a result, the amounts in the estimates
changed to reflect new labor and material costs. In addition, the length ofline extension
was reduced from approximately 18,000 feet to approximately 7,900 feet. Verizon also
admits it sent 2 estimates to Complainant dated January 9,2009; however, the date on the
2nd estimate was an error. The first estimate was sent on or about Januar 9,2009, and
was for the line extension of approximately 18,000 feet and the 2nd estimate was sent on
or about January 27,2009, and was for the line extension of approximately 7,900 feet but
was stil dated Januar 9,2009. The work to be performed generally involves pulling
Verzon's cable through conduit, installing splicing for the 15 pedestals, testing, and
turning up service for Complainant.
6. Verizon admits that due to the length of the proposed line extension and
the costs estimated for the line extension, that it requested advance payment of all
estimated costs, less the $3,000 constrction allowance, from Complainant prior to
performing any work.
2
7. Verizon admits that it allowed Complainant to hire an outside contractor
to fuish and place the required supporting strcture (conduit) in the public right-of-way
pursuant to its Idaho Price List.4. This allowed Complainant to save some of the
trenching and conduit placement costs he would have otherwise incured if Verizon had
performed that work However, the supporting structure was not placed as planned,
requiring Verizon to expend additional engineering and planing time to re-engineer the
project, including determining new pedestal and load coil locations.
8. Verizon admits that Complainant seeks to hire an outside contractor to
place certain telecommunications equipment, including the 15 pedestals, load coils, and
cable for the line extension and that Verizon refused to allow Complainant to hire his
own contractor to perform certain work because that is not authorized by Verizon's Idaho
Price List. 5 After a line extension is constrcted, Verizon is responsible for the
maintenance, repair and future reinforcement of the line extension as stated in Verizon's
Idaho Price List on Sheet 66 and must, therefore, ensure that Verizon's network integrty
is maintained in order to protect service to other customers.
9. In order to ensure the Verizon does not act in an unduly discriminatory
maner, Verizon must comply with its Idaho Price List in order to assure that all similarly
situated customers are treated the same.
10. Verzon denies that the provision on Sheet 67 of its Idaho Price List
entitled "Unusual or Special Constrction" is applicable here because estimated costs of
material and labor for Complainant's line extension are the normal rates charged for any
constrction of line extensions. The estimated cost of this project is drven by the length
4 Idao Price List, Sheet 66, Accepted for Filing December 1,2005.
5 See footnote i, supra.
3
of the extension, not by any unusual or special circumstances such as rock sawing, right-
of-way issues or easement issues, for example. Therefore, the remaining provisions in
the Idaho Price List in Section 4 apply rather than the section entitled "Unusual or
Special Constrction".6
11. At all material times, Verizon complied with the terms of its Idaho Price
List when addressing matters raised by this complaint.
12. Verizon has not refused to constrct Complainant's line extension so long
as it is constrcted pursuant to its Idaho Price List.
AFFIRMATIV DEFENSES
1. Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
by the Commission.
2. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint
under § 62-605( 5)(b) of the Idaho Code. This complaint directly relates to an economic
issue regarding the nonrecurrng charges which Verizon has estimated wil be required to
be paid by Complainant in advance in order to build Complainant's line extension.7
61d.
7 Idaho Code § 62-605(5) provides in pertinent part: (b) The commission shall have the
continuing authority to determine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local
exchange servce for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including,
but not limited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access to carers
providing message telecommunication servce, filing of price lists, customer notice and customer
relation rules, and biling practices and procedures, which requirements shall be technologically
and competitively neutral. (Emphasis supplied.)
4
CONCLUSION
Having fully answered this complaint, Verizon requests the Commission dismiss
this complaint for the factual and legal reasons stated.
VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.
By:~Jt~
Retiee Wiler
20575 NW Von Neumann Dr., Suite 150
Beaverton, Oregon 97006
503-629-2459
Authorized Verzon Representative
5