20100929reconsideration_order_no_32079.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 29, 2010
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN BREWSTER,
vs.
CASE NO. VZN-IO-Complainant,
VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.,
ORDER NO. 32079
Respondent.
In December 2009, John Brewster filed an informal complaint with Commission Staff
against Verizon Northwest Inc.Mr. Brewster requested telecommunications service from
Verizon. The remote location of his home requires a line extension of more than 7 900 feet. Mr.
Brewster argued that Verizon s line extension policy, allowing only its approved contractor to
install and splice new service cable, is unreasonable. Mr. Brewster obtained a bid from a private
contractor that was significantly lower than the price quoted by Verizon for the same work.
Attempts to resolve his informal complaint were unsuccessful. Mr. Brewster filed a "formal
complaint" on February 3 , 2010. On April 8, 2010, the Commission issued a summons and the
Company filed its answer on April 29, 2010. The Company requested dismissal of the complaint
for failure to state a legal claim and lack of jurisdiction by the Commission to adjudicate the
dispute.
In Order No. 32046 issued August 12 2010, the Commission dismissed Mr. Brewster
complaint, concluding that Verizon s actions were consistent with the line extension provisions of
its filed price lists. The Commission further determined that Mr. Brewster s circumstances did not
amount to "unusual conditions" in order to invoke a clause in the price list that could allow a
departure from Verizon s standard rates for line extensions. The Commission did, however, urge
Verizon to consider a competitive bidding process and/or an approved contractors list for its line
extension projects and other similar work.
On September 1 , 20 I 0, Mr. Brewster filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to
Idaho Code ~ 61-626. Mr. Brewster asserts that the Commission s final Order is "umeasonable
1 On July 1 2010, while this complaint was still pending, Frontier Communications Corporation acquired control of
Verizon s local and long-distance telephone operations in Idaho.
ORDER NO. 32079
unlawful, erroneous, unduly discriminatory and not in conformance with the facts of record and
applicable law.Petition at 1. More specifically, Mr. Brewster argues that (1) his situation does
fit within the "unusual conditions" clause; (2) Verizon failed to provide justification for its higher
estimate of costs to complete the line extension work; and (3) the Commission should direct
Verizon to competitively bid his project. After reviewing the Petition for Reconsideration and our
prior Order No. 32046, we deny Mr. Brewster s request for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission Procedural Rule 331 addresses reconsideration of the
Commission s final orders. Rule 331.01 states in pertinent part:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds
why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
will offer if reconsideration is granted.
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Reconsideration affords the Commission an opportunity to rectify a
mistake or omission of a matter previously considered prior to its appeal to the Idaho Supreme
Court. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591
2d 122, 126 (1979).
Mr. Brewster s request for reconsideration does little more than re-argue the facts that
were considered and weighed by the Commission prior to issuing its final Order. Mr. Brewster
reiterates his position that his contractor should be able to complete the project, that his situation
amounts to an unusual condition, and that Verizon has provided no justification to support its price
estimate which exceeds Mr. Brewster s contractor s bid for the same work. In the alternative, Mr.
Brewster asks that the Commission require Verizon to allow contractors to competitively bid his
project.
While Mr. Brewster does an adequate job of stating his disagreement with the
Commission s Order, he does not offer insight into how the Commission s Order No. 32046 is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law as required by Rule 331. As
stated in its final Order, the Commission has the authority to investigate and resolve complaints
regarding whether prices and conditions of service are in conformance with a telecommunications
provider s filed price lists. Idaho Code ~ 62-616. The Commission determined that Verizon was
within the terms of its price list. Other than the argument that his situation fits within the
ORDER NO. 32079
parameters of unusual conditions, Mr. Brewster does not contend the Commission s conclusion is
inconsistent with Verizon s filed price list. Moreover, the Commission clearly delineated what
amounts to an unusual condition. Mr. Brewster s situation does not meet the criteria. The
Commission appreciates that Mr. Brewster does not agree with its decision and would like a
different outcome. However, Mr. Brewster has failed to articulate a legal basis for the
Commission to reach a different conclusion.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Brewster s Petition for Reconsideration 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. VZN-lO-
03 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code ~ 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this :2.1 fit
day of September 2010.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
~....k ~
MACK A. REDFORD, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~~~l(if-~
Commission Secretary
O:VZN-IO-03 ks2
ORDER NO. 32079