20100901Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

, ,
--ocz-(.-0:o
. '
John R. Hammond, Jr., ISB No. 5470
Batt Fisher Pusch & Alderman LLP
U.S. Ban Plaza, 5th Floor
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 500
Post Offce Box 1308
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: (208) 331,,1000
Facsimile: (208) 331 -2400
REef.
LU\U SE? - \ l~ 4: 50
Attorney for Complainant John Brewster
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN BREWSTER,)
)
) Case No. VZN-T-1O-03
)
)
) PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
)
)
)
)
Complainant,
vs.
VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC.,
Respondent,
Pursuant to Idaho.Code § 61-626 Complainant John Brewster, by and through his
attorneys, submits this petition for reconsideration of Final Order No. 32046 entered by the
Commission on August 12, 2010in the above-captioned proceeding (the "Order"). The Order
granted Verizon Northwest Inc'.s Motion to Dismiss Mr. Brewster's Complaint. i
In general, Mr. Brewster asserts that the Order is unreasonable, unlawfl, erroneous,
unduly discriminatory and not in conformance with the facts of record and applicable law.
Based on the discussion below Mr. Brewster respectfully requests that the Commission grant his
Petition and allow him to provide testimony and fuher evidence to the Commission at a
technical hearing on the issues for reconsideration raised herein.
i On July 1,2010, Frontier Communications Corporation acquired control ofVerizon's local and
long-distance telephone operations in Idaho.
DC\1286292.1
.'
I.
STANDARDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a pary to bring to the Commission's
attention any issue previously determined and thereby provides the Commission with an
opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Allance, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). In those instances where an
aggrieved pary asks the Commission to reconsider its decision based upon the record, it may
simply do so. The Commission may also grant reconsideration by rehearing if it intends to take
additional evidence or argument. If reconsideration is granted, the Commission must complete
its reconsideration within 13 weeks after the date for fiing petitions for reconsideration. Idaho
Code § 61-626(2). If the Commission grants reconsideration, it "must issue its order upon
reconsideration within twenty-eight (28) days after the matter is finally submitted for
reconsideration." Id.
II.
ARGUMENT
In support of his Petition Mr. Brewster asserts that the Order rests on the foregoing
erroneous and unreasonable conclusions.
First, the Commission's determination that Verizon's tariffdoes not allow a customer to
places his own pedestal terminals, or to pull or splice the service wire. While Mr. Brewster
understands the Commission's reasoning with regard to Verizon's interest in maintaining
"control of how the wire is place, spliced, connected etc." he stil asserts that the unusual
conditions provisions in Verizon tariffs are applicable in his case. The line extension discussed
in this case is not only unusual because of its location, which is remote and its length, but also
2
DC\1286292.1
"
because in order to place a line in a trench in this location extensive rock removal had to occur?
Furher contrary, to Verizon's assertions that this work was not performed correctly, had the
trench been placed where it originally had planned for, extensive blasting of rock would have
had to occur in order to constrct the trench. This would have been significantly more expensive
and possibly impossible to complete. Accordingly, this project is also unusual because Mr.
Brewster could not rely on Verizon's determinations of where to place this line extension.
Something that he should be able to do certainly if this company is the only pary allowed to
make these decisions as a result of its price list.
In addition, due to the fact that Verizon apparently only uses one contractor for this work
Mr. Brewster questions whether the Company's tariff provisions should be enforced at all in
regard to line extensions when the cost estimates appear vastly more expensive than the estimate
he received from Ditch Technologies. Verizon has never provided any justification that supports
this difference in estimated cost. As an aside, in Mr. Brewster's efforts to resolve this matter he
has always conceded that DitchTechnologies would follow Verizon's plans and direction for
this line extension whether this company contracted directly with Verizon or Mr. Brewster
himself. Thus, concerns regarding insuring the quality and integrity of this line extension should
be alleviated.3 Furer, in the event Ditch Technologies was allowed to perform this work and
2 Mr. Brewster also disagrees strongly with Verizon's contention that the trenching and conduit
were not placed as plared andthat Verizon expended additional engineering and planning time
to re-engineer the project. Mr. Brewster would like the opportunity to demonstrate that this
allegation is unfounded. In addition, Mr. Brewster asserts that nothing in the curent record
substantiates this claim.
3 It should be noted that Verizonhas not disputed the qualifications of Ditch Technologies
proffered by Mr. Brewster to perform the work for this line extension.
3
DC\1286292.1
.'
contracted directly with Mr. Brewster he has also offered to assume all liability for this portion
of the line extension and would agree to indemnify Verizon in the event any third party sought to
hold it responsible for some issue arising from it.
Second, while Mr. Brewster certainly appreciates the Commission's recommendation that
Verizon engage in a competitive bidding process in its selection of qualified contractors he
believes this stil wil not provide him with any relief. Order at p. 4. Unless the Commission
specifically directs Verizon to put his line extension job out for competitive bids he is convinced
that it wil not do so in his case. The result of this will be that Verizon' s cost estimate for this
project wil again be significantly higher than the estimate provided by DitchTechnologies
without any justification therefore. Due to the great disparty.in the bids forthis project and the
lack of explanation of these differences the Commission should reconsider its Order to determne
whether it should require Verizon to put Mr. Brewster's proposed line extension out for
competitive bid or in the alternative to review.any future bid for this line extension ifit uses a
single source contractor so that reasonable cost estimate is provided.
4
DC\1286292.1
".
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Mr. Brewster respectfully requests that the Commission
reconsider its findings in its Order.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Brewster respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Reconsider its findings in Order No. 32046 in this proceeding;
2. In reconsideration of its Order grant Mr. Brewster's request to hold a technical
hearing on the issues raised in this Petition;
3. Grant such other relief as it deems necessary and appropriate.
Dated this 1 st day of September, 2010.
5
DC\1286292.1
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY That on this 1st day of September, 2010, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the following individual(s) in the
manner indicated below:
Jean Jewell
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
472 W Washington St.
P.O. Box 83720
Boise,ID 83720-5983
Rene M. Wiler
Verizon Northwest Inc.
20575 NW Von Neumann Dr.
Suite iso
Beaverton, Oregon 97006-6982
~
D
D
D
D
8'
D
D
Hand Delivery
U.S. Mail (postage prepaid)
Facsimile (208/342-3829)
Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
Hand Delivery
U.S. Mail (postage prepaid)
Facsimile (208/342-3829)
Federal Express
Electronic Transmission
DC\1286292.1
6