20220504Reconsideration_Order_No_35396.pdf

ORDER NO. 35396 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 4, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEAVY’S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST
CORPORATION D/B/A/ CENTURYLINK
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14

ORDER NO. 35396

On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint against Qwest
Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink QC (“Company”). Mr. Keavy claimed that the Company failed
in its contractual obligations to him when he used the Company’s Call Trace1 (*57) system.
Following formal proceedings, on March 22, 2022, the Commission entered its Final Order No.
35351 (“Final Order”) dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Final Order
provides:
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no
authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington
Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). This
Commission has no authority under Idaho law to adjudicate the dispute between
Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined
in Idaho Code § 61-121 but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 public
utilities laws. See generally Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone
corporations under the jurisdiction of Title 62 Idaho Code § 62-605(b) provides:
The commission shall have the continuing authority to
determine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to
basic local exchange service for all telephone corporations
providing basic local exchange service including, but not limited
to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access
to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing
of price lists, customer notice and customer relation rules, and
billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be
technologically and competitively neutral.
Idaho Code § 62-603(1) defines basic local exchange service as:
[T]he provision of access lines to residential and small business
customers with the associated transmission of two-way
interactive switched voice communication within a local
exchange calling area.

1 Call Trace allows a customer to dial *57 to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. See Company
Response at 2.
ORDER NO. 35396 2
The Commission finds that “Call Trace” does not constitute a basic local
exchange service; therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over
such service. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute
between Mr. Keavy and the Company.
Order No. 35351 (footnotes omitted).
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and Rule 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331, interested
persons were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to petition
for clarification and/or reconsideration. On April 12, 2022, Mr. Keavy emailed the Commission
Secretary and Commission counsel a correspondence titled: “Motion for Reconsideration of
‘closed’ Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022.” The Company was not included as a recipient of
the email.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials,
the Commission denies Mr. Keavy’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (“Petition”).
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission finds that Mr. Keavy’s Petition does not meet the substantive nor
procedural requirements for a petition for reconsideration. Rule 331.01 provides:
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 (emphasis added). In the Petition, Mr. Keavy does not set forth any
specific grounds for reconsideration concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction, nor does he
indicate the nature and quantity of evidence he would offer to show the Commission’s Final
Order was “unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous[,] or not in conformity with the law.” Id. Rule
331.03 provides that “the petition . . . must state whether the petitioner . . . requests
reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. The Petition does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, written
briefing, additional comments, nor a request for interrogatories.
Additionally, the Commission finds that the Petition was not properly served on all
parties. Pursuant to Rule 63, “[a]ll [petitions] . . . must be served upon the representatives of
every party of record concurrently with filing with the Commission Secretary.” IDAPA
31.01.01.063.01. Similarly, Rule 64 provides that “[e]very document that is filed with the
Commission and intended to be part of the record for decision must be attached to or
ORDER NO. 35396 3
accompanied by proof of service . . ..” IDAPA 31.01.01.064. The Commission finds that Mr.
Keavy failed to serve his Petition on all parties or provide the Commission with proof of service.
Pursuant to Rule 332, “[g]rounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that
are not supported by specific explanation may be dismissed.” IDAPA 31.01.01.332. Further,
Rule 65 provides that “[d]efective, insufficient or late pleadings may be returned or dismissed . .
..” IDAPA 31.01.01.065. Based upon the Petition’s lack of specific grounds for reconsideration,
supporting argument, and proper service, the Commission denies the Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 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 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 4th day
of May 2022.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\TELECOM\QWE-T-21-14 Keavy\orders\QWET21-14_FO_Reconsideration_cb.doc