20100524min.doc

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING

MAY 24, 2010 – 1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Jim Kempton, Marsha Smith, and Mack Redford.

Commissioner Kempton called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING on May 17th, 2010. A vote was taken to approve the minutes as written.

Commissioner Kempton announced that Brian Stutzman, President of Business Phone Specialists, was participating in the meeting by telephone on behalf of Grace Joint School District.

The second order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA:
2. Carolee Hall's May 20, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Application for Approval of an Interconnection Agreement Between CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc., dba CenturyLink of Idaho ("CenturyLink-Idaho") and Bullseye Telecom, Inc. ("Bullseye"), Case No. CEN-T-10-01; and Application for Approval of an Interconnection Agreement Between CenturyTel of the Gem State, dba CenturyLink of the Gem State ("Centurylink-Gem State") and Bullseye Telecom, Inc. ("Bullseye"), Case No. CGS-T-10-01.3. Grace Seaman's May 24, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Verizon's Applications for Approval of Amendment Nos. 5 and 6 to the Interconnection Agreement, Case No. VZN-T-03-07.4. Scott Woodbury's May 21, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: New Energy Company LLC, et al., Complainant, v. Idaho Power Company, Joint Motion for Extended Time to File Answer, Case No. IPC-E-10-13 (Idaho Power).5. Scott Woodbury's May 20, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Schedule 191 -- Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment, Case No. AVU-G-10-02 (Avista).
The Commission voted unanimously to accept Staff’s recommendations for items 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
6. Nancy Hylton/Don Howell's May 11, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint of Brian Stutzman, Business Phone Specialists, Inc., on Behalf of Grace Joint School District No. 148 against Qwest Communications.
Addressing Mr. Stutzman, who was participating by telephone, Commissioner Kempton stated that the Commission understands the nature of the issue he wanted to bring before the Commission, but the Commission had made a determination that it does not have jurisdiction. Commissioner Kempton said the Commission is prepared to issue a formal order stating it does not have jurisdiction, which would give Mr. Stutzman the opportunity to ask for reconsideration based on the language in the order. Commissioner Kempton asked Mr. Stutzman if he had any comments or concerns if the Commission moves forward with an order.
Mr. Stutzman stated there are two separate issues—the damage claim and how a utility is supposed to handle customer requests and inquiries. He said Qwest has fallen very short of the expectations and standards of the IPUC’s rules and regulations. He stated that Qwest’s response to the complaint, in a period of four to five months, was to send two form letters. He stated his reading of the PUC’s rules is that Qwest should have responded within a day or two. He said the company is not providing good customer service and will not even talk to him.
Commissioner Kempton stated that perhaps Qwest was not being as forthcoming as it might be because of the civil claim. Mr. Stutzman said that Qwest wouldn’t return calls even before there was a civil claim. He said he understands that the company won’t respond now because of the civil claim, but in the first month of the complaint the company gave them the cold shoulder. He asked if the Commission has a response to that.
Commissioner Kempton said there would need to be a separate consideration about Qwest’s response to the complaint before the civil suit was initiated, and the Commission will take that into consideration.
Mr. Stutzman asked if it would be better to separate the customer service issues and file a second complaint dealing strictly with the lack of customer service they experienced in November and December, or if the Commission would like them to keep the two issues together.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Stutzman what remedy he expected by raising the issue of poor customer service. Mr. Stutzman replied that they were letting the Commission know that its rules and guidelines are not being followed by this particular manager in Denver. He said when calling her 800 number, the message says to please allow two to three weeks to receive a response, and that is in direct conflict of the Commission’s rules. He said they are also hoping to make Qwest’s upper management aware it has an internal procedure that is not legal in Idaho, and they are hoping to raise awareness on the state’s part as well as the utility’s part, because if it happened to them, it could happen to other Idaho customers.
Commissioner Smith stated she would make Jim Schmit, the Idaho Vice President for Qwest, aware of the complaint, but she didn’t know of any remedy the Commission could provide. She noted that CenturyTel is trying to buy Qwest, so maybe there will be new management.
Mr. Stutzman said he realizes that the damage claim is out of the Commission’s control, and he has other legal remedies. He reiterated his disappointment with Qwest’s customer service and refusal to call him back or respond, except by form letter weeks and weeks later.
Commissioner Smith said she understands his disappointment with Qwest and suggested he might want to contact Mr. Schmit directly to let him know what happened.
Mr. Stutzman thanked the Commission for its advice and time and stated they would file a separate proceeding in Small Claims Court because the school district was not prepared to suffer the damage due to Qwest’s gross negligence.
Commissioner Kempton also encouraged Mr. Stutzman to contact Mr. Schmit and reiterated that the Commission’s jurisdiction stops with the civil claim. He said the order will be clear and if there is a point on which he would like reconsideration, he can file for reconsideration on that particular point.
Mr. Stutzman asked if Qwest was notified that his complaint was on the meeting agenda. Nancy Hylton confirmed that Qwest was provided with a copy of the Decision Memo.
7. Neil Price's May 24, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Petitions to Intervene Filed by CTC Telecom, Inc. dba Snake River PCS and Idaho Telecom Alliance, Case No. TFW-T-09-01.
Mr. Price reviewed his Decision Memo. He added that CTC Telecom and ITA had filed separate replies that morning regarding TracFone’s opposition to the Motions to Intervene. He noted that Molly O’Leary, counsel for CTC Telecom, was present.
Commissioner Kempton stated that this has been an interesting case and he cited several issues including the fact that it appears the out-of-state attorneys are not in compliance with Idaho Code requirements regarding appearance in cases before the Commission, and E-911 had commented that morning regarding its concerns about the fee structure. For these reasons, he said he is leaning toward recommending a hearing rather than modified procedure.
Commissioner Smith said she is leaning the same way. She said the Commission should grant the petitions for intervention, because the Commission has a liberal policy toward granting interventions when there is an interest, and the other telecommunications providers do have an interest in this application. She suggested the Commission attorneys could either find some hearing times and set up a procedural schedule, or set up a meeting with all the parties and let them sort it out as to whether they want an actual hearing or whether they feel the issues could be handled by filing additional comments. She said she is willing to have a hearing on an expedited basis.
Mr. Price responded that he thought a prehearing conference would be helpful, and TracFone’s counsel in Washington, D. C. had communicated to him that they are in the process of procuring local counsel.
Commissioner Smith said TracFone does need to procure local counsel and get themselves straight with E-911—the Idaho Emergency Communications Commission. She made a motion to grant the requested interventions, suspend the comment filing date for modified procedure, and direct the parties to hold a prehearing conference as soon as possible so the parties can decide their preferred schedule for processing this matter, whether it involves just written comments or a hearing, and that the Commission is interested in doing this as expeditiously as possible.
Commissioner Redford stated that he agreed with the motion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kempton asked Ms. O’Leary if she had anything to add, and she responded that her comments are in her reply.
The next order of business was FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:
8. Deliberation re: Intermountain Gas's Petition for a Declaratory Order Relating to the Resale of Natural Gas for Use in Motor Vehicles, Case No. INT-G-10-01. [No Memo. Don Howell, Attorney.]9. Deliberation re: Proposed Rate Increase to Recover AMI Investment, Case No. IPC-E-10-06 (Idaho Power). [No Memo. Scott Woodbury, Attorney.]10. Deliberation re: Idaho Power Company's Application to Implement Power Cost Adjustment Rates for June 1, 2010 - May 31, 2011, Case No. IPC-E-10-12. [No Memo. Weldon Stutzman, Attorney.]
Commissioner Kempton stated that the Fully Submitted Matters, items 8 - 10, would be deliberated privately.
There was no further business before the Commission and Commissioner Kempton adjourned the meeting.

__________________________________ ________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY DATE OF APPROVAL

4