20050302_1101.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:WELDON STUTZMAN
DATE:FEBRUARY 28, 2005
RE:PETITION BY QWEST CORPORATION FOR AN ORDER TO CLARIFY
THE SCOPE OF ORDER NOS. 29219 AND 29310, CASE NO. QWE-02-
On February 7, 2005 Qwest Corporation filed a Petition for Order to Clarify the
Scope of Order Nos. 29219 and 29310. Those are the final Order and reconsideration Order in
the complaint case filed against Qwest by the Idaho Telephone Association, Illuminet, Inc. and
individual small telephone companies, known as the SS7 case. Qwest appealed to the Idaho
Supreme Court from the Commission Orders, but the parties stipulated to dismiss the appeal
prior to it being argued to the Court. The parties' Stipulation to Dismiss requested the Supreme
Court "dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to allow the Commission to determine whether
it is appropriate to provide the parties and telecommunications industry with additional clarity as
to the scope and precedential impact of its Orders." In its Petition for Clarification, Qwest cites
Idaho Code 9 61-624 as providing authority for the Commission to clarify an Order. That
section authorizes the Commission to "rescind, alter or amend any Order or decision made by it."
The section also requires notice to the public utility affected, as well as an opportunity for the
utility to be heard as provided in the case of complaints. Section 61-624 does not address
clarification of a Commission Order.
Although Section 61-624 does not specifically authorize Commission clarification of
an Order, Commission Rule of Procedure 53 does identify a Petition for Clarification of an Order
as a permissible pleading. IDAP A 31.01.01.053.02. In addition, the parties in this case do not
question the Commission s authority to clarify a final Order. Staff does not believe any
additional notice is required for the Commission to consider Qwest's Petition. Section 61-624
DECISION MEMORANDUM
requires notice to "the public utility affected" if the Commission is determining whether to
change an existing Order by rescission, alteration, or amendment. In its Petition in this case
Qwest is not asking the Commission to change its previous Orders, but merely seeks clarification
of the precedential effect of the Orders. Qwest served all other parties with its Petition, and in
addition the remaining parties signed the stipulation to dismiss filed with the Supreme Court
which contemplated a request for clarification to the Commission. Qwest stated in its petition
that the other parties in the case "take no position on this Motion.Staff therefore recommends
that the Commission regard the Petition filed by Qwest as fully submitted and consider the
matter on its merits.
The specific clarification Qwest seeks is a statement that the Commission s Orders
shall be binding only upon the named parties to the proceeding in which the Orders were
entered and cautioning their use as precedent or cited authority by parties to any other
proceedings before the Commission, or otherwise.
uJ)
Weldon Stutzman
--:::---_
Vld!M:QWETO211- ws
DECISION MEMORANDUM