20000314Comments.pdf

CHERI C. COPSEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 5142

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RULES FOR THE
IDAHO NON-RURAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE
FUND PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE §
62-610A-F.
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-U-00-1

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission by and through their
attorney of record, Cheri C. Copsey, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of
Public Workshop dated January 18, 2000, submits the following comments.
BACKGROUND
The 1998 Legislature amended Idaho Code Title 62 to create a new Universal Service
Fund (USF). See Idaho Code §§ 62-610A through F. Idaho Code §§ 62-610A through F require the
Commission to “establish a competitively and technologically neutral funding mechanism which
will operate in coordination with federal universal service support mechanisms.” Initially, this new
fund will only be available to non-rural local exchange carriers1 that meet the statutory criteria.
Idaho Code § 62-610B also makes clear that all telecommunications providers, including
“municipal, cooperative or mutual telephone companies and telecommunications companies
providing wireless, cellular, personal communications services and mobile radio services for

STAFF COMMENTS -1- March 14, 2000
1 Any application of this new fund to rural LECs to replace funding available pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-610 cannot
begin earlier than January 1, 2001.
compensation” may be eligible for the new Non-Rural USF support and all their customers will pay
a surcharge to fund the new USF.
This new USF differs considerably from the existing Idaho USF that currently provides
high cost support to rural incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). See Idaho Code § 62-610.
Distributions from the present Idaho USF are generally calculated to meet residual revenue
requirements for fully regulated Title 61 rural ILECs whose residential and small business rates are
125% of the weighted statewide average rates. The rural Idaho USF may be phased out sometime
after January 1, 2001. Idaho Code § 62-610F(4).
The new USF statute requires that disbursements from the new fund be used to defray
costs, as determined by the Commission, for providing “universal service” to customers within a
geographic support area. In calculating and determining those costs, the Commission must use a
“forward-looking cost methodology.” Idaho Code § 62-610F(2). Therefore, on December 19, 1997,
the Commission opened a docket to analyze cost models and adopt a forward-looking cost model as
required by Idaho Code § 62-610F. (Case No. GNR-T-97-22). That docket is still open and further
evidentiary proceedings are pending.
In response to the Legislature’s statutory directive, the Commission has taken several
other steps toward establishing and implementing this new Idaho Non-Rural Universal Service Fund
(Idaho Non-Rural USF).
In order to be eligible to receive this new Idaho Non-Rural USF support, local exchange
carriers (LECs) must offer to provide “universal service” throughout the service area for which the
designation is received. Idaho Code § 62-610B(1). The Commission must designate both the
services (“universal service”) that must be offered and the geographic area (“service area”) in which
they must be offered. See Idaho Code §§ 62-610B-E.
Therefore, on July 16, 1998, the Commission opened two other dockets (GNR-T-98-7
and GNR-T-98-8). GNR-T-98-7 was opened to consider what telecommunications services
constitute those services that must be made available to Idaho consumers by eligible
telecommunications carriers to meet their obligation to provide universal service and receive Idaho
Non-Rural USF support. The Commission designated those “universal services” September 8, 1998.
Order No. 27715. The Commission has not issued any decision in GNR-T-98-8, because the
appropriateness of the service area may be affected by the cost model chosen.

STAFF COMMENTS -2- March 14, 2000
In January 2000, the Commission initiated GNR-T-00-2 to establish and implement the
new Idaho Non-Rural USF, adopted a schedule for evidentiary proceedings and consolidated it with
GNR-T-97-22.
On January 18, 2000, the Commission also initiated this negotiated rulemaking.
Order No. 28262. The purpose for this negotiated rulemaking is to determine what rules are
necessary to implement the new Idaho Non-Rural USF.
In anticipation of the public workshop scheduled for March 28, 2000, the Commission
requested participants to file comments with the Commission by March 14, 2000 indicating what
areas should be covered by the administrative rules. In response to that invitation, the Commission
Staff files these comments identifying potential areas to be covered by administrative rules.
AREAS TO BE COVERED IN THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Commission Staff has identified a number of areas for potential rules that should be
discussed in the workshop. This list is not all inclusive. Those areas are as follows:
1. The process for certifying that eligible telecommunication carriers (ETCs) receiving
either the new Idaho Non-Rural USF or federal USF support are using that support “only for the
provision, maintenance and upgrading of services and facilities for which the support is intended” as
required by Idaho Code § 62-610(F) and 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).
2. The process for verifying who the primary carrier is for the purpose of targeted
support, if the end user has both a wireless ETC as well as a wire-line ETC.
3. The process for identifying and reporting to the new Administrator how many targeted
end users each ETC claims.
4. Form of Application for receiving targeted support.
5. Process for reporting and remitting Idaho Non-Rural USF surcharges from all
telecommunications carriers.
6. Sanctions for failure to report and/or remit those surcharges.
7. Reporting requirements for the new Idaho Non-Rural USF Administrator.
8. Customer billing issues:
a. Should the current rural USF and the new non-rural USF be separately identified
on end user bills?
b. Is it technically possible or advisable to combine these charges into one Idaho
USF surcharge?

STAFF COMMENTS -3- March 14, 2000

STAFF COMMENTS -4- March 14, 2000
c. How should the USF charge(s) be labeled on the bill?
d. Where should the USF charge(s) be placed on the bill?
e. Will customers be subject to disconnection of local exchange service for failure to
pay this surcharge?
f. For customers of ETCs that receive the new targeted USF funds, how can
customers be made aware of the benefit they are receiving?
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 14th day of March 2000. .

________________________
Cheri C. Copsey
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Joseph Cusick
Tonya Clark
Beverly Barker
Carolee Hall

M:Gnru001_cc2-comments