Pu6Gic Service Commission Of West Virginia

Transcription

1 Pu6Gic Service Commission Of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street, (1. 0. Box 812 Charceston, west Virginia Phone: (304) FAX: (304) June 18,2008 John Miller, General Manager CRB & Sons, LLC RR 7, Box 414 Mt. Clare, WV Steven Hamula, Esq.. Director of Regulatory Affairs FiberNet, LLC 1200 Greenbrier Street Charleston, WV J. David Fenwick, Esq. Counsel, Verizon West Virginia Inc. Goodwin & Goodwin PO Box Charleston, WV RE: Gentlemen: Case No T-C CRB & Sons, LLC FiberNet, LLC and Verizon West Virginia Inc. Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of the Staff memorandum in this matter. If you wish to respond to the enclosed Staff memorandum, you may do so in writing, within 10 days, unless directed otherwise, of this date. Your failure to respond in writing to the utility s answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file, without further hearing or notice. You have the ability to view documents as they are filed in this case if you have . Please visit our web site at and register with our subscription system to receive customized daily activity information in this case. The public will not be given access to your address. If you have provided an address you will automatically receive docket notifications as documents are filed. Most documents filed after December 1,2005, regarding PSC Formal Cases, are now viewable in PDF format on our web site at ssicg Enclosure

2 INITIAL AND FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: SANDRA SQUIRE DATE: June 18,2008 Executive Secretary FROM: RE: CARRIE F. DEHAVEN Staff Attorney CASE NO T-C CRB & SONS, LLC FIBERNET, LLC and VERIZON WEST VIRGINIA, INC. On May27,2008, CRB & Sons, LLC (Complainant) filed a complaint against Fibernet, LLC and Verizon West Virginia, Inc. The complaint arises out of construction of a new building by Complainant. Due to the construction, an Allegheny Power pole must be removed. Located on the pole are telephone facilities owned by Verizon, serving Complainant s existing building. Fibernet is Complainant s provider and Fibernet leases the facilities from Verizon to provide telephone service to Complainant. According to the attached memorandum submitted by Mr. Dana Schultz, both Verizon and Fibemet characterize the necessary work as a service relocation which would result in Verizon charging Fibemet for the work, with Fibemet passing the costs on to Complainant. Mr. Schultz indicated that because the work will also provide telecommunications facilities to the new building to be constructed by Complainant, Complainant views the work as providing new service facilities to the proposed new building. Complainant does not want to pay any charges for the movement of its existing service or for installation of facilities to serve the proposed building. Complainant responded and argued that it does not believe that costs associated with the new service installation are permitted under PSC regulations and/or tariffs. Fibernet and Verizon assert that the charges do apply citing Verizon s tariffno. 203, General Services Tariff Section 2.B.l.a: Construction Charges apply when one or more of the following conditions are present, and whenever more than one of such conditions are present, the charge for each condition applies, when the request for service requires: (8) The Telephone Company to relocate existing facilities at the request of the customer or other party. Verizon s General Services Tariff, Section 2.B.1.d. also provides: Where builders or developers require advance construction of facilities for the anticipated use of others, a guaranty or payment bond satisfactory to the Telephone

3 T-C June 18,2008 Page 2 Company to cover the cost of such construction, may be required before construction work is started. In the attached memorandum, Mr. Schultz indicated that the tariff provisions address and are applicable to the issue of Complainant s existing service and the issue of providing service facilities to the new building proposed by Complainant. Thus, Mr. Schultz recommended the complaint be dismissed as no relief can be provided. The Staff Attorney supports the memorandum submitted by Mr. Schultz. Since the tariff is being applied correctly, the Staff Attorney also recommends this case be dismissed. This case should be retained by the Commission for expeditious resolution. CFD/s Attachmen cws c,,& H:\cdehaven\WPdocs\OS-0770 CRB Sons v. FibernetVerizonUNITIAL AND FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUMT0,wpd

4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA UTILITIES DIVISION INITIAL AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM: DATE: SUBJECT : Dana E. Schultz, Telecommunications Technician Utilities Division June 5,2008 CASE NO T-C CRB & SONS, LLC FIBERNET, LLC and VERIZON WEST VIRGINIA, INC. This dispute arises from the construction of a new building by the Complainant, CRB & Sons, LLC, Real Estate & Management Services (CRB). Due to this construction an Allegheny Power pole must be removed. Located on this pole are telephone facilities, serving CRB s existing building, owned by Verizon West Virginia, Inc., (Verizon). CRB s telephone service provider is FiberNet, LLC (FiberNet). FiberNet leases these Verizon facilities to provide telephone service to CRB. Both FiberNet and Verizon characterize the necessary work as a service relocation which would result in Verizon charging FiberNet for the work with FiberNet passing those costs on to their customer, CRB. Because this work will also provide telecommunications facilities to the new building to be constructed by CFB, CRB views the work as providing new service facilities to the proposed new building. CFB does not want to pay any charges for the movement of its existing service or for installation of facilities to service the proposed building. CRB argues that in review of Verizon s February 25,2008, correspondence, a breakdown of the involved costs, to FiberNet that it appears to indicate costs associated with the new service installation which CRB does not believe is permitted under PSC regulations andor tariffs. FiberNet and Verizon assert that charges do apply citing Verizon s WV PSC Tariff No. 203, General Services Tariff, Section 2.B. 1.a.

5 Case No T-C June 5,2008 Page 2 Construction charges apply when one or more of the following conditions are present, and whenever more than one of such conditions are present, the charges for each condition applies, when the request for service requires: (8) The Telephone Company to relocate existing facilities at the request of the customer or other party. Staff believes this tariff provision addresses the issue of CRB s existing service. Verizon s General Services Tariff Section 2.B. Ld., also provides: Where builders or developers require advance construction of facilities for the anticipated use of others, a guaranty or payment bond satisfactory to the Telephone Company to cover the cost of such construction, may be required before construction work is started. Staff believes this tariff provision addresses the issue of providing service facilities to the new building proposed by CRB. From the above tariff provisions it appears to Staff that construction charges are applicable for both the relocation of CRI3 s existing service facilities and installation of service facilities to serve CRB s proposed new building. Accordingly, Staffrecommends that Case No T-C be dismissed as no relief can be provided.