Rowland & Moore LLP Significant Cases

Text Box: Successful Public Utility Commission and Court Decisions of Tom Rowland & Steve Moore Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 180 Ill. App. 3d 899, 536 N.E. 2d 724 (1st Dist. 1988), appeal denied, 126 Ill.2d 557, 541 N.E.2d 1105 (1989). Illinois Appellate Court reversed ICC decision modifying residential customers' rate design ruling there was no basis for the decision. Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, v. ICC, 136 Ill. 2d 192, 555 N.E.2d 693 (1989). Illinois Supreme Court reversed an ICC decision approving a settlement between the utility and the staff, forcing the rate case that resulted in BPI below. Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 203 Ill. App. 3d 424, 561 N.E.2d 426 (2d Dist. 1990). Illinois Appellate Court reversed ICC order approving Bell earnings sharing plan that would have allowed the company to earn above its authorized rate of return. Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 146 Ill. 2d 175, 585 N.E.2d 1032 (1991). Illinois Supreme Court reversed an ICC decision to allow rates to reflect all of Edison’s nuclear plants, even though some were not used and useful to customers. As a result of this case and Hartigan below, Edison eventually agreed to refund 1.3 billion dollars to ratepayers and reduce rates by $300 million. People Ex. rel Hartigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 117 Ill. 2d 120 (1987) and People Ex. rel Hartigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 148 Ill. App. 3d 168, 578 N.E.2d 46 (1991). The Illinois Supreme Court directed the ICC to comply with the requirement in the Public Utilities Act that it conduct an audit of new power plant construction costs. Teleport Communications Group v. Ameritech, ICC Docket 96-AB-001 (1997). In the first interconnection agreement arbitration proceeding brought in Illinois, the ICC directed Ameritech to pay TCG the tandem rate for reciprocal compensation for all calls terminated with TCG customers. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. WorldCom et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 98-C-1925 (1998). The court affirmed an ICC decision in a case initially brought by Rowland & Moore client TCG that directed Ameritech to pay TCG and other carriers for the cost of connecting Ameritech’s customers to Internet Service Providers. The Seventh Circuit later affirmed this decision. Investigation into Ameritech’s Forward Looking Cost Studies for Interconnection, Unbundled Elements, and Transport and Termination, ICC Docket No. 96-0486 (1998). The ICC opened this investigation into Ameritech’s UNE charges in response to a complaint prepared by Rowland & Moore on behalf of several Illinois carriers. This case resulted in significant rate reductions. QST Communications v. Ameritech, ICC Docket No. 98-0603 and MegsInet-CLEC, Inc. v Ameritech, ICC Docket NO. 98-0747 (1999). In these follow-ups to WorldCom, Rowland & Moore obtained the first emergency orders granted by the ICC under a new statute covering disputes between existing and competitive carriers. Those orders directed Ameritech to allow QST and MegsInet to opt into interconnection agreements identical to those considered by the ICC and the court in the WorldCom case. ICC Investigation into Ameritech’s Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ICC Docket Nos. 96-0404 (1999) and 01-0662 (2002). Rowland & Moore have been active participants in these proceedings investigating Ameritech’s compliance with the criteria under Section 271 of the federal act for approval to engage in out-of-region long distance service. Ameritech withdrew its first application in the face of unfavorable rulings and now has another request pending. Excel Telecommunications v Ameritech ICC Docket No. 99-0403 (2000). As a result of this complaint, Ameritech was ordered to refund to Excel revenues associated with access charges that had been improperly withheld. Metricom, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Relief, ICC Docket No. 00-0234 (2000). Rowland & Moore convinced the ICC to ignore the objection of its own staff and grant Metricom’s request that its wireless Internet access service not be regulated. Association of Communications Enterprises v. Ameritech, ICC Docket No. 00-0024 (2001). The Commission found that Ameritech’s early termination penalties for customers with long term contracts switching to CLECs were both excessive and anticompetitive. This was the first finding of anticompetitive behavior by the Commission under a new Illinois law. XO Illinois v. Ameritech, ICC Docket No. 01-0466 (2001). After the administrative law judge issued an order finding for XO on virtually all issues in this arbitration proceeding, Ameritech agreed to enter into an interconnection agreement containing favorable terms and conditions for payment of reciprocal compensation. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Filing to Implement Tariff Provisions Related to Section 13-801 of the PUA, ICC Docket No. 01-0614 (2002). Rowland & Moore obtained numerous favorable rulings for a data and broadband services in this proceeding investigating the terms and conditions in Ameritech’s unbundled network elements tariff. XO Illinois v. AT&T, ICC Docket No. 01-0843 (2002). Rowland & Moore obtained payment of access charges owed by AT&T to XO Illinois in this compliant alleging anticompetitive actions by AT&T. Globalcom, Inc. v. Ameritech Docket No. 02-0365 (2002). The ICC found that Ameritech was engaging in anticompetitive conduct in its rules and regulations addressing the ordering of new Enhanced Extended Link (“EELs”) and in charging termination penalties for carriers converting special access to EELs. This was one of the first cases requiring the payment of damages and attorney’s fees under a 2002 amendment to the Illinois Public Utilities Act. Central Illinois Light Co., Union Electric and Central Illinois Public Service Co. ICC Docket Nos. 02-0837, 03-0008, 03-0009 (2003). Arguing that grain elevators that dry grain in the Fall months contribute to neither summer nor winter peak demand, Rowland & Moore forced these three utilities to create an entirely new rate classification, drastically reducing the gas cost of the grain dryer association members represented by Rowland & Moore. Lower Electric LLC, ICC Docket No. 04-0118 (2004). Rowland & Moore represented Lower Electric in its request for a license to provide electric service as an Alternative Retail Electric Service (ARES) provider. This order broke the logjam that has prevented independent power marketers from operating in the state. Prior to the ICC ruling, all twelve of the existing companies certified to be an ARES were either public utilities or affiliates of public utilities. Rowland & Moore convinced the ICC to revisit its interpretation of an Appellate Court order that had prevented independent power marketers from meeting reciprocity requirements in the Illinois Public Utilities Act. Subsequent to this case, Rowland & Moore obtained ARES license for numerous independent power marketers. Petition for Arbitration of XO Illinois, Inc., ICC Docket No. 04-0371 (2004). XO obtained amendments to its Interconnection Agreement regarding various SBC Illinois’ unbundling obligations. Illinois Power Co., ICC Docket No. 04-0476 (2005). Following up on its previous successful representation of grain dryers, Rowland & Moore forced Illinois Power Co. to create a new rate classification that drastically reduced the gas cost of the grain dryer association members represented by Rowland & Moore. XO Communications Services, Inc., Petition for Arbitration of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement with SBC Illinois, Inc., ICC Docket No. 05-0763 (2005). Petition for Arbitration of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement with SBC Illinois in order to incorporate the findings of the TRRO. Rowland & Moore won the case on several arbitration issues. Northern Illinois Gas Co., ICC Docket No. 04-0779 (2006). Adding to its previous success on this issue, Rowland & Moore forced this gas utility to create a new rate classification that drastically reduced the gas cost of the grain dryer association members represented by Rowland & Moore. Northern Illinois Gas Co., ICC Docket No. 04-0779 (2006). Rowland & Moore represented Dominion Resources, Inc., a provider of competitive gas service to small industrial and residential customers in this gas utility rate case. The ICC accepted most of the recommendations of Rowland & Moore to streamline the program for those customers and to provide Dominion Resources, Inc. with more flexibility to use gas storage for its own customers. Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., North Shore Gas Co. ICC Docket No. 06-0540 (2006). Rowland & Moore represented a group of companies (Dominion Retail, Inc., Interstate Gas Supply of Illinois, Inc., US Energy Savings Corporation, MxEnergy Inc., and Direct Energy Services, LLC), all of which provide competitive gas service to small commercial and residential customers of these gas utilities. In this ICC proceeding for approval of the purchase of those companies by WPS Resources, Rowland & Moore negotiated several changes to those companies program for those customers, (“Choices for You”) that streamline the program and gave suppliers more flexibility. The agreement provided for later negotiations and for litigation of remaining issues in the rate cases that followed this approval docket. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. CIMCO Communications, Inc. et al., Performance Measures Remedy Payments – Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department, Chancery Division, Docket 05CH13874 (2006). Rowland & Moore, in conjunction with several parties, was successful in persuading the Circuit Court to uphold remedy payments previously paid to our clients by AT&T. The incumbent had paid remedies for failure to meet established performance criteria in the supply of wholesale services pursuant to the orders of the ICC and Illinois law. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al., Petition for Resolution of Disputed Issues Pursuant to Condition (30) of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, ICC Docket No. 01-0120 (Remand) (2006). Rowland & Moore litigated issues regarding remedy payments due our clients. The ICC proceeding established the standards used to determine if AT&T has performed adequately in its provision of wholesale services to CLECs. The ICC determined that CLECs were owed and properly received remedy payments during disputed time periods in 2002. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Erin M. O’Connell-Diaz, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, 05-C-1149 (2006). This case was initiated by AT&T to challenge the provisions of the Illinois Public Utilities Act that require the ILEC to provide certain unbundled network elements not required to be unbundled by the FCC. XO Illinois, Inc. and Allegiance Telecom Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, ICC Docket No. 05-0156. Rowland & Moore filed a complaint on behalf of CLECs challenging AT&T’s unilateral implementation of the TRRO obligations through the issuance of accessible letters rather than interconnection amendments. We won the arbitration on numerous counts and were awarded the largest amount of costs and attorney fees in the case. Access One, Inc., et al., Petition for Arbitration pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Illinois Bell Telephone Company to Amend Existing Interconnection Agreements to Incorporate the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review Remand Order, ICC Docket No. 05-0442 (2005). Rowland & Moore initiated an arbitration to amend existing interconnection agreements to incorporate the Triennial Review Order And the Triennial Review Remand Order on behalf of numerous competitive carriers. The case established, with various parties, the ILEC’s new UNE unbundling obligations. Illinois Commerce Commission on its own Motion, Investigation into Illinois Bell Telephone Company’s designation of certain of its wire centers as non-impaired, ICC Docket No. 06-0029 (2006). Rowland & Moore initiated (ICC docket 05-0717) and subsequently litigated, in several cases, the impact of the FCC non-impairment analysis regarding fiber based collocators and business line counts and the provision of wholesale services before the ICC. Mpower et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 05-3552 & 05-3677 (2006). Rowland & Moore served as counsel for several parties in a determination of unbundled element rates pursuant to a pricing regime known as Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) analysis. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles E. Box, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, No. 06-CV-3550 (2007). Rowland & Moore won a decision in Federal Court regarding an AT&T appeal of the ICC arbitration (ICC Docket 05-0442) involving the interconnection agreements between AT&T and CLECs. We won the issue of the right and terms to obtain entrance facilities for our clients. The resolution of this proceeding benefits the terms and conditions under which CLECs acquire unbundled network elements from AT&T.