CLECs attack SBC again over power charges

Competitive carriers Birch Telecom, AT&T, ionex Communications and TCG Kansas City have filed a complaint with the Kansas Corporation Commission, the state’s regulatory agency, alleging that SBC Communications is charging for backup power provided to co-location cages in violation of the state’s wholesale rate tariff. The complaint is similar to those made against SBC within the past three months in Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma.

The tariff already takes into account SBC’s cost of providing 20 amps of primary power to each cage and making available a 20-amp redundant feed, said John Ivanuska, vice president of carrier relations for Birch Telecom. But in October 2002, SBC took it upon itself to start charging for 40 amps of power, according to the complaint, even though it can only provide 20 amps at any moment given the manner in which the co-location cages are engineered. Even if the primary feed failed completely and all of the power flowed through the redundant feed, the maximum amount of power SBC would have provided is 20 amps, said Ivanuska. “Redundant power works just like an insurance policy. It’s already paid for and you only use it when you need it.”

SBC’s “new and unilateral interpretation” of the tariff is significant because “power consumption costs [are] the single most expensive component for co-location arrangements,” said the complaint. Through June 2003, Birch had disputed $527,832 in power costs, while ionex had disputed $332,523. AT&T said it disputes about $2400 each month. Ivanuska suggested SBC’s motivation stems from its dissatisfaction with the wholesale rates they have received from regulatory commissions in the former Southwestern Bell territory. “They think they got screwed, plain and simple, and now they’re looking for a way to supplement those rates,” he said.

In its motion to dismiss the Missouri complaint, SBC said the Missouri tariff requires co-locators to pay for all DC power that is provided by the incumbent, and that the complainants’ claim that they should only half to pay for half “is contrary to the plain language of the tariff.”

"While it may be their right to disagree, and we expect they will because that has become the M.O., we're simply trying to recover legitimate costs for leasing facilities," said SBC spokesman Kevin Belgrade.