contributions to D.15-12-005. The condition of Verizon’s assets and the costs of repairs and/or upgrades, if any. Greenlining noted that the Frontier would acquire a company that was approximately four times as large as Frontier’s existing company, creating concerns that the new company would “maintain or improve the expanded Frontier’s financial condition or maintain or improve the quality of the expanded Frontier’s service.” Protest at pp. 4-5. The Decision noted serious concerns about the current state of Verizon’s assets that were the subject of the transaction. Decision at p. 66. The Decision particularly noted the comments of speakers at public participation hearings, Verizon’s statements that repairing all of its GO 95 deficiencies would cost as much as ten million dollars, and Verizon’s consistent failure to meet the Commission’s standard for OOS repair intervals raised serious concerns about the state of the network. Decision at pp. 66-67. The Decision also noted that Verizon would have significant financial incentives to pass the cost of repairs on to Frontier during the period between approval and closing. Decision at p. 67. As a result, the Decision requires Verizon to either make the necessary repairs to its network or place funds in an escrow account to offset Frontier’s costs to repair the network. Decision at p. 72. The Decision specifically noted that the funds in escrow would “ensure that Frontier would have the financial means to address the network problems after the Transaction closes.” Decision at p. 50. In finding that the transaction maintain or improve the new company’s service quality, the Decision stated that “[f]or its part, Frontier promised to increase significantly the number of local service personnel, to upgrade the network through the use of Connect America funding from the FCC and its own resources, and to focus without distraction on maintaining and operating a wireline network (including broadband) without concerns about the relationship between that network and a Because The Greenlining Institute did not timely file the request for compensation, the Commission did not reach the question of whether the Greenlining Institute made substantial contributions to D.15-12-005.
Stephanie Chen at p. 2. Accordingly, the transaction threatened to reduce opportunities for diverse businesses. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 4. discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding supplier diversity. MOU at pp. 1-3. Greenlining initially argued that mitigation measures were generally necessary. Protest at p. 11-12. This included concerns that for the transaction to serve the public interest, community engagement would be critical and the combined company would have to build relationships with the communities it served. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 6. While discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding community engagement, including philanthropic and local engagement activities, including volunteer efforts by Frontier’s employees. MOU at p. 3. As discussed above, the Decision found that the Greenlining MOU contained commitments by Frontier that were necessary to render the transaction in the public interest. Decision at p. 63. The Decision noted that ”[t]he Greenlining MOU commits Frontier to work with Greenlining for a minimum of three years to maximize diversity in…philanthropy.” Decision at p. 54. Because The Greenlining Institute did not timely file the request for compensation, the Commission did not reach the question of whether the Greenlining Institute made substantial contributions to D.15-12-005. Greenlining argued that the merger could harm As discussed above, the Decision found that the Greenlining MOU contained Because The Greenlining Institute
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: Modifies Decision? Contribution Decision(s): D1512005 Proceeding(s): A1503005 Author: ALJ Bemesderfer Payer(s): N/A Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance The Greenlining Institute February 09, 2016 $24,414.00 $0.00 N/A Compensation Claim Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Paul Goodman Attorney The Greenlining Institute $350.00 2015 $0.00 (END OF APPENDIX)