IV. Procedural Matters
Roseville filed its petition to modify D.98-09-038 on December 3, 2001. Notice of the Petition appeared in the Commission's Daily Calendar on December 5, 2001. ORA filed a timely response on December 26, 2001.
Section 311(g)(1) requires the Commission's draft decision regarding Roseville's Petition to be (i) served on all parties, and (ii) subject to at least 30 days of public review and comment prior to a vote of the Commission. The draft decision of Administrative Law Judge Kenney was mailed on ______________. Comments regarding the draft decision were filed on ________, by _________. Reply comments were filed on ________, by ________. These comments have been incorporated, as appropriate, in the final decision adopted by the Commission.
1. Roseville currently draws about $400,000 per year from the CHCF-B. Roseville has implemented a surcredit to offset its draws from the CHCF-B.
2. D.98-09-039 gave Roseville until September 3, 2000, to file an application to propose targeted rate reductions to offset its draws from the CHCF-B. The decision also required that the size of any proposed rate reduction be based on Roseville's actual draws from the CHCF-B for the most recent 12-month period for which data is available at the time the application is filed.
3. On July 26, 2000, the Executive Director granted Roseville a one-year extension to file the application authorized by D.98-09-039. On August 24, 2001, the Executive Director granted Roseville until the date that I.01-04-026 is closed to file the application authorized by D.98-09-039.
4. In I.01-04-026, the Commission is investigating whether, and to what extent, it is necessary to increase Roseville's rates to replace the loss of $11.5 million of EAS revenues that Roseville previously received from Pacific Bell. To this end, the Commission ordered Roseville to submit a rate design proposal in I.01-04-026 to recover $11.5 million. Roseville submitted its rate design proposal on September 17, 2001.
5. On November 30, 2001, the assigned Commissioner in I.01-04-026 issued a scoping memo. Page 2 of the memo provided instructions regarding the content of the rate-design proposal that Roseville is required to submit in that proceeding.
6. In its Petition, Roseville asks the Commission to modify D.98-09-039 by adding the following sentence to the end of Ordering Paragraph 17: "In addition, parties are authorized to present proposals to adjust Roseville's rates and price ceilings by an amount equal to its CHCF-B draws in I. 01-04-026."
7. It is not clear from the record of this proceeding whether the rate design proposal that Roseville submitted in I.01-04-026 reflects Roseville's draws from the CHCF-B.
1. In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, D.98-09-039 should be modified to require Roseville to submit in I.01-04-026 its proposal for reducing its rates to offset its draws from the CHCF-B. Roseville should have 30 days from the effective date of this decision to submit such a proposal if it has not done so already. Any such proposal should (i) reduce Roseville's rates by an amount equal to Roseville's draws from the CHCF-B during the most recent 12-month period for which data is available at the time the proposal is submitted, and (ii) conform to the requirements set forth on page 2 of the scoping memo issued in I.01-04-026 by the assigned Commissioner on November 30, 2001.
2. Roseville is required by D.98-09-039 to maintain rate reductions to offset its draws from the CHCF-B for the same period of time that it receives subsidies from the CHCF-B. Today's decision does not relieve Roseville of this obligation.
3. The following order should be effective immediately so that its provisions may be implemented expeditiously.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Decision (D.) 98-09-039 is modified to require Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville) to submit in Investigation (I.) 01-04-026 its proposal for reducing its rates and price ceilings to offset its draws from the California High Cost Fund-B (CHCF-B). Any such proposal must (i) reduce Roseville's rates and price ceilings by an amount equal to Roseville's actual draws from the CHCF-B during the most recent 12-month period for which data is available at the time of the proposal is submitted, and (ii) conform to the requirements set forth on page 2 of the scoping memo issued in I.01-04-026 by the assigned Commissioner on November 30, 2001.
2. Roseville has 30 days from the effective date of this Order to submit the proposal described in the previous Ordering Paragraph if it has not done so already.
3. Roseville's petition to modify D.98-09-039 is granted subject to the directives set forth in the previous two Ordering Paragraphs.
4. Except for the modification to D.98-09-039 authorized by Ordering Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, D.98-09-039 remains in full force and effect.
5. This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
