II. DISCUSSION

The Commission's review of a petition for modification is governed by Rule 47. Under Rule 47(a), relief is limited to "changes to the text of an issued decision." In general, as set forth in Rule 47(d), a petitioner has one year to seek such relief:

Except as provided in this subsection, a petition for modification must be filed and served within one year of the effective date of the decision to be modified. If more than one year has elapsed, the petition must also explain why the petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. If the Commission determines that the late submission has not been justified, it may on that ground issue a summary denial of the petition.

Overall, "The Commission has broad discretion when considering a petition to modify a previous decision." Re MCI Telecommunications, Decision 98-10-032, 82 CPUC2d 413, 415. In this vein, Rule 47(h) provides,

[T]he Commission may modify the decision as requested, modify the affected portion of the decision in some way consistent with the requested modification, set the matter for hearing or briefing, summarily deny the petition on the ground that the Commission is not persuaded to modify the decision, or take other appropriate action.

In sum, the Commission is free to correct erroneous decisions, however long ago made, as long as it does so on the basis of substantial evidence. See Trabue Pittman Corp. v. County of Los Angeles, 29 Cal.2d 385, 399 (1946).

A. The Memorandum Accounts Established By Decision 98-01-022 Track Revenues Received Since The Effective Date of The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Pacific argues, "[B]y the Commission's own declaration, the issue regarding the actual beginning point for true-up has not been resolved." Application at 4. In support, it offers the following language from Decision 98-06-027, 80 CPUC 2d at 488:

"At the present time we have simply ordered the establishment of memorandum accounts to record billings to third party vendors. [(D.98-01-022, Ordering Paragraph 1.)] We have not issued any order regarding rates or the disposition of the money tracked in the accounts."

Id. In fact, the Commission has not reached any decision regarding refunds, but it has set a date to begin recording revenues as a beginning point for true-up. Thus, Ordering Paragraph 4 of Decision 98-01-022 provides,

The memorandum accounts shall retroactively reflect revenues which were previously billed since the effective date of the directory-access tariffs, and shall prospectively reflect revenues yet to be billed until a further order addressing the disposition of the balance in the memorandum accounts.

78 CPUC 2d at 271. (Later, on rehearing, the Commission modified this order expressly to require that the memorandum accounts track revenues since the effective date of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 80 CPUC 2d at 489.) Even earlier, in Decision 97-01-043, the Commission directed Pacific to provide nondiscriminatory access to listings for Directory Assistance.

B. Requiring The Memorandum Accounts Established By Decision 98-01-022 To Track Revenues Received Since The Effective Date Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 Does Not Constitute Retroactive Ratemaking.

Pacific further argues, "[T]he Decision's holding that any true-up of DA Listing rates must extend back to any date prior to January 7, 1988 violates the prohibition on retroactive ratemaking." Application at 6. So far, however, only provisional rates have been authorized. For now, as when observed by the Commission in Decision 98-06-27, memorandum accounts have been established to track revenues received for access supplied to listings for Directory Assistance. See 80 CPUC 2d at 488. Still, it has issued no order specifying the disposition of those revenues. Id. Decision 02-02-025 was intended to make clear that this matter remains subject to review:

We recognize that some of the assumptions underlying the DA cost studies have no doubt grown inaccurate or outdated over the intervening period. Therefore, we shall make provision for parties to update those studies to reflect more contemporary conditions. We shall also make provision for parties to file comments in response to the update cost studies. We shall direct the ALJ to issue a procedural ruling scheduling a process for the updated studies to be filed and for comments thereon. We shall then be positioned to adopt cost-based prices for DA services after the filing of comments. We can then determine the need for any true ups of past charges and promote a more competitive marketplace for DA services on a prospective basis.

Mimeo at 16. Nonetheless, to remove any doubt, the presiding Administrative Law Judge will be directed to issue a procedural ruling, once the cost of providing access to listings for Directory Assistance has been determined, regarding the calculation and implementation of refunds, and Conclusion of Law 17 and Ordering Paragraph 6 of Decision 02-02-025 will be modified accordingly.

C. The Service Pacific Supplies Independent Providers To Listings Of Directory Assistance Should Not Be Presumed Fully Competitive And Thus Subject To Flexible Pricing.

Pacific also argues, "[T]he DA listings service at issue here is different than the Publishing Rights service addressed in Decision 96-03-029, and there is therefore no basis for recategorizing DA Listings to Category II." Application at 11. Indeed, although quite similar, each service is covered by a separate tariff. Since 1975, Pacific has provided independent publishers with access, under tariff, to listings for Directory Assistance. See Decision 98-06-027, 80 CPUC 2d at 488. And, under operation of Section 455 of the Public Utilities Code, its tariff regarding access supplied independent providers to listings for Directory Assistance went into effect on December 1, 1996. That is not to say, however, that this newer service should be presumed fully competitive and thus subject to flexible pricing. Rather, as the Commission has repeatedly emphasized, the price of this service should be based on the costs incurred in its provision.

D. Classification Of The Service Supplied Independent Providers Of Directory Assistance Has No Effect On The Ability Of Pacific To Recover Its Costs.

Pacific argues finally that "recategorizing DA Listings affects Pacific's ability to recover its costs for this service, a significant infringement on Pacific's property rights." Application at 13. Pacific overlooks, however, that the Commission conclusively determined in Decision 98-06-027 how rates for this service will be set. For this purpose, therefore, its classification is beside the point. Either way, whether classified as Category II or Category III, this service will be priced according to its costs, and their recovery by Pacific will be unaffected.