Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of ALJ Jones in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7.
Findings of Fact
1. Roseville has taken language of D.00-11-039 out of context and assigned it meanings not intended by the Commission.
2. The second full paragraph on page 60 of D.00-11-039 focuses on the recovery of the $11.5 million EAS payment, and has nothing to do with Roseville's draws from the CHCF-B as a result of serving high cost areas.
3. Payments ILECs receive from the CHCF-B for serving high cost areas do not constitute a subsidy as those carriers must reduce their rates by the same amount.
4. A.99-08-043 dealt exclusively with Roseville's recovery of the $11.5 million EAS payment Roseville previously received from Pacific, and did not address any changes to operation of the CHCF-B.
5. Payments Roseville makes to the CHCF-B do not come from Roseville's resources, but from its ratepayers, in the form of a surcharge assessed on customers' bills.
6. The EAS payment that Pacific previously made to Roseville came from Pacific's resources.
7. The CHCF-B as formulated in D.96-10-066 does not provide any new money to carriers. Any carrier that receives a draw from the CHCF-B must reduce its rates by the same amount.
Conclusions of Law
1. D.00-11-039 does not overturn or modify D.96-10-066.
2. The four sections of D.00-11-039 that Roseville cited do not constitute legal error.
3. Roseville's requests for clarification of language in D.00-11-039 should be denied.
4. The CHCF-B is not an appropriate permanent source of funding to replace the $11.5 million payment to Roseville from Pacific.
5. Significant changes would have to be made to the CHCF-B in order for it to be used for permanent draws of a fixed amount.
6. Roseville's request for modification of D.00-11-039 should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Roseville Telephone Company's Petition for Clarification/Modification is denied.
Dated ____________________, at San Francisco, California.
