Decision 10-05-052 May 20, 2010
Before The Public Utilities Commission Of The State Of California
Application of Ponderosa Telephone Company (U 1014 C) for Rehearing of Resolution T-17132. |
(Filed March 5, 2009) |
ORDER MODIFYING RESOLUTION T-17132,
GRANTING LIMITED REHEARING ON THE
DETERMINATION REGARDING EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION, AND DENYING REHEARING OF THE RESOLUTION, AS MODIFIED, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Resolution T-17132 (or "Resolution") involves the General Rate Case ("GRC") filed by Ponderosa Telephone Company ("Ponderosa") by Advice Letter Nos. 374 and 374-A. Ponderosa is a rate of return regulated small local exchange carrier, and filed its GRC pursuant to this Commission's General Order No. 96-B, §5.1 and
D.01-05-031. There was no other party but Ponderosa to the advice letter proceeding. The Commission's Communication Division ("CD" or "CD Staff") participated in the review of Ponderosa's GRC Advice Letter. Thus, the record for this proceeding was developed by Ponderosa's filing of the advice letter and supporting documents and information gathered and used by CD.
A draft of Resolution T-17132 ("Draft Resolution") was issued for comments, to which Ponderosa filed timely comments on December 4, 2008. This draft Resolution was amended twice, before becoming Resolution T-17132.
Ponderosa timely filed an application for rehearing of the Resolution. In its rehearing application, Ponderosa alleges legal error on the grounds that the resolution is arbitrary, not supported by record evidence, and does not contain adequate findings with respect to four issues: the resolution's adoption of a 42% benefits-to-salary ratio (Rehrg. App., pp. 6-16); the elimination of wages and benefits for two executive positions (Rehrg. App., pp. 19-21); the resolution's access line loss estimate (Rehrg. App., pp. 21-22); and the failure to adopt an elasticity factor with respect to the basic rate increase (Rehrg. App., pp. 22-23). Ponderosa further alleges that it was deprived of due process because CD Staff did not provide them copies of their work papers prior to the issuance of the Resolution. Accordingly, Ponderosa contends that the Commission has acted contrary to law and has abused its discretion.
Instead of a stay request, Ponderosa asks the Commission to establish a memorandum account through the California High Cost Fund-A for recording any revenues not provided by the resolution, and that may be ordered in a rehearing. (Rehrg. App., p. 5.) Ponderosa also requests oral argument under Rule 16.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (Rehrg. App., p. 23.)
We have reviewed each and every allegation raised by Ponderosa. We find that the issue regarding executive compensation has merit. As to all other issues, no legal error has been demonstrated. However, the Resolution shall be modified for purposes of clarification, as set forth below. Except as to the executive compensation issue, rehearing of Resolution T-17132, as modified, is denied in all other respects. Also, Ponderosa's requests for oral argument and for a memorandum account are denied for the reasons explained below.
