Background

There are three issues remaining in this proceeding: (1) "free" trench inspections for applicant installations, (2) accounting for applicant design costs, and (3) accounting for applicant installation costs. Following a prehearing conference (PHC), by ruling dated March 15, 2001, the ALJ ruled that the existing record was insufficient and a complete new record should be developed for a full reexamination of these issues by the Commission.

UDI's motion concerns only the free trench inspection issue. UDI argues that the ALJ's ruling is in error as it contradicts Commission Decision (D.) 99-06-079 and D.00-01-028. Further, UDI argues that D.99-06-079 ordered the utilities to discontinue the practice of charging inspection fees on line extensions installed by non-utility contractors, and D.00-01-028 denied rehearing of D.99-06-079, stating that a sufficient evidentiary record had been made to support D.99-06-079.

On May 11, 2001, the Joint Utility Respondents (JUR)¹ filed a response to UDI's motion. The JUR's point out that on April 5, 2000, they filed a petition for modification of D.99-06-079 in regard to the decision's treatment for free inspections on a number of policy grounds, including the effect on ratepayers. And at the March 7, 2001 PHC the ALJ observed: "If the ratepayers are going to bear the cost of these inspections, the Commission should have information regarding the costs that will be shifted to ratepayers. The record in this proceeding is completely void of any such information. In other words, the Commission needs to know the amount of the subsidy to line extension applicants that the ratepayers are paying for." (Emphasis added.) Transcript at 686. The JURs submit that "upon notice to the parties and with opportunity to be heard," the ALJ's March 15, 2001 ruling appropriately sets for hearing the issue of free inspections, along with the issues of accounting treatment for applicant design and installation. The JURs contend that UDI's motion should be denied because (1) the ALJ's ruling complies with Section 1708 and gives all parties full and fair opportunity to be heard, (2) directly addresses the policy question raised in the JUR's petition for modification, and (3) is within the ALJ's discretion and authority.