IX. Comments on Proposed Decision

The alternate proposed decision in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(e) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Pacific, Verizon, TURN and ORA filed comments.

Pacific and Verizon argue that the findings reached in this decision indicate that there are no structural deficiencies in NRF and therefore it is not necessary to consider revisions in Phase 3B of this proceeding. In addition, both companies argue that the Service Quality OIR, not this docket, is the appropriate docket in which to consider any changes to address service quality issues.

These contentions are without merit. As both ORA and TURN point out, a finding of structural deficiencies is not a prerequisite to the modification of NRF's service quality provisions in order to resolve the issues identified and to make any improvements that parties can demonstrate are warranted. Notwithstanding the preference of Pacific and Verizon that service quality issues all be confined to the Service Quality OIR, we find it appropriate to allow parties to propose changes in Phase 3B of this docket that they believe can address any problems identified in this decision or otherwise advance the goal of promoting high quality service.

Verizon contends that the proposed decision has improperly abandoned the "governing standard" that the Commission has previously enunciated that it would use to assess service quality in this docket - whether service quality has deteriorated.²⁹⁰ Verizon is incorrect. The Commission has never established a "standard" that it would apply in this phase of the docket. Instead, in both the OIR/OII that opened this docket, as well as the initial Scoping Memo for the case, the Commission purposely set forth a broad scope for this phase -- how service quality has fared under NRF.²⁹¹ The Commission has never indicated that it was interested in only asking the question whether service quality has deteriorated, to the exclusion of other equally relevant questions, such as whether service quality has improved or has otherwise been either satisfactory or unsatisfactory during the period of NRF regulation.

Pacific alleges a variety of factual errors, such as the decision's discussion of problems areas with Pacific's service to residential customers, the assessment of BOAT and TRSAT data, and the decision's findings regarding repair intervals. For each claimed factual error, Pacific has only presented findings it would prefer; it has failed to demonstrate that the decision's findings lack substantial supporting evidence. With respect to problems with certain aspects of residential service quality, Pacific does not challenge that it had the problems identified in this decision. Regarding BOAT data, Pacific would prefer that the Commission not consider the company's performance when billing calls are consistently included for all years; however, the decision considers this data not for purposes of assessing conformity to the GO 133-B standard, but for the purpose of answering the broad question of how service quality (in this case, the customer's answer time experience) has fared under NRF. With respect to TRSAT data, Pacific argues that the decision does not sufficiently emphasize Pacific's improvements in recent years. In fact, the decision gives equal weight to Pacific's periods of substandard performance and its periods of above-standard performance.²⁹²

Finally, we note that we have reviewed all the comments and replies, including those not explicitly addressed in our discussion. We have amended our analysis in response to these comments as we found warranted.

²⁹⁰ Verizon Opening Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioners Lynch and Wood at 1. ²⁹¹ R.01-09-001/I.01-09-002, App. A, p. A-2; Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Determining the Category, Scope, Schedule, Need for Hearing, and the Principal Hearing Officer for the Proceeding, Dec. 27, 2001, pp. 6-7. ²⁹² In response to Pacific's comments that the repair interval discussion headings reference "sharp" deteriorations in service quality, without using the same word to describe the subsequent improvements, we have deleted the word "sharp" from the headings.