II. Background
The Commission opened the OANAD rulemaking in 1993 with the intent of setting rates for the "basic network functions," or BNFs, now more commonly known as UNEs, that make up the network of SBC and Verizon. In D.99-11-050, the Commission set prices for UNEs offered by SBC (then Pacific) based on costs developed using the Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) methodology, as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996.7 Thus, the Commission achieved its intent to set TELRIC-based UNE prices for SBC, but has encountered numerous obstacles in its efforts to set rates for Verizon.
In the interest of brevity, we will not recount the full history of this case because it is described at length in D.03-03-033, where the Commission set interim UNE rates for Verizon. (See D.03-03-033, mimeo. at 4-9.)
Following adoption of interim UNE prices for Verizon, the parties and Commission turned their efforts toward setting permanent UNE rates for Verizon. After repeated delay requests by the parties, Verizon and JC each filed cost studies and supporting materials on November 3, 2003.8 Opening comments were also filed by the United States Department of Defense and Federal Executive Agencies (DOD/FEA) and Covad Communications Company (Covad).
In January 2004, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Telecommunications Division staff held three days of technical workshops where parties described their cost models and answered questions about them. Following numerous amendments and supplements in the spring of 2004, as well as several delay requests, the following parties filed reply comments on August 8, 2004: DOD/FEA, Joint Commentors, the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Verizon and XO California, Inc. (XO).9 The same parties filed rebuttal comments on November 9, 2004.10
On December 3, 2004, Verizon filed a motion requesting leave to file limited surrebuttal testimony to address revisions to the HM 5.3 cost model in JC's November 9 rebuttal filing. The ALJ granted Verizon's request in part and on January 28, 2005, Verizon filed limited surrebuttal on three factual issues. The ALJ also required Joint Commentors to subsequently file a summary table identifying all changes to the HM 5.3 model in the rebuttal filing. This summary table was filed January 21, 2005. Verizon provided comments on the summary table on March 15, 2005.
As part of this phase of OANAD, the Commission must set price floors for Verizon. In February 2004, the ALJ directed Verizon to supplement its filing with detailed price floor proposals and workpapers since this had not been included in earlier filings. (Prehearing Conference Transcript (Tr.), 2/2/04, at 16486.) Reply comments on Verizon's price floor proposals were filed by MCI, ORA, and TURN on January 28, 2005, and rebuttal comments were filed on April 1, 2005 by AT&T, ORA, TURN and Verizon.
On April 29 and May 5, 2005, Verizon and MCI, respectively, filed motions requesting hearings. These motions were denied in a ruling of November 8, 2005.
On May 5, 2005, AT&T filed a notice of withdrawal from the Verizon UNE phase of the OANAD proceeding.11
7 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98); First Report and Order, FCC No. 96-325, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, (rel. Aug. 8, 1996) ("First Report and Order").
8 Verizon filed amendments, errata and supplements to opening comments on 12/30/03, 2/17/04, 2/20/04, 4/2/04, and 5/4/04. Joint Commentors filed amendments, errata and supplements to their opening comments on 2/6/04 and 6/2/04.
9 Amendments and errata to reply comments were filed as follows: Verizon on 9/30/04; Joint Commentors on 9/17/04 and 10/12/04; TURN on 8/10/04, 8/16/04 and 9/2/04; XO on 10/6/04; ORA on 10/7/04.
10 Joint Commentors filed an amendment to their rebuttal on 3/25/05.
11 Despite AT&T's withdrawal from the proceeding, this order will continue to refer to filings by Joint Commentors because AT&T was active in the case at the time the filings were made.
