STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
June 5, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 00-08-053
This proceeding was filed on August 25, 2000, and is assigned to Commissioner Wood and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Econome. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Econome.
Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.
Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:tcg
Attachment
ALJ/JJJ/POD/tcg
PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 6/5/2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Complainants, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (U 1001 C), Defendant. |
Case 00-08-053 (Filed August 25, 2000) |
Michael D. Sasser, James B. Young, Attorneys at Law, for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant.
Thomas J. Long, Attorney at Law, for The Utility Reform Network, Intervenor.
Laura J. Tudisco, Staff Counsel, for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
OPINION GRANTING COMPLAINT...................................................... 2
I. Summary 2
II. The Controversy Between ORA and Pacific 3
A. Repeat Dialing and Prompted Repeat Dialing 3
B. The Allegations of the Complaint 5
C. Burden of Proof 6
III. Procedural Background 6
IV. Discussion 7
A. ORA Has Standing to File this Complaint 7
B. Repeat Dialing and Prompted Repeat Dialing are Distinct
Services 10
C. Does Pacific's Implementation of Prompted Repeat Dialing
Violate Pub. Util. Code § 451? 13
1. Pacific's Decision to Implement Prompted Repeat Dialing 14
2. Pacific's Trial for Prompted Repeat Dialing Elicited
Negative Response 15
3. The Commission, as well as Pacific, Received Complaints
About Prompted Repeat Redialing 16
4. Pacific's Position 18
D. Does Pacific's Implementation of Prompted Repeat Dialing
Violate Pub. Util. Code § 2889.4? 21
E. Did Pacific Violate the Commission's GO 96-A and Pub. Util.
Code §§ 454 and 491 by Improperly Raising Rates? 22
F. ORA's Other Allegations 28
G. Remedies 29
Findings of Fact................................................................................... 32
Conclusions of Law.............................................................................. 34
ORDER.............................................................................................. 36
I. Summary
Complainant Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) alleges that Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) violated various statutes and the Commission's General Orders when it implemented its Prompted Repeat Dialing service, because Pacific believed Prompted Repeat Dialing to be the same service as its existing Repeat Dialing service. We find that Repeat and Prompted Repeat Dialing are different services. In reaching this conclusion, we examine how the respective services function both on Pacific's system and from customers' perspective.
Because Pacific violated various statutes and General Orders in implementing Prompted Repeat Dialing, we direct the following remedies: (1) Pacific must obtain affirmative consent from a customer before deploying Prompted Repeat Dialing on that customer's line, and when Pacific has deployed Prompted Repeat Dialing without such consent, Pacific must obtain such consent or discontinue the service; (2) Pacific shall refund to all non-published California residential customers the $0.28 per month they pay to be a non-published customer for each month that Pacific deployed Prompted Repeat Dialing on these customers' lines without their express consent; and (3) Pacific shall file a new advice letter with separate tariff sheets for Prompted Repeat Dialing, on a subscription and per use basis. We direct the refund because we conclude that, in implementing Prompted Repeat Dialing, Pacific violated its tariff with non-published residential customers which states that Pacific will not contact these customers by telephone on an unlisted number for unsolicited sales efforts.
