Pacific Bell Comments/Commission Responses

1. To avoid harm to consumers, the Commission must minimize any added delay to the advice letter process when implementing the intent of the Legislature, in SB 779, to subject Commission decisions on advice letters to public review and comment. (Opening Comments, p. 1.)

[GTE supports.]

Response: Agree that undue delay should be avoided (no change necessary). However, the Commission does not believe that public review and comment regarding Commission decisions is harmful to consumers. The proposed rules are consistent both with the intent of the Legislature and with reforms to the advice letter process proposed in R.98-07-038. See also Response to GTE Comment #1.

2. Proposed Rule 77.7(f) should provide that waiver or reduction of the review and comment period is automatic if the specified circumstances are present. (Opening Comments, p. 2.)

[MWCOM opposes.]

Response: Reject. The Pacific Bell proposal is unclear as to whether there would be an "automatic" waiver, or a reduction, and if the latter, for what period. In practice, whenever any of the circumstances specified in proposed Rule 77.7(f) occur, the Commission plans to give notice if it does not waive the public review and comment period. Such notice may provide, consistent with SB 779, a full or reduced comment period.

3. Waive or reduce the review and comment period on a draft resolution responding to an advice letter if the protests to the advice letter are deemed frivolous by the Commission. (Opening Comments, p. 2.)

[GTE supports; ORA opposes.]

Response: Reject. See Response to GTE Comment #3.

4. The scope of comments on draft resolutions responding to advice letters should be limited to those issues raised in protests to the underlying advice letter. (Opening Comments, p. 3.)

[GTE supports.]

Response: Reject. The draft resolution may itself raise issues that could not fairly have been anticipated from the advice letter alone.

5. Allow reply comments on draft resolutions and alternates to draft resolutions. (Opening Comments, p. 7.)

[AT&T and GTE support.]

Response: Agree. See Response to ORA Comment #1.

6. Add a definition of "resolution." (Opening Comments, pp. 3-4.)

Response: Reject. The proposed rules are internally consistent, and consistent with SB 779, in treating resolutions as the subset of Commission decisions in which the Commission addresses and disposes of matters that come before it outside of formal proceedings.

7. Support Roseville's suggestion regarding the schedule for reply comments on draft resolutions. (Reply Comments, p. 1.)

Response: Rule 77.7(c), as adopted, allows replies to comments on a draft resolution; the schedule for such replies parallels existing Rule 77.5 (replies to comments on proposed decisions).

8. Support GTE's proposals for waiving review and comment period for all draft resolutions (1) responding to advice letters filed by telecommunications service providers, and (2) responding to advice letters implementing prior Commission decisions. (Reply Comments, p. 2.)

Response: Reject. See Response to GTE Comments #1, 2.

9. Support Joint Energy Utilities' proposal that assigned Administrative Law Judges not be permitted to modify their proposed decisions after issuance except where such modification is not substantive or is necessary to incorporate a comment on the proposed decision. (Reply Comments, p. 2.)

Response: Reject. See Response to Joint Energy Utilities Comment #3.

10. Support Greenlining's proposal that the Commission publish draft resolutions at its Internet site before voting on them, but require such publication only 30 days before voting, not 45 days. (Reply Comments, p. 3.)

Response: Reject. See Response to Greenlining Comment #2.

11. Support Roseville's proposal that the Commission's Docket Office administer the filing of comments on draft resolutions. (Reply Comments, p. 3.)

Response: Reject. See Response to Roseville Comment #3.