VI. Unforeseen Emergency

The Public Utilities Code and our Rules generally require that proposed decisions be circulated to the public for comment, and the Commission not issue its decision any sooner than 30 days following the filing and service of the proposed decision.¹³ On the other hand, the Act requires that the Commission reach its decision to approve or reject an arbitrated agreement within 30 days after submission by parties.¹⁴ Further, the parties to this arbitration proceeding agreed to extend the date for a final decision on this matter from May 8, 2000 to June 22, 2000.

Under certain circumstances, the Commission may reduce or waive the period for public review and comment under Rule 77.7(f) regarding draft decisions. One of those circumstances is when the draft decision is issued, pursuant to the state arbitration provisions of the Act. (Rule 77.7(f)(5).) Since this application was filed in accordance with Resolution ALJ-178, the Commission waives the public review and comments period for this decision.

Findings of Fact

1. On May 23, 2000, parties filed an arbitrated agreement for Commission approval, along with statements whether or not the Commission should approve the agreement.

2. The parties negotiated the entire agreement, with the exception of three items presented for arbitration.

3. No party or member of the public alleges that any negotiated portion of the agreement must be rejected.

4. No negotiated portion of the agreement results in discrimination against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement, nor is it inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

5. State commissions may only reject an agreement (or any portion thereof) being adopted by arbitration if it finds that the agreement does not meet any one of three criteria.

6. The Act established two criteria for pricing charges, that prices be based on the forward-looking cost of providing the network element and that it be nondiscriminatory.

7. The principles to govern the development of nondiscriminatory, forward-looking cost studies for the basic network functions of local exchange companies were adopted by this Commission in D.95-12-016.

8. The Commission adopted a TELRIC study as a standard for determining UNE costs in D.98-02-106.

9. Neither party disputes that the agreement should be based on forward-looking economic costs.

10. Roseville used Pacific's Commission approved system-wide TELRIC study as a basis to establish its own charges.

11. In recognition that there are differences between Roseville and Pacific's economies of scale, relative purchasing power, and environmental and geographic conditions, Roseville adjusted Pacific's charges by a factor to obtain comparable charges.

12. Roseville's TELRIC adjustment factor was derived from a comparison between Pacific's and Roseville's 1998 average cost per access line which reflects the direct relationship between the two companies historical and forward-looking costs.

13. The Act requires rates, terms, and conditions to be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory; and, prices to be cost-based and nondiscriminatory.

14. Roseville did not substantiate that real estate values in its service area are substantially higher than the real estate values in Pacific's service territory.

15. Roseville's labor rates are comparable to Pacific's in the surrounding area but lower than Pacific's urban labor rates.

16. There is no provision of the agreement that conflicts with State law, compliance of interstate telecommunications' service quality standards, or other requirements of the Commission.

17. The Act requires that the Commission must approve or reject an arbitrated interconnection agreement within 30 days after the agreement is filed.

18. The arbitrated interconnection agreement was filed on May 23, 2000.

19. The Commission generally may not act on a proposed decision any sooner than 30 days after it is filed and served for public comment.

20. Parties agreed to extend the agreed upon conclusion date for a Commission decision on this arbitration proceeding to June 22, 2000.

21. The Commission may reduce or waive the period for public review and comment when the draft decision is issued pursuant to the state arbitration provisions of the Act.