VI. PPHs

Consumer Groups recommend the Commission express its intent to conduct PPHs in the event SBC California refiles an application to recategorize its DA services. SBC California objects to this proposal.

The decision of the assigned Commissioner in this proceeding to conduct PPHs was a reasonable and logical response to the application and its potential impacts. The Commission has a duty to conduct its procedures in ways that are responsive to the public's expressions of concern. In this case, the Commission has so far received more than 5,000 communications from consumers expressing concerns that SBC California's proposal would result in higher rates.²

Moreover, it is reasonable for the Commission to provide a forum that would promote consideration of all potential outcomes of an application, not just those identified by the applicant. Although SBC California proposes the standard of review in this case should be limited to whether SBC California has market power, this standard of review could obscure the potential impacts of SBC California's application. The application effectively asks the Commission to permit SBC California to price its DA services with wide discretion. As the record reflects, the price of SBC's DA services in other states is substantially higher than in California, where DA prices are capped. PPHs would provide members of the public a forum to address this issue.

We decline to commit a future Commission to PPHs because future Commissions must have discretion to design procedures that are responsive to the issues and public concerns before them. We nevertheless state our support for the assigned Commissioner's decision to hold PPHs in this case.