1. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Material Issues

DisabRA contends the Decision errs because it does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues as required by section 1705. (DisabRA Rhg. App., pp. 2-7.)

Section 1705 provides in pertinent part that a Commission decision:

shall contain, separately stated, findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues material to the order or decision. (Pub. Util. Code, § 1705.)

In support of its argument, DisabRA asserts that in reaching a determination the Commission must "weigh the opposing evidence and arguments in order to determine whether the rights and interests of the general public will be advanced," and "consider sua sponte every element of public interest affected" by its approval. (DisabRA Rhg. App., p. 1, citing to Industrial Communications Systems v. Public Utilities Commission (1978) 22 Cal.3d 572, 582, 1978 Ca.l.LEXIS 304, * 11; and United States Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission (1981) 29 Cal.3d 603, 609, 1981 Cal.LEXIS 156, * 7.)

Generally, there is merit to the principles DisabRA proffers. However, neither of the cited cases establish that we were obligated to weigh, or make findings regarding any or all issues raised by DisabRA for purposes of our Decision. The stated principles only apply as to issues that are material to the goal of the decision in question. Unlike the situation in the cited cases, there is no evidence that the information presented by DisabRA was material to the goal or determination in the particular proceeding leading to D.06-08-030.

The goal of this proceeding was to determine whether we can rely on competitive market forces to produce "just and reasonable rates" for California's telephone consumers, and therefore, allow increased pricing flexibility for voice communication services. (D.06-08-030, pp. 1, 41- 42; also see OIR, R.05-04-005, dated April 7, 2005.) Material information and issues include those related to our "central" inquiry, e.g., whether new policies, technologies, and developments in the voice communications market over the last eighteen years have limited the ability of incumbent carriers to exercise market power. (D.06-08-030, p. 52.)

From the outset, it was clear that certain issues were not material for purposes of reaching a determination in the instant proceeding. The OIR and Scoping Memo explicitly advised parties that issues including those impacting public purpose programs were outside the scope of this proceeding and hence, would not be considered in depth.⁴¹ The specific issues raised by DisabRA regarding telecommunication service needs of the disabled community fall under the public purpose programs umbrella.⁴²

DisabRA suggests that because we recognized the general relevance of issues related to the disabled community, we were therefore, bound to make associated findings here. We disagree. General relevance does not mean an issue is material for purposes of reaching a reasoned determination. We noted that DisabRA's concerns are relevant and valid to the extent a new regulatory framework must be in accord with the social policies (and associated PPPs) embodied in statutes. (D.06-08-030, pp. 38-41.) We also agreed that services used by the disabled community differ from mass market communication services. Yet the issues in question were not deemed material here because it was not established that there is a "compelling economic or legal reason to segment the market by user characteristics, such as income or usage patterns, or to partition different groups of customers into separate markets." (D.06-08-030, pp. 131, 274 [Conclusion of Law 15].) The service and community specific issues raised by DisabRA are material to a determination in the PPP rulemaking (R.06-05-028), thus, the Decision directs that those issues be addressed in that forum. (D.06-08-030, pp. 153, 156.)

Furthermore, we properly recognized that if issues related to the disabled community are to be deferred, then any economic ramifications of the instant decision on that community should also be deferred. Consistent with DisabRA's recommendations, the Decision includes findings and conclusions requiring that price changes which might follow from the Decision leave in place programs and rates for PPP programs and the disabled communities in California. (D.06-08-030, pp. 156, 267 [Findings of Fact 70, 71, 72], 276 [Conclusion of Law 30], 280 [Ordering Paragraphs 2, 6, 7].)

⁴¹ See OIR, R.05-04-005 (dated April 7, 2005, p. Appendix A, p. A-3, Number 11.C.); and Scoping Memo and Ruling Of Assigned Commissioner And Administrative Law Judge, R.05-04-005 (dated August 4, 2005, p. 5.). Other issues deemed outside the scope of D.06-08-030 include special access, and service quality.

⁴² DisabRA does not identify the specific issues it considers material for purposes of D.06-08-030, stating only that it submitted evidence responsive to the broad goals of the proceeding. Generally, DisabRA recommended that a new regulatory framework not compromise telecommunications programs and services for disabled and low income customers, and allow price regulations for those customers to remain in place. (See Comments of Disability Rights Advocates, dated May 31, 2005, p. 2.) More specific recommendations involved the particularized needs of the disabled community such as: ensuring accessibility of PPP programs and services; affordability; the provision of necessary equipment and high quality service quality and customer support; and encouraging customer awareness. (See Reply Comments of Disability Rights Advocates, dated September 2, 2005, pp. 11-12.)