Discussion

The overall assessment of the report is that the Separation Agreement, D.93-11-011, and the Commission's affiliate transaction rules had been complied with during the separation transaction in all material respects. However, the report indicates that a discrepancy has been detected in the transaction in the area of payment responsibility for employee benefits plans. While the report quantifies the impact of the discrepancy on Telesis and AirTouch, it notes that quantifying the smaller direct impact on SBC California ratepayers is contingent upon several future variables, and consequently declines to do so.

Further investigation of the reported employee benefits plans' discrepancy as well as the capacity to quantify and assess substantiated payment responsibility appear to be complicated by the fact that both the transferor (Telesis) and transferee (AirTouch) have since merged with other companies, one of which we normally regulate, while the other operates largely outside of our regulatory purview.

The Commission would like to resolve and close this docket in the near term. To that end, this ruling requests interested parties to comment on: (1) whether or not, given the passage of time and jurisdictional issue, this proceeding has become academic or moot; (2) if not, how the Commission should conclude this proceeding; and (3) whether, and to what extent, the commenter wishes to participate in any concluding phase of this case. Parties are asked to submit their comments on this matter by June 17, 2004.

Accordingly, IT IS RULED that:

1. To assist the Commission in resolving and closing Investigation 93-02-028 in the near term, interested parties are asked to comment on the following: (1) Whether or not, given the passage of time and jurisdictional issue, this proceeding has become academic or moot; (2) If not, how the Commission should conclude this proceeding; and (3) Whether, and to what extent, the commenter wishes to participate in any concluding phase of this case.

2. Parties are asked to submit their comments on or before June 17, 2004.

Dated June 3, 2004, at San Francisco, California.

		/s/ JACQUELINE A. REED
		Jacqueline A. Reed Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail, and by electronic mail to the parties to which an electronic mail address has been provided, this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Soliciting Comments on Concluding Proceeding on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated June 3, 2004, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ KE HUANG

Ke Huang

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.