F. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of Administrative Law Judge Karen Jones in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______ and reply comments were filed on ________.
1. Parties to I.87-11-033 were given notice and an opportunity to be heard that this proceeding could result in changes to the operation of the CHCF-A.
2. Under the rules governing the CHCF-A, the small telephone companies that are parties to this proceeding must file General Rate Cases by the end of 2000 in order to retain their year 2001 funding at the 100% level.
3. The small telephone companies would have difficulty in preparing rate cases in 2000 because of the number of revenue-affecting issues which are the subject to this proceeding.
4. It would place a significant strain on Commission resources to process GRCs for the 13 small LECs in the same year.
1. Parties of record in I.87-11-033 were given notice that this proceeding could result in changes in the rules governing the CHCF-A.
2. The waterfall provision established in D.88-07-022 should be modified on a one-time basis to extend the 100% funding for an additional year, to 2001.
3. There is no justification for changing the current rules governing the CHCF-A under which any draws from the fund are subject to a means test.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The waterfall provision governing draws from the California High Cost Fund "A" shall be extended for one year to 2001 for the 13 small telecommunications carriers which are parties to this proceeding.
2. Interested parties to this proceeding shall file and serve Opening Comments 30 days after the issuance of this decision, and Reply Comments 15 days following the filing of Opening Comments, on the following issues:
a. Should the General Rate Cases for the small telephone companies subject to this proceeding be scheduled over two years: 2001 and 2002?
b. What is an equitable method for determining which small telephone companies should file for ate cases in 2001 versus 2002?
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
