Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________________, and reply comments were filed on ________________.
1. The settlement agreement that is attachment A to this decision, incorporating our selection of the option two reimbursement mechanism, is the best available means of obtaining reparations for customers affected by MCI's billing errors.
2. The settlement agreement resolves all remaining issues in this proceeding.
1. The Commission's equitable authority allows for distribution of reparations to current customers where distribution to the past customers is not feasible.
2. The settlement agreement, incorporating the option two disbursement method, is reasonable in light of the whole record, is consistent with the law, and is in the public interest.
3. The settlement agreement, incorporating the option two disbursement method, should be approved.
4. In order to assure prompt compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, and to quickly obtain the benefits of the settlement agreement for California consumers, this order should be made effective immediately.
5. The motion requesting that the unredacted version of the settlement agreement be held under seal should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The settlement agreement affixed hereto as Attachment A, using the option two disbursement method, is approved, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms set forth in the settlement agreement including the option two disbursement method.
2. The unredacted version of the settlement agreement between MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), The Utility Consumers' Action Network, and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall remain under seal for a period of two years from the date of this decision, and during that period shall not be made accessible or disclosed to anyone other than Commission staff except on the further order or ruling of the Commission, the Assigned Commissioner, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or the ALJ then designated as Law and Motion Judge. If any party believe that further protection of this information is needed after two years, that party may file a motion stating the justification for further withholding the letters and declaration from public inspection, or for such other relief as the Commission rules may then provide. This motion shall be filed no later than 30 days before the expiration of this protective order.
3. No later than 45 days after the effective date of this order, MCI shall file and serve an advice letter which makes all tariff changes necessary to reduce MCI's revenue from intrastate Maximum Security Collect calls by $522,458.33.
4. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
