ALJ/JRD/sid DRAFT CA-15
2/8/2001
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ DEULLOA (Mailed 1/9/2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AT&T Communications of California, Inc., Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant. |
Case 99-12-029 (Filed December 21, 1999) |
|
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Complainant, vs. AT&T Communications of California, Inc., Defendant. |
Case 00-02-027 (Filed February 6, 2000) |
INTERIM OPINION
The issue addressed is whether the Commission should deny complainants' requests for dismissal of their complaints. We also resolve the Petition of Greenlining Institute (GI) and Latino Issues Forum (LIF) to intervene.
On August 7, 2000, AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T) filed a request to dismiss complaint Case (C.) 99-12-029 pursuant to Decision (D.) 91-02-031 and California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 581. On August 7, 2000, Pacific Bell (Pacific) filed a similar request to dismiss C.00-02-027. On September 6, 2000, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) DeUlloa held a prehearing conference (PHC) to provide AT&T and Pacific an opportunity to explain how the requests for dismissal resolved the harm to the public alleged in the complaints. On September 12, 2000, GL/LIF filed a motion to intervene which AT&T and Pacific both opposed. On October 2, 2000, GI/LIF filed a reply to the oppositions.
Requests for Dismissal of Complaints
Resolution of a request for dismissal of a complaint requires a balancing of a litigant's discretion to control interaction with governmental bodies against the Commission's need to advance the public business. (Application of Southern California Gas Co., 43 CPUC2d 639, (D.92-04-027), (1992).) The Commission should deny requests for dismissal when a case involves the orderly development of the law or issues of substantial public interest or importance. (Id.)
In this proceeding, the allegations that AT&T and Pacific slammed thousands of California consumers raise issues of substantial public interest and importance. At the September 6 PHC, AT&T argued that the Commission should not pursue the allegations of slamming because its "a terrible problem to try to figure out ...accurate number of people who actually were slammed." (PHC-2/67.) In response to the ALJ's inquiry about alleged harm to the public, AT&T stated:
"what you are really asking for is a detailed investigation of thousands of claimed slams that Pacific listed in its bills. And that, I think is asking for too much. It's not something that the parties in this two-party complaint proceeding were willing to undertake." (PHC-2/67.)
Allegations of wide-scale slamming by and against major utilities such as Pacific and AT&T raise issues of substantial public interest. Contrary to AT&T's position, a thorough investigation of slamming on the scale alleged in these complaints is not "too much to ask."
Complainants' reliance on D.91-02-031 and CCP Section 581 is misplaced. In D.91-02-031, the Commission did not find that the issues raised by the complaint were of substantial public interest. Although, we sometimes look to the CCP for guidance, the CCP does not bind the Commission.
In addition, at the PHC Pacific and AT&T presented two documents entitled:
· "Principles Governing Pacific Bell Marketing of IntraLATA Service and Handling of LPIC Change Requests" and
· "Principles Governing AT&T Marketing of IntraLATA Toll Service"
Although not called a "settlement," these documents have all the attributes of a settlement. The merits of some of these new practices appear contrary to the public interest.
For instance, the "Principles Governing Pacific Bell Marketing ..." emphasize nondisclosure, the first governing principle states that:
"Pacific will review marketing scripts to eliminate any suggestion to the customer that intraLATA toll service was transferred without authorization or that the customer was slammed."
Under existing practice, Pacific apparently informs a consumer that slamming may have occurred when the consumer's carrier of choice has been changed without the consumer's authorization. In an era when the Commission's efforts include the creation of a consumer's telecommunications bill of rights, Pacific's and AT&T's efforts to limit the dissemination of information concerning slamming appear contrary to the public interest. The benefit to the public gained from Pacific refraining from educating or informing consumers about slamming is elusive. Nonetheless, such a change to a utility's practices may require Commission approval.
Given these considerations, the complaints should not be dismissed. Instead, we shall direct Pacific and AT&T to submit to the Director of Consumer Services Division (CSD) all records pertaining to their respective allegations contained in their complaints. CSD should review the records, conduct a follow-up investigation, and file a report addressing the issues identified in the Scoping Memo and recommend whether the complaints should be dismissed or remain open for adjudication. CSD should file its recommendation within 180 days of receiving records from complainants.
