STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

September 7, 2001

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 00-11-018

This proceeding was filed on November 9, 2000, and is assigned to Commissioner Wood and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jones. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Jones.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

/s/ LYNN T. CAREW

LTC:t93

Attachment

ALJ/KAJ-POD/t93

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 9/7/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (U 1001 C), Defendant.

Case 00-11-018 (Filed November 9, 2000)

Nelsonya Causby, Attorney at Law,
for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant.

Laura J. Tudisco, Staff Counsel,
for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION GRANTING COMPLAINT, IN PART

Title Page

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION GRANTING COMPLAINT, IN PART 3

I. Summary 2

II. Allegations of the Complaint 3

III. Remedies Requested 3

IV. Procedural Background 5

V. Discussion 7

A. Pacific's Repair Intervals Violate § 451 7

B. Pacific's Failure to Provide Customers with a Meaningful Opportunity to Request a 4-hour Appointment Violates § 451 20

C. Pacific's Long Repair Intervals Violate OP 2 of D.97-03-067 and § 702 23

D. Pacific's High Customer Dissatisfaction Levels Do Not Violate OP 2 of D.97-03-067 25

VI. Remedies Adopted 28

A. Penalty Mechanism for Failure to Meet Residential Repair Service Standards 28

Criterion 1: Severity of the Offense 29

Criterion 2: Conduct of the Utility 31

Criterion 3: Financial Resources of the Utility 32

Criterion 4: Totality of the Circumstances 33

Criterion 5: The Role of Precedent 34

Conclusion: Setting the Fine 35

B. 4-hour Window 37

Findings of Fact 38

Conclusions of Law 40

ORDER 42

I. Summary

Complainant Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) alleges that Pacific Bell Telephone Company's (Pacific's) residential repair intervals violate various statutes and an order of this Commission. We find that the 45% increase in the average number of hours to restore dial tone service to residential customers over the period 1996 - 2000 violates § 451¹ because residential customers are not receiving repair service that is "adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable."

Also, we find that Pacific's increase between 1996 and 2000 in the mean time to restore service to residential customers violates Ordering Paragraph (OP) 2 of Decision (D.) 97-03-067, which requires Pacific to "maintain or improve its service quality over the five years following the merger" of Pacific with SBC. In violating OP 2, Pacific also violates § 702.

Further, we find that Pacific's failure to expressly notify customers when they call its 611 repair service of the availability of a 4-hour appointment window violates § 451 in that it does not "promote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons...and the public."

To remedy these violations, we direct the following actions: First, Pacific must meet the repair standards for initial and repeat out-of-service repair intervals established herein on a monthly basis or pay penalties in the amount of $300,000 - $600,000 for each month it is out of compliance. (The standards set are a monthly average of 29.3 hours for Pacific's initial out-of-service repair interval and 39.4 hours for its repeat out-of-service repair interval. The standards reflect data reported by Pacific for 1996, the last full calendar year before the merger with SBC.) Second, Pacific must change its automated Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that customers reach when they call Pacific's 611 repair service to alert customers of the availability of a 4-hour appointment window.