2. Procedural History
Thirteen small Local Exchange Carriers (Small LECs) and Pacific (together referred to as the "Joint Applicants") filed their application on September 21, 1999, asking the Commission to approve the STAs which Pacific negotiated with each of the companies. The agreements terminate the applicants' existing toll, access and, if applicable, Extended Area Service (EAS) inter-company arrangements, upon the condition that the Commission approve and implement a permanent alternative funding mechanism. The permanent funding source, coupled with increases in access charges, will replace the net settlement revenues that will be lost to all of the Small LECs upon termination of the current inter-company settlement arrangements for toll, access and EAS services.
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) protested the application and was opposed to approval of the Settlement on several grounds.
A Prehearing Conference (PHC) was held on December 3, 1999, to determine the scope of issues to be addressed, the schedule for resolving the issues identified, and to determine whether or not evidentiary hearings were required. The Ruling which set the PHC was mailed to all interexchange carriers (IXCs) since Joint Applicants requested that they not be required to provide intraLATA toll service. Assigned Commissioner Carl Wood issued a Scoping Memo on January 11, 2000, which set the schedule and scope for the proceeding.2 As required in the Scoping Memo, the Joint Applicants filed a First Amendment to Joint Application on February 9, 2000, indicating that they had amended the agreements to state that the applications would incorporate the issue of the intrastate access charges to be adopted for the small companies. On March 2, 2000, the applicants filed amendments to keep the STAs effective until the Commission acts to establish a permanent funding source.
On January 3, 2000, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a Notice of Intent to seek intervenor compensation for participating in the proceeding. TURN was found eligible for compensation in the proceeding in an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling issued on January 31, 2000.3
The Commission's preliminary determination in Resolution ALJ 176-3024, issued on October 7, 1999, was that the category for the proceeding was ratesetting. The preliminary determination was that hearings would not be necessary. However, following the PHC, the Assigned Commissioner determined that hearings would be necessary. The Commission issued an order on March 2, 2000, changing the hearing designation.4
The parties held informal settlement discussions on March 6, 2000 which were continued on May 31, 2000. Beginning April 21, 2000, bill inserts were mailed to all customers of Small LEC applicants whose basic rates are not already capped at 150% of Pacific's rates so that those customers were aware that they may experience a rate increase as a result of this proceeding. Opening Testimony was filed on April 4, 2000, and Rebuttal Testimony, on April 28, 2000. Evidentiary hearings were held June 12-14, 2000. On June 16, 2000, ORA filed a motion pursuant to Rule 45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, requesting that corrections be made to several sections of the transcript of the June 12-14 hearings. ORA's motion was not opposed by other parties. Concurrent opening briefs were filed on July 17, 2000, with concurrent reply briefs, on July 31, 2000.
2 The Assigned Commissioner issued a second Ruling on February 18, 2000, amending the Scoping Memo to add an issue which was inadvertently omitted from the list of issues to be included in the scope of the proceeding. 3 The issue of compensation is moot since TURN did not actively participate in the proceeding after the PHC. 4 Decision (D.) 00-03-003.
