V. Assignment of Proceeding

Geoffrey F. Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and Sarah R. Thomas is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

2. Including GSF costs as SureWest proposes would necessitate a full-scale ratemaking exercise.

3. There is an insufficient record to engage in a full-scale ratemaking exercise with regard to GSF costs.

4. SureWest proposes that a flat percentage of every account conceivably related to poles and conduits be assumed as part of its pole/conduit cost structure.

5. SureWest's allocation of costs from the foregoing accounts is very imprecise, and includes costs SureWest agrees bear no relationship to poles or conduits.

6. Under the FCC methodology for allocating overhead costs, the utility may only include costs from certain, specifically identified Part 32 accounts in calculating pole and conduit rates.

7. Section 767.5 applies only to cable companies seeking to attach to utility poles and place facilities in utility conduits.

8. There is no evidence in this case that the general ratemaking doctrines we have used in other, very different contexts (e.g., regarding the CHCF-B and UNEs) apply here.

9. SureWest is not proposing allocation of actual identifiable overhead costs to pole and conduit rates, but assumes that its cost mismatches work themselves out automatically.

10. SureWest's GSF methodology has no support in any cited pole/conduit case.

11. The parties agreed in Exhibits 200-C and 201-C to pole and conduit rates assuming various outcomes.

12. The record supports a conduit rate of $0.95 per inner duct foot per year.

13. The record supports a pole rate of $6.79 per pole per year.

14. Case law and the California cable television statute do not assist us in determining the portion of each pole that should be allocated to the pole owner and attachers in calculating the pole rate.

15. SureWest's proposed 50-50 cost allocation percentage for poles finds no support in any CPUC or FCC decision.

16. The pole owner has rights that are more valuable than those of a pole lessee.

17. The pole rate for SBC will be used only for those SureWest poles to which SBC attaches.

18. It is technically feasible for the SBC CLEC to use the interoffice fiber facility at issue in this proceeding.

19. SureWest did not object to SBC's placement of the interoffice fiber facility when it was installed.

20. Installing a new interoffice fiber facility would be expensive.

21. The FAR violates no Commission standards, including those related to service quality.

22. The facts and law support the FAR and the parties' Support Structure Use Agreement.

Conclusions of Law

23. D.98-04-062, D.98-10-058 and D.03-05-055 are not applicable in reaching a conclusion regarding the inclusion of GSF costs.

24. The FCC methodology provides a basis for allocating overhead costs to pole and conduit rates.

25. A pole lessee should not bear 50% of pole costs, but rather some lesser percentage.

26. Under § 767.5, pole attacher/lessee bears only 7.4% of the costs of the pole.

27. If SBC is bearing a portion of pole costs, SBC should be included as an attacher in calculating those costs.

28. It is not inherently anticompetitive for a CLEC to realize certain economies of scale and scope resulting from the proximity of its existing local exchange facilities to MSLECs' service territories.

29. SureWest did not establish that SBC placed the interoffice facility to later cream skim SureWest's customers with its SBC CLEC operation.

30. The FAR and the parties' Support Structure Use Agreement should be adopted in their entirety.

ORDER

This order is effective today.

Dated February 10, 2005, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page