2004 Accomplishments
OVERVIEW
During calendar year 2004, the CUC participated in many varied cases involving electric, gas and telecommunications issues of great importance to the consumers of Georgia. Included here is a list and description of some of the major cases in which the CUC was involved. These include a rate increase request by Georgia Power Company, a fuel rate increase by Savannah Electric and Power Company, a significant number of disbursements involving Atlanta Gas Light Company’s line extensions and the natural gas Universal Service Fund, and various cases affecting the rules of service and the competitive options available to consumers from natural gas marketers and telephone and telecommunications service providers.
ELECTRICITY FILINGS
Case status as of December 31, 2004
CUC # 04066, Docket No. 19758; Savannah Electric and Power Company’s 2004-2005 Rate Case:
Savannah Electric and Power Company (SEPCO) filed its rate case on November 30, 2004, seeking a 6.7 percent increase in its total (after-fuel) revenues, representing a $23.2 million increase in its base rates. The Commission issued its procedural order establishing hearings and a planned decision date of May 17, 2005, to meet the statutory deadline of May 31, 2005. The CUC is currently conducting discovery, and has retained Steven W. Ruback as consultant to prepare and present expert witness testimony at the hearings, focusing primarily on the allocation of revenues among customer classes with special focus on the consumers represented by the CUC.
CUC # 04009, Docket No. 18300; Georgia Power Company’s 2004 Rate Case;
Docket No. 15392; Georgia Power Company’s Application to Amend the Certification of Southern Power’s McIntosh Purchase Power Agreement;
Docket No. 15393; Savannah Electric and Power Company’s Application to Amend the Certification of Southern Power’s McIntosh Purchase Power Agreement:
Docket No. 18300: On July 1, 2004, Georgia Power Company (GPC) filed a traditional electric rate case seeking an increase of $328 million in annual revenues. In December 2004, the CUC, Pubic Service Commission Staff (“Staff”), GPC and most of the intervenors agreed to a compromise Rate Design Stipulation that called for any revenue increase to be shared equally among the classes; adopted the CUC’s recommended class-specific allocation of new revenues from the new and increased customer fees and lower customer deposit interest rate; and provided for revenue-neutral rate adjustments within each customer class.
A stipulation was reached on December 22, 2004, setting the fair market value of Plant McIntosh to reflect 70 percent of the values of the purchase power agreements, setting rates to go into effect January 1, 2005, using a three-year accounting plan with an 11.25 percent return on equity and a band width of 10.25 percent to 12.25 percent, and adopting the previous Rate Design Stipulation with an equal percent increase to the Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Outdoor Lighting classes. The December 2004 stipulation is subject to the Commission's review for final approval. The resulting increase in residential base rates is slightly over 6 percent, which is $3.10 per month for typical residential usage of 1000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month.
Docket Nos. 15392 and 15393: On June 3, 2004, GPC and SEPCO filed an Application to Amend their Certifications granted by the Commission in December 2002 relating to two Power Purchase Agreements between GPC and SEPCO as buyers, and Southern Power Company as seller, of the McIntosh Combined Cycle Units 10 and 11 (“Plant McIntosh”). In addition to the CUC, interventions were filed by a number of interested parties. The Commission approved the amendment to allow rate base treatment of Plant McIntosh, but decreased the amount recoverable in base rates by $16.055 million from the companies’ request of $401 million plus the costs to complete the units, estimated at approximately $152 million, for a total of $453 million.
CUC # 04049, Docket No. 19042; Application of Savannah Electric and Power Company to Increase the Fuel Cost Recovery Allowance Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 46-2-26:
In July 2004, SEPCO filed its application to increase its fuel cost recovery (FCR) rates, effective November 2004. In September 2004, SEPCO filed amended fuel cost recovery schedules. The CUC conducted cross-examination and introduced several exhibits regarding the impact on residential customers. The Commission decided the matter on October 25, 2004, approving an increase of approximately 38 percent in the FCR rates. This covers an estimated annual fuel cost of $161.8 million for the year ending October 2005, which includes about $8.2 million plus carrying costs of a two-year amortization of deferred fuel balances approximating $16.4 million.
The Commission allowed SEPCO to include a 21-month amortization of its approximately $4 million investment in a coal transloader, with a useful life of 35 years, on the basis that this new plant item is being used to transfer coal received from ocean-going vessels onto a railroad spur that delivers the coal to Plant McIntosh. SEPCO’s proposal to break out the residential fuel costs into two tiers, with a higher fuel rate for usage above 750 kWh per month, was rejected. SEPCO’S request to predetermine regulatory treatment for nitrous oxide (NOx) allowance costs was rejected, with judgment being reserved until NOx costs are actually an issue. The Commission declined to make any change in SEPCO’s incentive mechanism for natural gas hedging, so SEPCO may keep 25 percent of any hedging gains realized in a calendar year.
CUC #s 04007 and 04030, Docket Nos. 17687 and 17688; Integrated Resource Plan Proceedings of Georgia Power Company and of Savannah Electric and Power Company (respectively):
On January 30, 2004, GPC and SEPCO (collectively “Companies”) separately submitted their Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) for approval under the IRP Act, O.C.G.A. Section 46-3A-1 et seq. The CUC participated in the hearings, held in three phases in April, May and June of 2004. Closing arguments and proposed final orders were filed by the CUC, the Companies, Commission Staff, and intervenors Alliance to Save Energy, Calpine, and Resource Supply Management (RSM). Other parties also had intervened, including Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, Georgia Industrial Group, Georgia Interfaith Power & Light, Georgia Textile Manufacturers Association, Homeowners Opposing Powerline Encroachment, Inc., Live Oaks Company, LLC, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The Commission issued its Final Order in both dockets on July 14, 2004.
The IRP Act requires each of the Companies to file IRPs at least every three years, showing the utility’s electric demand and energy forecast for at least 20 years; its program for meeting the forecast requirements in an economical and reliable manner; an analysis of all capacity resource options, including both demand-side and supply-side; and the assumptions used and conclusions reached regarding each option’s effect on future cost and reliability of electric service. The CUC filed a letter supporting the use of three tests, including specifically the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test, to evaluate DSM options. The RIM test screens out more Demand Side Management (DSM) options than any other test, because it tests whether the option would be revenue-neutral to avoid rate impacts on non-participating customers.
In this case the Commission also inquired whether its Rule 515-3-4-.04(3), Request for Proposals Procedure for Long-Term New Supply-Side Options, should be amended with respect to procedures, evaluation criteria, and need for an Independent Evaluator. The CUC met with the Companies, Commission Staff and interested intervenors regarding these issues and entered into a Joint Stipulation adopted by the Commission. The Joint Stipulation called for certain measures to be applied in future supply-side solicitations over which a Commission-selected Independent Evaluator would preside, and for a rulemaking to be conducted to amend Rule 515-3-4-.04(3) to adopt an Independent Evaluator for use in all future RFPs (Requests for Proposals).
With the Joint Stipulation and other modifications adopted by the Commission, the Companies’ IRPs were approved, including inter alia retaining the limitation that purchased power contracts not exceed 30 percent of total supply-side resources; updated forecasts; a target reserve margin for 2004-2006 at 13.5 percent, with 15 percent to be used for the rest of the study period; decertification of Plant Atkinson CT’s 5A and 5B; SEPCO to extend the life of the 17 MW Kraft CT unit; both Companies to inform the Commission of any changes in fuel price conditions, including impact on utility price forecasts and on the long-range IRP, and fuel forecast updates within each six-month Progress Report under Rule 515-3-4-.05; both Companies to further develop partnership with Energy Star® and more aggressively promote availability of energy audits for their customers; to offer programmable thermostats as part of low-income weatherization programs; GPC to increase its low-income weatherization funding by $300,000 (not recoverable from ratepayers) to $1.3 million annually for the next three years; SEPCO to increase its low-income weatherization funding by $30,000 (and attempt to avoid imposing this on ratepayers) to $130,000 annually for the next three years; GPC to fund up to $2 million, and SEPCO up to $200,000, for energy-efficiency awareness campaigns; the Companies to conduct further DSM screenings and evaluation; the Companies to increase efforts to contract for “green energy resources” or notify by filing by Sept. 1, 2005 for re-evaluation of their Green Power programs; creation of a Demand-Side Working Group by Staff, including all IRP parties, to meet periodically and file reports within ten days after each meeting, with a proposed DSM Plan to be submitted to the Commission by February 15, 2005.
Subsequently, in December 2004 the Commission approved its new process for the selection of the Independent Evaluator with respect to the RFP process for purchased power.
CUC # 04074, Docket No. 19741; Review of Savannah Electric and Power Company’s Coal Procurement Practices:
The Commission Staff is conducting discovery as of Dec. 7, 2004, with responses due from SEPCO in January 2005. This matter is related to the SEPCO fuel cost recovery proceeding (discussed above) and is ongoing.
CUC # 04064, Docket No. 19279; Biomass Gas & Electric, LLC’s Petition Regarding Forsyth County Renewable Energy Plant:
On July 19, 2004, Biomass Gas & Electric, LLC (BG&E) filed a petition with the Commission requesting a docket to evaluate BG&E’s renewable energy facility, its Forsyth Plant, for the ultimate purpose of ordering GPC to enter into a Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) to buy electricity produced at this Forsyth Plant. In this petition, BG&E contended that the Forsyth Plant, which has been certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a Qualifying Small Power Production Facility (QF), has the ability to produce 20MW capacity of clean renewable power that will cost less than power generated by other plants in GPC’s generation portfolio. In light of these attributes, BG&E requested that the Commission conduct a hearing to consider modifying the Company’s 2004 IRP Order to direct Georgia Power to enter into a contract with BG&E for the 20 MW of electricity produced by the Forsyth Plant.
In considering the arguments raised, Commission Staff contended that BG&E provided insufficient justification for not using the methodology established in 1994 in Docket No. 4822-U, Capacity and Energy Payments to Co-generators under PURPA, to sell electricity to the company. In that docket, the Commission issued an Order establishing a methodology to calculate avoided cost for the purpose of making payments to QFs. This Order further stated that long-term contracts were to be made available to any QF that could reliably supply electricity and accept the avoided cost determined in the RFP process, as long as there existed a need up to the level of capacity identified in the IRP.
The contents of these long-term contracts with GPC were standardized by the Commission in an Order dated January 17, 2003. BG&E noted that the criteria established in that docket rewards those projects with higher energy costs and lower capacity costs than those presently anticipated by its Forsyth Plant. Since BG&E believes that its Forsyth Plant will deliver power to Georgia consumers at rates below GPC’s existing coal- and natural gas-fired plants, it argued that a different means of calculating avoided costs should be created. BG&E also represented that Georgia consumers will benefit from significant positive externalities resulting from the Forsyth Plant and that the value of these externalities is not accounted for in the current avoided cost formula.
The Commission granted BG&E’s request to hold a hearing to examine the agency’s avoided cost calculation, its standard contract process and the weight that should be given to positive externalities in calculating avoided cost or in encouraging the use of renewable resources. Consistent with the CUC’s position regarding use of the RIM test in evaluating DSM options (see above regarding the IRP cases), the CUC conducted cross-examination, expressing concern to ensure that any decision not impose an undue rate impact on customers. Hearings were held December 6 and 7, 2004; the Commission is expected to issue its order January 18, 2005.
CUC # 04044, Docket No. 19225; Rulemaking to Amend IRP Rule 515-3-4-.04(3), Request for Proposals for Procedure for Long-Term New Supply-Side Options:
The Commission conducted this rulemaking during 2004; it is discussed above in the context of the Integrated Resource Plans, CUC file #s 04007 and 04030.
CUC # 04020, Docket No. 18639; Savannah Electric and Power Company’s Request for Approval of Amortization of the Cost of Plant Kraft to McIntosh Coal Transloader:
On March 23, 2004, SEPCO filed with the Commission a request for its coal transloader at Plant Kraft to be placed in its fuel costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 46-2-26. Under Georgia law, an electric utility is allowed to pass through costs to its customers by the fuel cost recovery process only if they are clearly and directly related to actual fuel costs and are prudently incurred. On June 1, 2004, the Commission held a hearing on SEPCO’s filing in which various interested parties were given an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence.
The Company and Commission Staff proposed a stipulation to resolve the issues and concerns raised at the hearing. The stipulation would have allowed for the coal transloader cost to be recovered as fuel costs and amortized over a 24-month period through a fuel cost recovery rider, with carrying costs at the Company’s short-term debt cost per month. It also proposed to calculate the carrying costs on the deferred fuel balance at SEPCO’s short-term debt rate for the month, instead of continuing to use the weighted average cost of capital. This proposal would become effective on July 1, 2004, and would result in a short-term debt rate of about 1 percent instead of the weighted average cost of capital, which is at 12.64 percent. The CUC filed a letter on June 23, 2004, opposing the proposed recovery of the costs related to the coal transloader as a fuel expense.
SEPCO’s purpose in building the coal transloader was to allow it to transport coal that arrives at Plant Kraft via ship and to Plant McIntosh via railroad. The desire is for SEPCO to be better equipped to import foreign coal, particularly from Venezuela, that may be cheaper than domestic coal from the Central Appalachian coal line. SEPCO seeks permission from the Commission to amortize the cost of the transloader as a recoverable fuel expense over a 24-month period, as opposed to using rate base and recovering the cost over 35 years. Ultimately the Commission decided to reject the proposed stipulation and instead considered the matter within the fuel cost recovery proceeding (above, CUC # 04049).
NATURAL GAS FILINGS
Case status as of December 31, 2004
CUC # 03085, Docket No. 12720: Consideration of Staff’s Notice of Proposed Rules to Amend Commission Utility Rule 515-7-6-.02(a)(10):
In response to the Notice of Proposed Rules (NOPR) issued on May 6, 2004, the CUC submitted comments fully supporting the NOPR’s proposed revision to Rule 515-7-6-.02(a)(10), such that the threshold for the minimum past due balance for which a marketer may apply a late fee to a customer’s account is increased from “less than $10.00” to “less than $50.00.” The CUC expressed similar sentiments regarding limiting marketers’ ability to impose late fees, both at the April 15, 2004 Energy Committee and in an April 19, 2004 letter to the Commission.
On December 8, 2004, the Commission issued another NOPR (comments are due January 13, 2005), in which it proposes to revise Rule 515-7-6-.02 such that a marketer “shall not apply a late fee to a customer’s account if the past due balance is less than $30.00.” Based on the Commissioners’ discussions at the December 7, 2004 Administrative Session, it seems this version of the NOPR is being put forward as a compromise proposal.
CUC # 04075, Docket No. 15326; Notice of Inquiry on “Public Interest” Standard for Applications to the Universal Service Fund:
A Notice of Inquiry (NOI) was issued on December 3, 2004. Comments are due January 14, 2005. The Natural Gas Consumers’ Relief Act, in O.C.G.A. § 46-4-161(a), identifies the purposes for which disbursements from the Universal Service Fund (USF) may be made. One such purpose is to enable the electing distribution company (i.e., Atlanta Gas Light Company [AGLC]) to expand its facilities and service “in the public interest.” The Commission issued this NOI to solicit comments from interested parties regarding what types of USF applications should be deemed to have met the “public interest” requirement.
Note: The CUC filed comments (in Docket No. 11588, the docket in which USF applications are filed) on September 29, 2004, in response to the Commission’s previous request for input from parties regarding a proposed standard for evaluating the “public interest” component of line extension applications. In these comments, the CUC stated that any request for line extension disbursements should be weighed against the other statutorily designated purposes eligible for USF funds, i.e., assisting low-income residential consumers in times of emergency as determined by the Commission, and consumers of the regulated provider of natural gas in accordance with O.C.G.A. §46-4-166.
Among the other factors the CUC encouraged the Commission to consider in creating a “public interest” standard were: 1) the time of year (e.g., the balance remaining in the fund to ensure emergency disbursements to Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) recipients is of utmost importance as winter approaches); 2) the amounts that have been disbursed, in any given year, towards each designated USF purpose; 3) what benefits, if any, would accrue to ratepayers as a result of the disbursement under consideration; and 4) the nature and net benefit of the end use (i.e., whether the requested disbursement will fund a much-needed school or hospital construction, as opposed to a shopping mall on the outskirts of town, which may merely shift any economic benefit from one location to another).
CUC # 04069, Docket No. 9205; Residential Gas Utility Service Disconnection; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
The PSC issued an NOPR on October 22, 2004. In its comments filed on November 19, 2004, CUC expressed strong support for Staff’s proposed revision to Rule 515-3-3-.02(B)(a), which clarified that it is only the past-due portion of the balance that must be paid in order for a consumer to avoid disconnection. The CUC also supported the proposed revisions requiring a consumer’s cash payment at a pay station to be posted to the consumer’s account within 24 hours and obligating a marketer not to refuse to offer a consumer a reasonable payment arrangement at any time prior to physical disconnection by AGLC, unless such consumer failed to honor a previous payment arrangement.
The PSC issued a second NOPR on December 22, 2004; comments are due on January 20, 2005.
CUC # 04060, NON-DOCKET: Staff’s Data Requests to All Gas Marketers re: Credit Balances:
During the process of transferring Energy America’s customers to SCANA Energy (when Energy America left the Georgia market), it came to the PSC’s attention that a number of customers’ accounts carried large credit balances. The PSC was concerned that consumers (especially elderly consumers and LIHEAP recipients) might be misinterpreting credit balance amounts as “amounts due” and therefore making payments when none was due (resulting in ever-larger credit balances).
In June, 2004, the CUC sent Consumer Affairs Staff a list of proposed questions to incorporate in Staff’s Data Requests to marketers. In August 2004, Staff issued Data Requests; marketers’ responses were filed in September 2004. Per PSC Consumer Affairs Staff in October 2004, Staff’s review of the Data Request responses showed that some marketers were carrying a large number of credit balances, while others seemed to have a reasonable number.
CUC # 04058, Docket No. 19219: City of Buford’s Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity:
The City of Buford filed its application on July 2, 2004, and subsequently withdrew it on October 28, 2004. Buford refiled its application on December 14, 2004. CUC has filed an entry of appearance and continues to monitor the case.
CUC # 04037, Docket No. 18638; Atlanta Gas Light Company’s 2004/2005 Rate Case: Procedural and Scheduling Order:
This rate case was filed in late 2004 and will be concluded in 2005. AGLC is requesting a total base rate increase of $24.6 million: $15.6 million from increased depreciation expenses; $5.6 million to cover other operating expenses, such as federally mandated pipeline integrity costs and changes in the property tax valuation method; and $3.4 million for capital expenses.
The CUC has hired an expert to consult and provide testimony on rate design issues. As of 12-31-04, CUC has issued two sets of Data Requests to AGL; PSC Staff has issued nine sets of discovery to AGLC. Hearings on AGLC’s Direct Case are set for Jan. 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2005. PSC Staff and Interveners’ testimony will be heard March 14-17, 2005. AGLC’s Rebuttal case will be heard April 11-12, 2005. Briefs and proposed orders are due April 19, 2005. The Commission’s Special Administrative Session to decide the Rate Case will be on April 28, 2005.
CUC # 04025, Docket No. 18723-U: Complaint of Atlanta Gas Light Company Against City of Buford, Georgia, for Unsafe Gas Operations:
In its April 8, 2004 Complaint, AGLC alleged that Buford is unreasonably interfering with the AGLC’s gas distribution system in Hall, Jackson, Barrow and Gwinnett Counties, by expanding and operating a gas distribution system in those counties in a manner that threatens the safety of residents and businesses. The relief sought by AGLC includes the Commission’s ordering Buford to cease and desist from unreasonably interfering with AGLC’s gas distribution system and from unsafe gas operation practices, and urging the Commission to protect Georgia citizens and property by issuing an NOPR to propose a rule prohibiting the future installation and operation of duplicative gas distribution systems in Georgia.
A hearing was held before a PSC hearing officer on December 9, 2004. The CUC participated in the hearing by conducting cross-examination of witnesses. Briefs and proposed orders are due on January 12, 2005.
CUC # 04013, Docket No. 18451-U; Application of Vectren Retail, LLC, d/b/a Vectren Source for Natural Gas Marketer Certificate of Authority:
Vectren Retail, LLC (“Vectren”) filed its application on February 20, 2004 (and, in response to Staff’s request, filed supplemental information of March 17 and 23, 2004). A hearing on the application was held on May 18, 2004. The CUC participated in the hearing by conducting cross-examination of Vectren's witness panel.
On June 17, the Commission issued its Interim Certificate Order (Certificate No. GM-0029), approving Vectren’s application.
CUC # 04031, Docket No. 18719: Request for Proposal for Sixth Interim Pooler:
On June 30, 2004, the Commission issued its Order designating Infinite Energy (“Infinite”) as Interim Pooler for the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The Order provides, among other things, that:
- The firm customers of a defaulting marketer shall be assigned to Infinite in total;
- The switch to the Interim Pooler shall not count as the customer’s annual “free switch;”
- If, during the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, Infinite is unable to fulfill its obligations as Interim Pooler, the Commission shall order random assignment to all certificated marketers if the Interim Pooler provision is invoked;
- Infinite shall promptly notify all customers assigned to them that they are serving as IP. Said notice shall inform the customers of the rates, terms and conditions of such service and inform the customers that they have the right to select a marketer of the customer’s choice;
- To the extent possible, AGLC shall coordinate any suspension of service to a marketer on AGLC’s system with the IP, so as to provide the IP with adequate notice.
- According to Staff at the June 10, 2004 Energy Committee, Infinite was the only marketer that submitted a bid to serve as IP for July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Staff recommended that the Commission either designate Infinite as IP or randomly assign affected customers to all certificated marketers, pursuant to Rule 515-7-4.
The CUC spoke before the Energy Committee, encouraging the Commission to choose Staff Recommendation No. 2, Random Assignment.
The CUC pointed out that, according to Staff, for the period of May 2002 through May 2004, Infinite’s variable rate exceeded the marketer average variable rate for 24 out of 25 months. The CUC argued that Georgia consumers assigned to Infinite as the Interim Pooler would be disadvantaged since, although these customers would have the option to choose a marketer other than Infinite, the data showed that the switching rate among Georgia consumers is strikingly low (less than one percent of customers per month), thus seeming to indicate that the Georgia natural gas marketplace is far from fully developed.
The CUC also pointed out that, in its RFP, the Commission reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted and to randomly assign affected customers to all certificated marketers, pursuant to Commission Utility Rule 515-7-4.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FILINGS
Case status as of December 31, 2004
CUC # 04055, Docket No. 6290-U; AT&T’s Certificate of Authority to provide Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Service ($3.95) Monthly Recurring Charge:
From January through May 2004, the PSC received 27 consumer complaints regarding AT&T’s assessment of the Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC). AT&T represented that 44,972 Georgia consumers were affected by this billing error: 35,269 of whom were not AT&T customers and 9,703 who were AT&T customers. AT&T claims to have credited or refunded all customers the amounts billed in error and to have implemented a number of processes aimed at preventing future billing errors.
The CUC met with PSC Consumer Affairs Staff and an Assistant Attorney General on December 17, 2004, to review a proposed Stipulation. The Stipulation has since been sent, and AT&T will respond by January 10, 2005.
CUC # 04053, Docket No. 19393-U; Generic Proceeding to Examine Local Exchange Carriers’ Policies Pertaining to Digital Subscriber Line Service:
This generic docket was established by the Commission in August, 2004, to investigate carrier policies that require a customer to receive its voice service in order to receive its digital subscriber line (DSL) service. In an earlier case involving a complaint filed by MCI against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BST - Docket No. 11901-U), the Commission declared unlawful BST’s policy of requiring a customer to receive its voice service in order to receive its DSL service.
In a subsequent arbitration case between ITC DeltaCom and BST (Docket No. 16583-U), the Commission determined that BST should not be allowed to deny ITC DeltaCom’s voice customers the option of receiving BST’s DSL service. Subsequently, language was incorporated into BST and ITC DeltaCom’s interconnection agreement as to the DSL issue as ordered by the Commission. Thereupon, BellSouth filed a Motion to Reject the Interconnection Agreement because the amended agreement violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act and a federal district court case in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. AT&T Communications of Wisconsin (W.D. Wisc, July 1, 2004).
After the above two orders were issued, the Commission learned of additional instances where subscribers were denied a company’s DSL service if it wasn’t also tied into the company’s voice service. Hence, the Commission initiated a docket to investigate the scope of local exchange carriers’ policies in this matter. Staff issued various data requests to local incumbent exchange carriers soliciting company policy concerning tying arrangements between voice service and DSL service. The CUC’s concerns in this matter revolve around the issue of whether a voice service/DSL tying arrangement constitutes anti-competitive behavior on the part of the carriers in violation of State law. Hearings will be held on January 31, February 1, and February 2, 2005.
CUC # 04034, Docket No. 16963-U; Application of Business Network Long Distance, Inc. for Certificate of Authority to Resell Interexchange Communications Services:
On May 25, 2004, the CUC’s telecommunications attorney received an e-mail from the chair of the National Association of State Utility Advocates Telecom Committee. The e-mail alerted Committee members to Business Network Long Distance, Inc.’s (BNLD) having “slammed” a Qwest customer. The CUC’s attorney forwarded this e-mail to CUC Staff and the Consumer Affairs Division of the Georgia PSC.
The Commission’s November 10, 2004 Telecom Committee Consent Agenda included Staff’s recommendation to extend BNLD’s INTERIM certificate (R-0910) for four months. According to PSC Staff, the PSC is still investigating the complaints received in Georgia.
At its November 18, 2004 Administrative Session, the PSC approved Staff’s request to extend the certificate for four months (to expire on March 18, 2005).
CUC # 04032,Docket No. 18870-U; PSC Generic Proceeding to Investigate ALL Local and Long Distance Telephone Charges from Institutional/Correctional Facilities:
On May 4, 2004, the PSC voted to reject a proposed rule related to Institutional Telecommunications Service (ITS), stating that rather than addressing ITS rates through a rulemaking, it would be more appropriate to initiate a contested case proceeding to determine just and reasonable rates for ITS. (See also: summary of CUC # 04011, Docket No. 17990; Consideration of Petition by McNeill Stokes for a Rulemaking to Adopt new Commission Utility Rules re: Institutional Telecom Services)
In addition to participation by Staff and the CUC in this matter, interventions were filed by AT&T, Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC), Global Tel*Link Corporation, MCI WorldCom Telecommunications Inc. (“MCI WorldCom”), Pay-Tel Communications, Inc. (“Pay-Tel”) and Sprint. In addition, the Georgia Sheriffs Association filed a Letter of Concern with the Commission on August 5, 2004. Post-hearing briefs were filed by the CUC, Inmate Calling Solutions, MCI WorldCom, AT&T, GDOC and Pay-Tel on September 2, 2004.
In its December 13, 2004 Order the Commission found that, although commissions are not used or useful in the provision of telecom service, they are used to fund necessary programs at the facilities, and therefore it best serves the public interest to implement gradually the removal of the commissions from ITS rates. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that, through the end of Fiscal Year 2005, the rates for ITS should remain at their existing level. At the beginning of each fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the rates for intraLATA (local) and interLATA (long-distance) ITS calls shall be reduced by one quarter of the difference between the existing rates and the rates proposed by the Staff in this docket, so that after the fourth and final adjustment, the rates for local, intraLATA and interLATA calls will be the same as those that the Staff has recommended. The rate for local ITS calls shall not change.
CUC # 04036, Docket No. 18718-U; Request by Rural Telephone Carriers/Cooperatives for Suspension of Wireline to Wireless Number Portability Obligations Pursuant to Section 251(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended:
On April 6, 2004, eleven members of the Georgia Telephone Association (GTA) filed a petition requesting suspension of the FCC’s May 24, 2004 deadline for wireline-to-wireless portability (“intermodal portability”) in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as outlined in its November 10, 2003 Intermodal Order.
PSC Staff recommended that the Commission grant an extension to December 31, 2004, and that the Petitioners file status reports with the Commission every 60 days during the extension period.
CUC spoke before the Commission, indicating that Staff’s definitive deadline is appropriate and fair, and that the Staff’s recommendation regarding status reports will ensure that consumers’ interests and the goals of promoting choice and competition are protected. In its May 25, 2004 Order Granting Limited Extension, the Commission adopted the Staff’s recommendation.
CUC # 03006, Docket No. 16197; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. (Negotiated Interconnection Agreement): Consideration of BellSouth’s Motion to Reject and Supra’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike:
On November 8, 2002, BST filed a motion to reject the interconnection agreement between it and Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. (“Supra”). (Background information: Supra filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy court protection on October 23, 2002, amidst allegations by BST that Supra owed BST approximately $100 million in Florida, where BST and Supra competed in the local service market—i.e., Supra leased BST lines on the Unbundled Network Element platform.) On January 7, 2003, the PSC decided to conduct a review of Supra’s financial and technical capability.
The CUC filed a letter with the Commissioners on May 3, 2004, stating that it shared the concerns as to Supra’s continued viability. Similarly, the CUC supported the Commission’s request that Supra provide supplemental information pertaining to the Corporate Governance Model Supra filed with the Bankruptcy Court, with specific information about the three-member Board of Directors and the new CEO.
According to PSC Staff, Supra was sold as of October 26, 2004. On December 2, 2004, a Joint Petition of Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. and H.I.G. Supra, Inc. for Grant of Authority to Transfer Telecommunications Services Provided to Shared Tenant Service Customers was filed in Docket No. 9652 (Supra’s Certification Docket).