HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 17, 1998AGENDA TITLE: Order Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Instituting Rulemaking
On the Commission's Own Motion into the Statewide Expansion of Public Policy Pay
Telephones
MEETING DATE: June 17, 1998
PREPARED BY: City Clerk
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only, no action required.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Clerk's Office has received an Order before the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California instituting rulemaking on the
commission's own motion into the Statewide expansion of public policy pay
telephones (Exhibit A). This is information only, no Council action is required.
FUNDING: None
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
APPROVED:
H. Don Flynn -- City Manager,
EXHIBIT62
A
ALJ/MFG/mrj *1 MAILED 5/
'ten
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF,.. E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking on the !'T ;,' F I L E D
Commission's own motion into the stateWjde � 1'IJBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
expansion of public policy pay telephones. May 21,1998
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
R.98-05-031
ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING
Summary
By this order, we open a rulemaking proceeding to assess the adequacy of
our public policy pay telephone program (payphone program or program), and
the need to expand the program statewide, change the payphone enforcement
program, and establish funding of the programs on a fair and equitable basis.
Public policy payphones are payphones made available to the general public in
the interest of public health, safety, and welfare at locations where there would
otherwise not be a payphone.
Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deregulated payphones
effective April 15,1997, to promote competition among Payphone Service
Providers and to encourage widespread deployment of payphone services to the
benefit of the general public, as required by Section 276 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). The terms and conditions of this
deregulation action are set forth in the FCC's final rules in its investigation into
Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (FCC Docket No.96-128 as adopted and released
18149 - 1 -
—-1531 ALJ/MFG/mrj #
on September 20,1996, and published in the October 7,1996 Federal Register
Volume 61, No.61, pages 52307 through 52325).
Public Policy Payphones
The FCC, consistent with Section 276(b)(2) of the Act, considered whether
public policy payphones should be maintained and, if so, how to ensure that
such payphones are supported fairly and equitably. The FCC concluded that
there is a need to ensure the maintenance of public policy payphones in locations
where, as a result of competition and the elimination of subsidies which helped
to support such payphones in the past, there might not otherwise be a payphone.
Although the FCC adopted specific guidelines to ensure that these payphones are
funded fairly and equitably, it left the primary responsibility for administering
and funding such payphones to the individual states.
We have discretion with respect to funding a statewide public policy
payphone program, so long as the funding mechanism fairly and equitably
distributes the cost of such a program, and does not involve the use of subsidies
prohibited by Section 276(b)(1)(B) of the Act. State programs supporting public
policy payphones are also subject to Section 253(b) of the Act which requires that
such a program be implemented on a competitively neutral basis.
The FCC, in furtherance of its statutory responsibility under Section
276(b)(2) of the Act, requires each state to review whether the state has
adequately provided for public policy payphones in a manner consistent with
FCC Docket No.96-128. It also requires each state to evaluate whether it needs to
take any measures to ensure that payphones serving important public interests
will continue to exist in light of the elimination of subsidies and other
competitive provisions, pursuant to Section 276 of the Act. The FCC requires this
review and evaluation of public policy payphones to be completed by
November 8,1998.
-2-
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
Although California does not currently have a statewide public policy
payphone program, a public policy payphone program has been in place for
Pacific Bell's and GTE California Incorporated's (GTEC) service territories since
1990, pursuant to Decision (D.) 90-06-018 (36 CPUC2d 446 (1990)) issued in
Investigation 88-04-029, an investigation into the regulation of payphones.
Given our desire to encourage as many parties as possible to participate in
the restructuring of California's public policy payphone program, and in
consideration of the FCC's November 8,1998 date for completion of our program
review, the Commission's Telecommunications Division held and completed a
public meeting to review and address the FCC's public interest payphone
guidelines set forth in Docket No.96-128 for the purpose of recommending to the
Commission revised procedures for the deployment and funding of a California
statewide public policy payphone program. This public meeting was held on
November 12,1997. All local exchange carriers (LECs), competitive local
exchange carriers (CLCs), payphone service providers (PSPs), as well as a
number of consumer organizations were invited to attend the public workshop.
Participants from all groups were represented at the public meeting.
The Telecommunications Division has reviewed and considered the
existing payphone program and discussions which took place at the public
meeting to identify program changes to be considered in this rulemaking. Any
expansion of a public policy payphone program impacts the payphone
enforcement program. Hence, changes to the payphone enforcement program,
identified in Appendix A, also need to be considered. Appendix A to this
rulemaking identifies the existing program criteria and the Telecommunications
Division suggested changes for the public policy payphone and payphone
enforcement programs. All respondents and interested parties are invited to
comment on the current program and suggested changes within 60 days after the
-3-
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
issuance of this rulemaking. Replies, if any, to the comments should be filed
within ten days after the date comments are filed with the Docket Office.
Any change to the program directly impacts the public. Hence, the public
should be given an opportunity to comment on the current program and
suggested changes. Accordingly, the Telecommunications Division will hold
public participation workshops to obtain comments from the public on the
current program and issues being considered in this rulemaking. The
workshops, selected to ensure representation of both urban and rural
communities, will be held in Fresno, Huntington Beach, San Francisco, and
Redding as specified in Appendix A. In addition, the Telecommunications
Division should have in attendance at each location a representative who can
explain the current public policy payphone program and suggested changes.
The Telecommunications Division should submit a compliance filing with
the Docket Office summarizing the results of its public participation workshops
no later than July 20, 1998. A copy of the compliance filing should be served on
the service list for this proceeding, including those identified as "State Service."
Responses, if any, to the workshop report should be filed with the Docket Office
within ten days after the workshop report is filed. A copy of the response should
be served on the parties listed on the service list for this proceeding, and those
listed as "State Service."
Respondent Parties
Any assessment of our public policy payphone program requires the
cooperation of all LECs and CLCs. Hence, the LECs and CLCs should be named
respondents to this rulemaking.
SB 960 (Ch.96-0856) Preliminary Scoping Memo
The rules and procedures implementing many of the reforms contained in
Senate Bill (SB) 960 are found in Article 2.5 of our Rules of Practice and Procedure
-4-
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
(Rules), which are posted on the Commission's web site . -
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov). Pursuant to Rule 4(a), the rules in Article 2.5 shall
apply to this proceeding.
Pursuant to Rule 6( C )(2), we preliminarily determine the categorization of
this rulemaking proceeding to be "quasi -legislative," as that term is defined in
Rule 5(d) to include proceedings that establish policy or rules affecting a class of
regulated entities, including those proceedings in which the Commission
investigates rates or practices for an entire regulated industry or class of entities
within the industry.
Consistent with the quasi -legislative category of this proceeding, we
anticipate that there may be full panel hearings where we will receive
information on legislative facts (that is, general facts that help us decide questions
of law and policy and discretion (Rule 8(f)(3)). At this time, we do not see a need
for hearings for the presentation of adjudicative facts (which answer questions
such as who did what, where, when, how, why, or with what motive of intent
(Rule 8(f)(1)). We intend to resolve this proceeding by the FCC's
November 8,1998 completion date, as detailed in the proposed timetable in
Appendix B. However, in no event will this rulemaking proceeding remain open
for more than 18 months. Commissioner Bilas and Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Galvin are assigned to this proceeding.
As required in Rule 6( C )(2), any person filing a response to this
rulemaking shall state in that response any objections to the order regarding the
category, need for evidentiary hearings, need for an opportunity to make an oral
argument, preliminary scope, and timetable as set forth in Appendix B to this
rulemaking. Any such response should be filed within ten days after the
effective date of this rulemaking.
-5-
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj *
If any person believes that an evidentiary hearing for the presentation of
adjudicative facts is required in this proceeding, they must file a motion as part of
their response to the rulemaking. The motion must request an evidentiary
hearing and justify the need for an evidentiary hearing by identifying the
material disputed factual issues on which a hearing should be held. In addition,
the motion should identify the general nature of the adjudicative evidence that
person proposes to introduce at the requested hearing. Any right a party may
otherwise have to an evidentiary hearing for the presentation of adjudicative
facts will be waived if they do not follow the above procedure for a timely
request.
Commissioner Bilas will issue a final scoping memo within ten days after
the filing of responses to this rulemaking. Rule 6.4 provides for appeal of
categorization, which may only _occur after the Assigned Commissioner issues a
ruling, pursuant to Rule 6( C )(2), on category, the need for hearings, and the
scoping memo.
Any persons interested in participating in this rulemaking who are
unfamiliar with Commission procedures, should contact the Commission's
Public Advisor Office at either (415) 703-2074 or (213) 897-3544.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. A rulemaking is instituted on the Commission's own motion to assess the
adequacy of our public policy payphone program, and the need to expand the
program statewide, change the payphone enforcement program, and establish
funding of the programs on a fair and equitable basis. The rulemaking will
consider public policy reforms instituted by the Federal Communications
Commission. The focus of this rulemaking, shall be on the current payphone
criteria and suggested changes set forth in Appendix A to this rulemaking.
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
2. Any person or representative of an entity interested in participating in the
rulemaking as a party must send a letter to the Commission's Process Office
identifying the extent of their participation and party status within ten days from
the date of this order. Any person or representatives of an entity not seeking
party status but interested in being placed on the "Information Only" portion of
the service list must send a letter to the Commission's Process Office within ten
days from the date of this order. A service list shall be created and distributed
within 20 days from the date of this order.
3. Pursuant to Rule 6 ( C )(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, we preliminary determine the categorization of this rulemaking
proceeding to be "quasi -legislative," as that term is defined in Rule 5(d).
Consistent with the quasi -legislative categorization of this proceeding there may
be hearings at which we anticipate receiving information on legislative facts. At
this time, we do not see a need for hearings for the presentation of adjudicative
facts.
4. All local exchange telephone companies (LECs) and competitive local
carriers (CLCs) are named respondents to this rulemaking.
5. Respondents and interested parties may file and serve comments on the
current payphone criteria and suggested changes to the payphone policy
attached as Appendix A to this rulemaking with the Docket Office within 60 days
from the date of this order. Replies, if any, to the comments shall be filed and
served within ten days after the date comments are filed with the Docket Office.
6. Any party or interested person may file a response to this rulemaking
within ten days after the effective date of this order. As required in Rule 6( C )(2),
any party filing a response shall state in that response any objections to the order
regarding category, need for hearing, and preliminary scoping memo, including
the description of issues and the timetable for resolving this proceeding.
-7-
R.98-05-031 ALJ / MFG / mrj *
7. If any party to this proceeding believes that an evidentiary hearing for the
presentation of adjudicative facts is required in this proceeding that party must
file a motion as part of its response to the rulemaking set forth in Ordering
Paragraph 6 of this rulemaking. Any right a party may otherwise have to an
evidentiary hearing for the presentation of adjudicative facts will be waived if the
party does not follow this procedure for a timely request.
8. The Telecommunications Division shall hold public participation
workshops in Fresno, Huntington Beach, San Francisco, and Redding on the
specific dates and locations detailed in Appendix A to this rulemaking.
9. The Telecommunications Division shall submit a compliance filing with the
Docket Office summarizing the results of its public participation workshops no
later than July 20, 1998. A copy of this compliance filing shall be served on the
parties listed on the service list for this proceeding and on those listed as "State
Service." Replies, if any, to the compliance filing shall be filed with the Docket
Office no later than ten days after the compliance filing is filed with the Docket
Office. Copies of any replies shall also be served on the parties of record and
"State Service."
10. In no event shall this rulemaking proceeding remain open for more than
18 months.
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
11. The Executive Director shall cause a copy of this rulemaking to be served
upon respondent LECs and CLCs, the service list of Investigation 88-04-029, and
on all cities and counties within California.
This order is effective today.
Dated May 21,1998, at San Francisco, California.
RICHARD A. BILAS
President
P. GREGORY CONLON
JESSIE J. KNIGHT, JR.
HENRY M. DUQUE
JOSIAH L. NEEPER
Commissioners
R.98-05-031 AW/MFG/mrj
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC POLICY PAYPHONES
I. GUIDELINES
The existing criteria for placement of Public Policy Payphones (PPP) in PacBell and
GTEC service areas consists of the following:
• An entity (including but not limited to a city or county government, airport
authority or shopping center) is not permitted a (PPP) if it has a contract for
compensation from a Payphone Service Provider (PSP)
• No other payphones may be located at the same address
• The station agent upon whose property the PPP is located agrees to no
compensation
• The public must be granted unrestricted access to the PPP
• The station agent agrees to post signs outside and inside directing public to
PPP
• One of the following conditions must be met:
location must be designated as an emergency aid gathering place OR
phone is Iocated where residents cannot individually subscribe because of
unavailability of facilities for access OR
there is no other payphone within 50 yards of the PPP
The Telecommunications Division (TD) suggests adding the following criteria for the
statewide program:
• Necessity based on public service, health and safety
• In determining profitability, all revenue sources should be considered, i.e.,
interconnection fee arrangements and call termination
• Seasonal businesses may be considered, but revenue must be annualized to
determine profitability
• Private clubs should be excluded even if placement allows public access
II. FUNDING
The current program is funded through a portion of the surcharge on pay telephone lines
in PacBell and GTEC service territories only.
TD Recommends that funding for the state-wide program be achieved through a portion
of the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service surcharge. Using the surcharge will result in
all customers contributing to PPP funding. To ensure a smooth transition, TD
recommends that the current funding level remain in effect until 12/31/98 with the new
funding beginning on 1/1/99, or as otherwise determined by the Commission.
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj W°
APPENDIX A
Public Policy Payphones
III. ADMINISTRATION
The current program provides for review of applications by a panel comprised of PacBell,
GTEC and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA).
TD Recommends establishing a committee with a representative from the Public Utilities
Commission staff from the Consumer Services Division, the ORA, and a representative
from the Department of Consumer Affairs. The Committee will generate Requests for
Proposals for installation of PPPs, using state procurement guidelines. The Committee or
a state agency will collect Surcharge funds and disburse for expenses after approval by
the Program Manager in the Telecommunication Division's Public Programs Branch,.
TD recommends that the Payphone Service Provider Enforcement Program (PSPEP) be
expanded to a state-wide basis along with the new PPP program, and that the funding for
the enforcement program will be an equal surcharge on all pay telephone lines instead of
the different surcharge levels currently used
TD recommends that the surcharge for the PSPEF be eliminated until the surplus funds of
approximately $2 million are used.
IV. PLACEMENT
The existing program provides for placement of Public Policy Payphones by PacBell and
GTEC only.
TD Recommends bidding by counties to equalize the opportunity for all Payphone
Service Providers. Bidding must follow state procurement rules awarding contract to
lowest bidder although other factors may be considered. If some counties receive no bids
to provide service, the Committee may negotiate with any PSP for service. Contracts for
providing PPPs should be for 3 to 5 years to allow for cost recovery. Existing PacBell
and GTEC contracts will be honored, but upon expiration, the new program will apply.
For bidding purposes, PacBell and GTEC must supply information regarding the number
and location, by county, of existing PPP contracts and their expiration dates.
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/nrj
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC POLICY PAYPHONES
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Redding
Monday, June 22, 1998
7 to 9 PM
Redding Senior Center
2290 Benton Dr.
Redding, CA 96003
San Francisco
Tuesday, June 23, 1998
7to9PM.
California Public Utilities Commission, Hearing Room A
505 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Huntington Beach
Thursday, June 25, 1998
7 to 9 PM
City Council Chambers
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fresno
Monday, June 29, 1998
7to9PM
Fresno City Hall, City Council Chambers
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(End of Appendix A)
3
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC POLICY PAYPHONE PROGRAM
Proposed Timetable
DATE ACTIVITY
May 21,1998 Commission issues Rulemaking Proceeding.
June 1, 1998 Notice of participation and party status.
June 1, 1998 Responses to Rulemaking regarding category,
need for evidentiary hearings, need for oral
argument, and preliminary scope and timetable.
June 10, 1998 Service list distributed.
June 11, 1998, Assigned Commissioner's scoping memo.
June 22, 1998 Appeals, if any, to categorization.
June 26, 1998 Responses, if any, to appeals of categorization.
July 20, 1998 Comments on the payphone program criteria
and suggested changes.
Compliance filing on results of public
participation workshops.
July 30, 1998 Replies to public participation workshop
compliance filing, if any.
Replies, if any, to comments; proposed submittal
date.
R.98-05-031 ALJ/MFG/mrj
September 11, 1998
October 1, 1998
October 6, 1998
November 5,1998
Draft decision issued for comment.
Comments filed on draft decision.
Reply to comments filed on draft decision.
Commission Order.
(End of Appendix B)