The petitioners argue that the chip-in charge should be rejected without further investigation or, failing that, the Commission should suspend the filing rather than permit it to remain in effect subject to refund. The petitioners had heard that USWC intended to withdraw the proposed tariffs it submitted in compliance with Order No. 97-171. That would not include the tariff for the chip-in charge. The petitioners request the Commission to schedule a prehearing conference to establish a procedural schedule and an issues list for the investigation of the chip-in tariff. As they argued with respect to the chip-in charge, and for the same reasons, the joint petitioners urge that the Commission should set a schedule for considering the LIDB independently of the UT 125 Phase II schedule.
Staff agrees with the joint petitioners' original petition with respect to the chip-in charge.
Staff points out that the Commission has authority to modify and terminate parties' contracts and agreements as part of its ongoing regulation of utility services and rates. However, Staff believes that such action should not be taken at this time. Staff points out that the stipulation embodies a number of compromises by various parties and the parties to the agreement contemplated that the costs and rates for the services covered by the stipulation would be reviewed after completion of UM 351. USWC has prepared separate cost studies for each tariff, which can be investigated separately. But for the fact that UT 125 was extant when the USWC proposed these changes, they would have been investigated separately.