d. Are there any implications for public safety from the transaction? 2.1. Positions Regarding Compliance with Applicable Provisions of the Public Utilities Code 2.1.1. Applicants’ Position While Applicants dispute the applicability of §§ 854(b) and (c), as noted above, they nonetheless lay out how their Transaction meets those provisions’ basic requirements. Even if they do apply, Applicants contend, the Commission should waive review under those sections, given the highly competitive marketplace in which the subject utilities operate. To the extent Applicants offer assertions about the way in which the Transaction provides the type of benefits required under § 854(b), we discuss them below. 2.1.1.1. Short and Long Term Economic Benefits of the Transaction, § 854(b)(1) Applicants claim the transfers may result in significant economic benefits for California consumers and local economies. Among other things, they assert, the transfers may yield significant synergy savings, which may be spread across a variety of platforms and services and can result in increased investment and improved and expanded voice and enterprise services. 2.1.1.2. Allocation of the Economic Benefits of the Transaction, § 854(b)(2) Because they do not that § 854(b) applies to the Transaction, Applicants do not state how the transaction “equitably allocates, where the commission has ratemaking authority, the total short-term and long-term forecasted benefits of the transaction, “ with “[r]atepayers ... receiv[e] not less than 50 percent of those benefits.” (§ 854(b)(2).)
commercial accounts that are currently unavailable to any of the individual companies. They are also persuasive that Charter’s current offerings to its enterprise customers are highly competitive when compared with similar offerings from other companies serving that space. ORA’s witnesses Gallardo and Clark are persuasive that current service levels for the voice service customers of TWCIS and Bright House California and the broadband customers of Charter Fiberlink are low in comparison with levels of service received from other providers. If New Charter merely maintains the current service levels of its constituent companies, it may technically satisfy the statutory requirement but it is difficult to conclude that such a result is in the public interest when current service levels are unsatisfactory. At a minimum New Charter should, within a reasonable time after the closing of the Transaction, provide voice and broadband service levels that are comparable to the average service levels of its competitors. According to Joint Applicants, the parent company merger will lead to significantly improved services to the customers of the licensed subsidiaries. We will hold them to that statement and require, as a condition of approving the Transaction, a concrete plan for remedying the service deficiencies of their licensed subsidiaries as soon as possible following completion of the Transaction. With that proviso, we conclude that, as modified herein and spelled out more fully in the ordering paragraphs of this decision, the Transaction meets the requirements of § 854(c)(2).
shall provide all data requested by the Commission and ORA to conduct the audit and verification. If New Charter fails to perform and comply with the conditions imposed by this decision, the Commission may pursue appropriate enforcement remedies, including the imposition of fines. For purposes of this paragraph, “New Charter” means the Joint Applicants’ successor company or future parent that will result from the proposed parent corporation merger, whatever its name may be, e.g., “Charter Communications, Inc.” Good cause having been shown, all pending motions for confidential treatment of information produced in response to data requests, or contained in briefs or in expert testimony including the exhibits thereto, are granted for a period of three years from the effective date of this decision. During this period, this information shall not be publicly disclosed except on further Commission order or Administrative Law Judge ruling. If parties believe it is necessary for this information to remain under seal for longer than three years, they may file a new motion showing good cause for extending this order no later than 30 days before the expiration of this order. Application 15-07-009 is closed. This order is effective today. Dated , at Sacramento, California.