adhere to the service quality standards in GO 133-D, and that the Commission adopt the penalty mechanism to ensure that the telephone corporations comply.” While the Commission did not adopt the specific penalty mechanisms and designs proposed by TURN, it did implement a penalty mechanism in GO 133 where none existed before. Moreover, some elements of TURN’s proposal are incorporated into the adopted mechanism that is designed to address a carrier’s “chronic failure status” and is calculated using the relative number of access lines the carrier has in California. For example, the fines cover Out of Service, Answer Time and Trouble Report rate. These are all elements of the proposal put forth by TURN’s expert Dr. Roycroft. 4. Performance Metrics Throughout the proceeding, most of the largest carriers in the state argued that the Commission should impose fewer service quality metrics or eliminate the metrics all together. Indeed, in comments on the OIR early in the proceeding AT&T argued it should not be subject to any service quality regulations and Verizon proposed a massive weakening of the current requirements in GO 133-C. The carriers argued that competition and technology protects consumers without need for regulatory intervention. For support of their argument, they pointed to other states that purported to eliminate or weaken their own service quality standards. The carriers urged the Commission to take a similar path. TURN, along with other consumer groups and intervenors not only opposed the carriers’ attempts to weaken G.O. 133 standards, but provided expert testimony and detailed OIR, p.10, 13 TURN/NCLC/CforAT Opening Comments on OIR, January 31, 2012, p. 3-5 TURN/NCLC/CforAT Joint Reply Comments on OIR, March 1, 2012, p. 3-9 AT&T Opening Comments on OIR, January 31, 2012, p. 6-7, 14-15 SureWest Telephone Reply Comments on OIR, March 1, 2012, p. 1-3 Verizon Reply Comments on OIR, March 1, 2012, p. 17-26 AT&T Reply Comments on Sept 2014 Scoping Memo, p. 2-4. Joint Consumers Reply Comments on Sept 2014 Scoping Memo, November 13, 2014, Roycroft Declaration p. 19-20 Final Decision at p. 23 Verified.
the duration of any exemption from compliance with standards should be “consistent with the duration of the actual emergency conditions.” not adopting all of TURN’s recommendations, the revisions to the reporting requirement strengthen the G.O. standard by adding language that specifies when a catastrophic event begins and ends, thereby narrowing the exemption or waiver for noncompliance with the standards. The revisions also require carriers to provide specific data the catastrophic event and related outages in every quarterly report where such an event may impact compliance with the standards, no longer exempting the carrier from reporting the outages if they cause a delay of a month or more. 6. Geographic Granularity Joint Consumers argued that the existing General Order metrics did not give the Commission an accurate picture of the affected communities and reliance on federal reporting for outages misses outages that impact smaller communities. Along with general calls to eliminate the standards, carriers generally opposed proposals to obtain more specific geographic data for outage reporting, arguing that existing reporting requirements provide sufficient information and increased detail would be burdensome. The Final Decision discussed Joint Consumers’ proposal to use zip codes to identify sparsely populated areas impacted by outages. Joint Consumers supported a Staff proposal to require carriers to include zip code information in the raw trouble report data. The Final Decision agreed, requiring carriers to provide zip code information on trouble TURN/NCLC/CforAT Opening Comments on OIR, January 31, 2012, p. Roycroft Declaration, p. 33 Joint Consumers Reply Comments on Sept 2014 Scoping Memo, November 13, 2014, p. 10, Roycroft Declaration p. 31 AT&T Opening Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision, July 12, 2016, p. 2 Final Decision, p. 12-13 Verified.
Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC Award ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* $ Rate $ Total $ Christine Mailloux 2016 1.75 $445 ALJ-329 $778.75 1.75 445.00 $778.75 Christine Mailloux 2015 2.75 $440 D.16-04-031 $1,210.00 2.75 440.00 $1,210.00 Christine Mailloux 2014 4.5 $440 D.15-06-018, p. 24 $1,980.00 4.50 440.00 $1,980.00 Christine Mailloux 2013 4.75 $430 D.14-04-021 $2,042.50 4.75 430.00 $2,042.50 Christine Mailloux 2012 2.75 $420 D.13-11-020 $1,155.00 2.75 420.00 $1,155.00 Leslie Mehta 2014 29 $310 D.16-03-027 $8,990.00 29.00 310.00 $8,990.00 Tom Long 2014 7.5 $570 D.15-06-021 $4,275.00 7.50 570.00 $4,275.00 Tom Long 2013 3 $555 D.14-05-015 $1,665.00 3.00 555.00 $1,665.00 Regina Costa 2016 29.00 $305 ALJ-329 $8,845.00 29.00 305.00 $8,845.00
ATTORNEY INFORMATION Attorney Date Admitted to CA BAR Member Number Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?) Christine Mailloux 12/10/93 167918 No William Nusbaum 6/7/83 108835 No, but inactive from January 1, 1997 until October 4, 2002. Tom Long 12/11/86 124776 No Leslie Mehta 12/03/08 258512 No, but inactive from March 1, 2010 until April 6, 2010 and from February 12, 2016 until July 20, 2016. D. PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS Within 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staff or any other party may file a response to the Claim (see § 1804(c)) A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim? No. B. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))? Yes. FINDINGS OF FACT The Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.13-02-023, D.15-08-041, and D.16-08-021. The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The of reasonable compensation is $336,214.57. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.