Performance audit, Residential Utility Consumer Office, Residential Utility Consumer Board

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER BOARD
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
July 1986
86- 6
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AIJDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
July 24, 1986
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Susan A. Williams, Director
Residential Util i ty Consumer Office
John Ahearn, Chairman
Resi denti a1 Uti 1 i ty Consumer Board
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General , A Performance
Audit of the Residential Util ity Consumer Office and Residential Util ity
Consumer Board. This report i s i n response to the July 26, 1985
resol ution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Cornmi ttee.
The report addresses several areas for the Office's improvement. We found
that RUCO could increase i t s effectiveness in u t i l i t y cases by improving
i t s case preparation, limiting i t s workload and prioritizing i t s work. In
addition, we found RUCO could have a greater impact on case outcomes by
strengthening i t s legal writing. Finally, we found that RUCO appears to
1 ack authority t o investigate consumer complaints. The report a1 so
contains sunset factors regarding the Board's operations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Respectfully submitted,
+ Q+?* vb4F-Doug1
R. Morton
~ u dtoi r General
Staff: William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Deborah A. Klein
Michael J. Friedman
Vivian A. Look
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
RESIGENTIAL UTILITY CONSUPIER OFFICE
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t o f the
Residential U t i l i ty Consumer O f f i c e ( RUCO) and the Residential Uti1 i ty
Consumer Board i n response t o a J u l y 26, 1985, r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t
Legisl a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance a u d i t was conducted as
p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.)
§ § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
RUCO was established i n 1983 by A. R. S. $ 40- 462 ( Senate B i l l 1030, Chapter
308) t o represent the i n t e r e s t s o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i t y consumers i n
regulatory proceedings i n v o l v i n g public service corporations before the
Arizona Corporati on Commission ( ACC ). RUCO frequently intervenes i n
u t i l i t y cases i n v o l v i n g telecomlnunications, gas, e l e c t r i c and water
u t i l i t i e s .
RUCO Could Improve I t s Effectiveness In U t i l i t y Rate Cases ( see Daaes 9
ttirough 27)
RUCO could increase i t s effectiveness i n u t i l i t y cases. RUCO serves an
important function and has been c l e a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n some cases.
Commissioners, representatives o f u ti 1 i ty companies, Arizona Corporation
Commission s t a f f and other intervenors have indicated the need f o r a
r e s i d e n t i a l consumer advocacy agency. RUCO has increased general
awareness of issues t h a t may a f f e c t r e s i d e n t i a l consumers. Because RUCO
has focused a t t e n t i o n on such issues, the Commission and i t s s t a f f have
explored some issues i n greater d e t a i l . I n addition, know1 edgeable
p a r t i e s agree t h a t RUCO p a r t i c i p a t i o n or i n t e r v e n t i o n i n several cases
resul ted i n s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s f o r r e s i d e n t i a l consumers.
I n many of RUCO's cases, however, the O f f i c e has had l i t t l e rloticeable
impact b e n e f i t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l consumers. Audi t o r General s t a f f reviewed
opiniorls and orders issued by the Corporation Comniission t o measure RUCO's
case effectiveness, because these c i t e factors t h a t affected the
Commi ssion ' s f i n a l decision. We analyzed i n d e t a i l 30 opinions and
orders, representing a l l RUCO cases i n which the Commission issued f i n a l
orders between May 30, 1984, and March 31, 1986, to determine RUCO's
impact on case outcomes. RUCO had no i d e n t i f i a b l e e f f e c t i n 17 orders ( 57
percent o f a l l orders reviewed). In s i x ( 20 percent), RUCO had only
l i m i t e d e f f e c t on the outcome o f the case. RUCO had considerable e f f e c t
i n seven ( 23 percent) o f the orders. RUCO's impact by i n d i v i d u a l issue
f o r each case was also 1 imited. RUCO influenced issue outcomes i n orily
seven o f 55 issues it raised before the Commission.
Inadequate case preparation 1 imi t s RUCO's impact. I n many instances,
inadequate evidence or analyses 1 irni ted RUCO's a b i l i ty to convince the
Commission t o accept i t s positions. Because the Commission must base i t s
decisions on evidence t h a t i s presented, i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence has
precluded the Commission from accepting some o f RUCO's positions.
Inadequate case preparation on RUCO's p a r t has n o t only prolonged hearings
but has a1 so increased costs.
To improve case preparation, RUCO needs t o l i m i t i t s work load, p r i o r i t i z e
i t s work and perform more on- site reviews. RUCO should review and
p r i o r i t i z e cases so it can d i r e c t 1 imited resources to the most important
cases. I n addition, RUCO should be more s e l e c t i v e about the issues it
brings before the Commission. For lower p r i o r i t y cases or issues, RUCO
should consider less time consuming and less c o s t l y ways of addressing i t s
concerns. Further, RUCO should conuuct more frequent on- site reviews t o
c o l l e c t more accurate and complete information more e f f i c i e n t l y .
RUCO Could Iii~ prove I t s Legal Writing To Increase Impact ( see pages 29
throush 35)
RUCO could have a greater impact on case outcones by strengthening i t s
l e g a l w r i t i n g . Well w r i t t e n l e g a l arguments can have a p o s i t i v e impact on
case outcomes. Because of the p o t e r i t i a l inrpact o f RUCO's legal ~ r i t i n g ,
we h i r e d two consultants, working independently of one another, t o
evaluate the q u a l i t y and persuasiveness o f RUCO's legal w r i t i n s . The
consultants reviewed legal w r i t i n g t h a t RUCO had submitted before the
Conlmission and the courts. Our consultants found t h a t RUCO could improve
i t s w r i t i n g i n several areas, i n c l uding: 1 ) persuasiveness o f arguments;
2 ) organization and use o f t r a n s i t i o n s ; 3) c i t a t i o n s , grammar, typing and
punctuation; and 4) c l a r i t y and conciseness. Because o f the q u a l i t y o f
RUCO's b r i e f s , RUCO's a b i l i t y t o persuade the Co~ rnission and courts i s
decreased.
I n addition t o concerns with w r i t i n g and organization, other problems were
noted i n w r i t t e n documents RUCO submitted t o the courts. I n a Superior
Ccurt case i n which RUCO challenged a Commission decision, RUCO's b r i e f
d i d not e s t a b l i s h l e g a l grounds f o r action nor f o l l o w established rules o f
procedure. Consequently, the Court dismissed the case. Further, i n a
C Special Action case f i l e d with the Supreme Court, RUCO used weak legal
arguments, and the Court declined to accept j u r i s d i c t i o n o f RUCO's
p e t i t i o n .
To improve the qua1 i t y o f i t s legal . Gork, RUCO should increase the
i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g o f documents, anci i n i t i a t e s t a f f t r a i n i n g t o improve
s t a f f w r i t i n g and l e g a l ski1 1s. Further, RUCO should h i r e a consultant to
work with i t s attorneys t o improve t h e i r w r i t t e n documents. Moreover,
RUCO should plan or modify i t s work schedule to allow adequate time to
prepare documents.
RUCO's I n v e s t i g a t i o n O f Consumer Corripl a i nts I s Inappropriate ( see pages 37
through 41 1
RUCO shoul d not i n v e s t i g a t e consumer compl a i n t s . RUCO receives and
investigates complaints from r e s i d e n t i a l consumers acjainst u t i l i t y
companies. tiowever, according to a L e g i s l a t i v e Council menorandun;, RUCG
does not appear t o have the a u t h o r i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e complaints. At the
time RUCO was establ ished, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e speci f i c a l ly gave the a u t h o r i t y
f o r complaint resol u t i o n to the Arizona Corporation Commission. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e ACC i s b e t t e r prepared t o handle complaints since it
provides some t r a i n i n g f o r i t s investigators.
RUCO' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of compl a i n t s has l e f t the O f f i c e without adequate
c l e r i c a l support. RUCO r e c l a s s i f i e d i t s only s e c r e t a r i a l p o s i t i o n t o a
consumer s p e c i a l i s t i n January 1985. Since t h a t time, the consumer
s p e c i a l i s t has had to d i v i d e her time between c l e r i c a l and complaint
functions. As a r e s u l t , c l e r i c a l tasks have backlogged, and some c l e r i c a l
tasks have f a l l e n t o professional s t a f f .
RUCO shoul d discontinue hand1 ing consumer compl aints, and r e f e r complaints
r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n to the ACC. RUCO should also request
r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the consumer service special i s t p o s i t i o n to a p o s i t i o n
t h a t r e f l e c t s the assigned tasks. In addition, RUCO should eliminate
c l e r i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s from the work load o f professional s t a f f , and
reassign these tasks t o appropriate s t a f f .
RESICENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER BOARD
The O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r General has also conducted a l i m i t e d review of
the Residential U t i l i t y Consumer Board i n response t o a July 26, 1985,
r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversi ght Commi ttee. This reviet.~ was
conducted as p a r t of the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S. SS41- 2351
through 41 - 2379. An introduction, sunset f a c t o r eval uation and Board
response i s i ncl uded.
The Board was established i n conjunction with RUCG i n 1583 by Senate B i l l
1030, Chapter 308. The Board i s required t o " advise the o f f i c e on a l l
matters r e l a t i n g t o r a t e rnaking o r r a t e design and i n v o l v i n g public
service corporations." The Board meets monthly t o discuss decisions made
by RUCO s t a f f , and to give advice as t o f u r t h e r action needed. Because
discussion o f actions contemplated and taken by the Office occur a t
monthly meetings, the Board i s a valuable forum f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n and
dissemination o f timely information t o the media, public and u t i l i t y
company representatives i n attendance. Koreover, kUCG1s Director and
s t a f f have indicated t h a t i n p u t gained from the Board i s valuable i n
maintaining a consistent corfin~ untiy perspective on issues facing
r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUNSETFACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER OFFICE COULD
IPPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN UTILITY RATE CASES . . . . . . .
RUCO Has An Important Role And Has
Been Very Effective In Some Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RUCO Has Had L i t t l e Impact In Many Cases. . . . . . . . . . .
Poor Case Preparation Decreases RUCO's Effectiveness. . . . .
To Improve Case Preparation, RUCO Meeds
To L i m i t I t s Work Load, Prioritize I t s
Work And Perform More On- Si t e Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 11: RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER OFFICE
COULD II! iPROVE ITS LEGAL WRITING TO INCREASE IMPACT. . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RUCO Coul d Improve I t s Legal Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Concerns Characterize Legal Writing . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 111: RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER OFFICE
INVESTIGATIOIJ OF CONSUbiER COI. 1PLAINTS IS INAPPROPRIATE . . . .
RUCO Duplicates Some Services Of The ACC. . . . . . . . . . .
Complaint Investigation Has
Di spl aced Needed Cl eri cal Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY COMSUFIER BOARD
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUNSETFACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
APPENDIX
Legi s l a t i ve Counci 1 Memorandum
LIST OF TABLES
- Page
TABLE 1 - RUCO Expenditures, Fiscal Years
1983- 84 Through 1 986- 87 ( Unaudi ted) . . . . . . . . . . 2
TABLE 2 - Expenditures For Outside Consultants,
Fiscal Years 1983- 84 Through 1986- 87 ( Unaudited). . . . 8
TABLE 3 - RUCO's Impact On Corporation
Commission Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
TABLE 4 - Data Requests And Questions Submitted to APS
Through February 20, 1986 ( Docket No. 1345- 85- 156). . . 24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - RUCO's E f f e c t On Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
INTRGDUCTI ON AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r General has conducted a performance a u d i t o f the
Residential U t i l i t y Consumer O f f i c e ( RUCO) i n response t o a July 26, 1985,
r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance
a u d i t was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n Arizona
Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) S$ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
RUCO was established i n 1983 by A. R. S. $ 40- 462 ( Senate B i l l 1030, Chapter
308) t o represent the i n t e r e s t s o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i t y consumers i n
regulatory proceedings i n v o l v i n g p u b l i c service corporations before the
Arizona Corporation Commission. A. R. S. 540- 464 defines the powers and
duties of the Director i n f u l f i l l i n g RUCO's s t a t u t o r y mandate. The
Director o f RUCO may:
. . . research, study and analyze r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i t y
consumer i n t e r e s t s . . . Prepare and present b r i e f s ,
arguments, proposed rates or orders and intervene or
appear on behal f o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumers
before hearing o f f i c e r s and tile corporation
commission. . . .
The D i r e c t o r i s required t o promulgate r u l e s and regulations, and submit
an annual report.
S t a f f i n a And Budset
For 1985- 86 RUCO employed a t o t a l o f nine f u l l - t i m e employees ( FTE) to
carry out i t s functions. The s t a f f includes a D i r e c t o r , two attorneys, a
consumer services s p e c i a l i s t , an engineer, two r a t e analysts, an a u d i t o r
and an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t . In addition, RUCO employs two part- time
s t a f f : a student i n t e r n and a l e g a l i n t e r n . A1 though the primary
function o f the O f f i c e i s t o intervene i n r a t e proceedings, RUCO also
handles consumer complaints arid conducts publ i c speaking engagements.
Revenues for RUCO' s operation are obtained from an assessment against
publ i c service corporations. The assessments are appl ied against
corporations' gross operating revenues derived from i n t r a s t a t e operations
serving r e s i d e n t i a l consumers. The revenues are 1 i m i ted t o two- tenths o f
1 percent o f the gross operating revenues. The monies are placed i n t o a
Residential U t i l i t y Consumer O f f i c e Revolving Fund and may only be used by
RUCO upon l e g i s l a t i v e appropriation.* Monies i n the Revolving Fund do not
r e v e r t t o the General Fund. RUCO's operational expenditures f o r f i s c a l
years 1983- 84 through 1986- 87 are shown i n Table 1.
TABLE 1
RUCO EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1 983 - 84 THROUGH 1 986 - 87
( UNAUDITED)
Actual Actual Estimated Approved
1 983- 84 ( ) 1984- 85 1 985 - 86 1 986 - 87
FTE Positions 7 7 9 10
Expenditures:
Personal Services $ 1 37,546 $ 237,269 $ 308,000 $ 369,400
Empl oyee Re1 a ted 27,413 46,023 64,400 73,200
Professional and
Outside Services 157,639 160,021 279, l 00 287,400
Travel
In- State 6,016 8,178 17,600 12,200
Out- of- State 5,146 7,196 4,200 4,000
0 tker Gperati ng 18,534 38,157 60, l GO 71 ,800
Equ i pmen t 26,778 10,775 3,000 4,600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
( 1) RUCO was funded f o r the 1983- 04 f i s c a l year from a $ 400,000 General
Fund appropriation.
Source: Residential U t i l i ty Consumer C f f i c e budget requests f o r f i s c a l
years 1983- 84 through 1986- 87 and State o f Arizona Appropriations
Report, 1986.
Scope o f Audit
Our a u d i t focuses on RUCO's a b i l i t y to perform i t s s t a t u t o r y duties. The
a u d i t r e p o r t presents findings and reconlmendations i n three major areas:
3; Revenues placed i n the Fund are equal t o the amount o f the l e g i s l a t i v e
appropriation.
0 The effectiveness o f RUCO's i n t e r v e n t i o n i n r a t e cases,
RUCO1s need f o r improvement i n i t s l e g a l w r i t i n g , and
0 The appropriateness o f RUCO1s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f consumer
conpl a i n t s .
Due t o time constraints, we were unable t o address a l l p o t e n t i a l issues
i d e n t i f i e d during our p r e l i m i n a r y a u d i t work. The section Area for
Further Audit Work describes t h i s p o t e n t i a l issue ( see page 43).
We also made a 1 i m i t e d review o f ' t h e Residential U t i l i t y Consumer Board.
The scope and r e s u l t s of t h i s review are presented on pages 47 through 51.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation t o RUCO's Executive
D i r e c t o r and employees f o r t h e i r cooperation and assistance during the
audi t.
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance rvi t h Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) $ 41 - 2354, the
L e g i s l a t u r e should consider the f o l l o w i n g 12 f a c t o r s i n determining
whether the Residential U t i 1 i ty Consuner O f f i c e ( RUCO) shoul a be continued
or terminated.
1. The o b i e c t i v e and Durpose i n establ i s h i n s RUCO
RUCO was established i n 1983 by A. R. S. S40- 462 ( Senate B i l l 1030,
Chapter 308) t o represent u t i 1 i ty consumers ' i n t e r e s t s i n regul atory
proceedings i n v o l v i n g p u b l i c service corporations before the Arizona
Corporation Commission ( ACC ). The i n t e n t o f the 1 egis1 ature was
stated i n the a c t e s t a b l i s h i n g RUCO, as f o l l o \ i s .
It i s the i n t e n t o f the l e g i s l a t u r e t o create a
r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumer o f f i c e t o represent the
i n t e r e s t s o f r e s i d e n t i a l consumers, c r i t i c a l l y analyze
proposals made by pub1 i c service corporations to the
corporation commission, develop i t s own recommendations
and present them t o the coriimission.
2. The effectiveness w i t h which RUCO has met i t s o b j e c t i v e and purpose
and the e f f i c i e n c y w i t h which RUCO has operatea
RUCO coul d increase i t s effectiveness i n case i n t e r v e n t i o n . RUCOis
i n t e r v e n t i o n i n several cases resul ted i n s i yni f i c a n t benefits t o
r e s i d e n t i a l consumers. However, i n many cases RUCO has had l i t t l e
noticeable impact b e n e f i t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l consumers. Auditor General
s t a f f reviewed ACC opinions and orders issued between May 30, 1984,
and March 31, 1986, f o r cases i n which RUCO intervened. The review
shows t h a t RUCO had no impact on 57 percent o f the orders, ana only
l i m i t e d impact on 20 percent o f the orders.
RUCO's impact i s 1 imitea by lack o f adequate preparation. RUCO has
not adequately prepared i t s cases for hearing, thus the cases lack
needed evidence. RUCOis lack o f preparation has l e d t o longer
hearings and increased costs. I n order t o be b e t t e r prepared, RUCO
needs t o l i m i t i t s work load, p r i o r i t i z e i t s work and conduct more
on- site reviews ( see Finding I, page 9). I n addition, RUCO could have
greater impact on case outcomes by strengthening i t s l e g a l w r i t i n g .
RUCO could make i t s l e g a l w r i t i n g more persuasive by improving the
organization, c l a r i ty and conciseness o f i t s documents. I n addition,
RUCO could improve the substantive content o f the documents ( see
Finding 11, page 29).
3. The extent t o which RUCO has operated w i t h i n the publ i c i n t e r e s t
RUCO has operated w i t h i n the publ i c i n t e r e s t by representing
r e s i d e n t i a l consumers i n r a t e cases before the ACC. Through
i n t e r v e n t i o n , RUCO attempts t o p r o t e c t r e s i d e n t i a l consumers from
u n f a i r r a t e increases.
4. The extent t o which r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated by RUCO are
consistent w i t h the l e g i s l axive rnandaxe
This f a c t o r i s n o t applicable since RUCO has not promulgated any r u l e s
o r regulations.
5. The extent t o which RUCO has encouracjea i n p u t from the public before
prornul gating i t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and the extent to which it has
inforned the p u b l i c as t o i t s actions and t h e i r expected impact on the
~ u b lC l
This f a c t o r i s not applicable since RLiCO has n o t promulgated any r u l e s
o r regulations.
6. The extent t o which RUCO has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
comui a i nts t h a t are w i t h i n i t s . i u r i s a i c ~ ; i o n
A1 though RUCO has i n v e s t i g a t e d and resol ved consumer compl a i n t s , it
appears t h i s function i s not w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . When RUCO was
establ i shed, a u t h o r i t y f o r processing o f r e s i d e n t i a l consumer
compl a i n t s was placed w i t h i n the Consuiner Services Section o f the
ACC. However, RUCO f e l t t h a t it s in vol ven~ ent was necessary,
therefore, it converted a s e c r e t a r i a l p o s i t i o n t o a consumer
special i s t p o s i t i o n t o hand1 e compl a i n t s . We recommend t h a t RUCO
discontinue i n v e s t i g a t i n g complaints since t h i s duplicates some
services provided by the ACC ( see f i n d i n g 111, page 37).
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General o r any other applicable
agency o t State government has the a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute actions
under enab l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n
This factor i s n o t applicable since EUCO i s not a regulatory agency.
8. The extent t o which RUCO has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the enabling
s t a t u t e s which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g i t s s t a t u t o r y mandate
RUCO1s Director has indicated t h a t there are two d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i t s
enabling s t a t u t e . RUCO would 1 i k e the a u t h o r i t y t o intervene i n
Federal regulatory cases because o f the l a r s e p o t e n t i a l impact a t the
Federal l e v e l . At t h e S t a t e l e v e l , RUCO would 1 i k e the a u t h o r i t y t o
r a i s e generic issues. Generic issues are those t h a t a f f e c t a group o f
consumers facing a p a r t i c u l a r problem w i t h a u t i l i t y company. RUCO
has n o t proposed l e g i s l a t i o n regarding e i t h e r o f these deficiencies.
However, l e g i s l a t i o n was proposed i n 1985 t h a t would have given RUCO
a u t h o r i t y t o intervene i n Federal cases.
9. The extent t o which changes are necessary i n the laws o f RUCO t o
adeauatelv comulv w i t h the factors l i s t e d i n the Sunset Law
Our review d i d n o t i d e n t i f y needed s t a t u t o r y changes.
10. The extent t o which termination o f RUCO would s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the
pub1 i c heal t h , s a f e t y , o r we1 fare
Termination o f RUCO could impact the we1 f a r e o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i t y
consumers. RUCO's r o l e i s c l e a r l y an important one. The L e g i s l a t u r e
established RUCO t o ensure t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l consumers would be
represented i n u t i l i ty company cases heard by the ACC. Commissioners,
representatives of u t i l i t y companies, Arizona Corporation Commission
s t a f f and o t h e r i n t e r v e n o r s have i n d i c a t e d t h e need for a r e s i d e n t i a l
consumer advocacy agency. P r i o r t o RIICO1s existence, ACC s t a f f were
responsible f o r considering r e s i d e n t i a l consumers' needs when making
recommendations t o the Commission. Ho\ rever, because ACC s t a f f were
a1 so charged w i t h making recommendations t h a t considered company and
shareholder needs, they could not be as a t t e n t i v e t o the r e s i d e n t i a l
consumers ' needs. I n a d d i t i o n , o t h e r i n t e r v e n o r s representing
r e s i d e n t i a l consumers 1 acked resources, such as technical s t a f f anu
consultants, t o prepare a comprehensive case. Since i t s inception,
RUCO has been successful i n increasing the general awareness o f issues
t h a t affect r e s i d e n t i a l consumers, and has had some impact on
r e s i d e n t i a l rates.
11. The extent t o which the l e v e l o f r e g u l a t i o n exercised by RUCO i s
appropriate ana whether less o r n; ore s t r i n g e n t l e v e l s o f r e g u l a t i o n
woul d be appropriate
This sunset f a c t o r does not apply to RUCO since it i s not a regulatory
agency.
12. The extent to which RUCO has used p r i v a t e contractors i n the
performance o f i t s duties and how e f f e c t i v e use o f p r i v a t e contractors
coul d be accompl i shed
RUCG f r e q u e n t l y uses outside consul t a n t s i n i t s case intervention.
Because o f the complexity o f r a t e cases, RUCO contracts w i t h experts
t o analyze and t e s t i f y on r a t e issues. RUCO's use o f outside experts
i s common p r a c t i c e i n the f i e l d - both u t i l i t i e s and the Corporation
Commission f r e q u e n t l y h i r e experts f o r major r a t e cases. Consul t a n t
expenditures have increased s t e a d i l y since 1983- 84, as RUCO has
intervened i n more cases. Expenditures for 1533- 84 throucjh 1936- 87
are as follows.
TABLE 2
EXPENDITURES FOR OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
FISCAL YEAES 1583- 84 TliROUGH 198G- 87
( UNAUDITED)
1983- 84 actual $ 1 57,639
1934- 85 actual 1 b0 ,021
1985- 86 estimated 279,100
1S8G- 87 requested 287,400
Source: RUCO budget requests f o r f i s c a l years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87.
A L e g i s l a t i v e Council opinion ciated February 11, 1586, states t h a t RUCO i s
exempt from the Arizona Procurement Code when h i r i n g experts who may
appear as a witness o r render services r e l a t i n g t o a court case.
FINDING I
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUBIER OFFICE COULD IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS I N
UTILITY RATE CASES
The Residential U t i l i t y Consumer O f f i c e ( RUCO) could increase i t s
effectiveness i n u t i l i t y cases. RUCO serves an important function and has
been c l e a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n some cases. I n many cases, irowever, RUCO has
had 1 i t t l e impact on case outcomes. Poor case p r e p a r a t i o n i m p a i r s RUCO1s
effectiveness. I n addition, RUCO needs to l i m i t i t s work load and
p r i o r i t i z e i t s work.
RUCO lias An I m ~ o r t a n t
Role And Has Been Very
E f f e c t i v e I n Some Cases
RUCO serves a necessary function, and the O f f i c e has haa notable impact i n
some cases as we1 1 as s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the outcome o f several cases.
RUCO's function i s c l e a r l y needed.
RUCO function important - RUCC1s r o l e i s c l e a r l y an important one. I n
1983 t h e L e g i s l a t u r e e s t a b l i s h e d RUCO t o ensure t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l consumers
would be represented i n u t i l i t y company cases heard by the Arizona
Corporation Commission ( ACC). As Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. )
$ 40- 462. A states, RUCO1s purpose i s " t o represent the i n t e r e s t s o f
r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumers i n regul atory proceedings i n v o l v i ng pub1 i c
s e r v i c e c o r p o r a t i o n s before the corporation commission." Commissioners,
representatives o f u t i l i t y companies, Arizona Corporation Commission s t a f f
and other intervenors have indicatea the need f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l consumer
advocacy agency. P r i o r t o RUCO1s existence, ACC s t a f f were responsible
f o r c o n s i d e r i n g r e s i d e n t i a l consumers ' neecis iihen making recommendations
t o the Commission. However, because ACC s t a f f were also charged w i t h
making recornmendations t h a t considered company and shareholaer neeas, they
could not be as a t t e n t i v e t o consumer needs as an agency s p e c i f i c a l l y
created t o perform such a f u n c t i o n . Other p a r t i e s representiny
r e s i d e n t i a l consumers, such as the Arizona Center for Law i n t h e P u b l i c
I n t e r e s t , performed t h e i r work using 1 i m i ted resources which reduced the
scope of their work. Thus, RUCO was created to protect the interests of
residential consumers.
In addition, RUCO has directed attention to potential issues affecting
residential consumers. Commissioners, ACC s t a f f and other intervenors
w i t h whom we addressed this area agree that RUCO has increased general
awareness of issues that may affect residential consumers. Because RUCO
has focused attention on such issues, the Con~ nission and its s t a f f have
explored some issues i n greater detail. For example, a t RUCO's urging the
Commission studied the Arizona Public Service Company fuel adjustor
mechanism extensively in a recent case. Furthermore, a 1984 survey
relating to public perceptions of the Corporation Commission, conducted by
the Behavior Research Foundation of Phoenix, suggested that RUCO's
presence may also have increased public confidence i n the u t i l i t y
regul atory processes.
Effective i n several cases - Know1 edgeabl e parties have indicated that
RUCO participation or intervention i n several cases resul ted in outcomes
immediately benefiting residential consumers. These incl ude cases
involving the sale of the APS gas system to Southwest Gas, Mountain Bell's
refund of over- collected monies, and rate setting for the Black Bill and
Doney Park Water Users' Association.
e Transfer of APS gas system: RUCO, ACC s t a f f , APS and Southwest Gas
representatives negotiated a s e t t l ernent providing APS with a $ 21
mii 1 ion rate increase, which was considerably~ 1 ower than tile
company's $ 38.5 million request. Since pipeline safety was a
concern then affecting residential consumers, the parties a1 so rnade
an addi tional $ 7 mil 1 ion increase contingent on safety- re1 ated pl ant
improvernents. Furthermore, s e t t l ernent provisions froze Southwest
Gas general rates until July 1987.
e Mountain Bell refund: RUCO brought this case to the Cornn~ ission's
attention and subsequently established the refund amount that the
Commission ultimately adopted. RUCO also suggested that the
Commission use unreturned refund monies* to fund a pilot program
providing basic telephone service to needy persons ( Lifeline
Program).
3; Estimates indicated that about ha1 f of the money would not reach
customers because of expected difficulty in 1 ocating el igibl e
customers.
0 Black B i l l and Doney Park Water Users' Association: KUCO, ACC s t a f f
and the Water Users' Association negotiated a settlement t h a t
appl i e d innovative sol utions t o unique problems a f f e c t i n g the
Association's 1,098 customers. For exanpl e, the Association wanted
t o encourage water conservation and a t tire same time r a i s e
s u f f i c i e n t revenue t o meet operating expenses, b u t was uncertain how
t o meet these seemingly c o n t r a d i c t o r y goal s. Together the p a r t i e s
set winter and summer r a t e designs t h a t would accomplish both goals.
RUCO may also have had some b e n e f i c i a l impact on Commission processes.
RUCO's D i r e c t o r asserts t h a t t h i s i s where t h e O f f i c e has had i t s greatest
impact. Know1 edgeabl e p a r t i e s concur t h a t RUCO has a f f e c t e d Commission
processes t o some degree. For example, the Commission studied the issues
of b a c k - b i l l i n g and the APS f ~ i e l adjustor i n more d e t a i l because RLjCO
directed a t t e n t i o n t o these issues. RUCO's D i r e c t o r a l s o stated t h a t the
Office may b r i n g up issues i n hearings t o stimulate t h i n k i n g on such
issues i n order t o e l i c i t f u t u r e changes, w i t h o u t t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t of
t r y i n g t o win the issue i n the c u r r e n t case. For example, i n the iiiountain
Be1 1 refund case the Commission decision speci f i c a l ly r e j e c t e d RUCO's
reconimendation t o use nonrefunded monies t o e s t a b l i s h a L i f e l i n e program.
However, i n p a r t because o f RUCO e f f o r t s a f t e r the hearing, the Commission
subsequently held a workshop on the t o p i c and u l t i m a t e l y decided to create
a L i f e l i n e program on a demonstration basis. According t o another
knowledgeable party, RUCC has a1 so raised issues t h a t have been
subsequently analyzed by ACC s t a f f .
RUCO Has Had L i t t l e
Imuact I n fvlanv Cases
I n many cases, however, RUCO has had 1 i t t l e noticeable impact b e n e f i t i n g
r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumers. Auditor General s t a f f reviewed opinions
and orders issued by the Corporation Commission t o measure RtiCO's case
effectiveness because these c i t e factors t h a t a f f e c t e d the Commission's
f i n a l decision. Our review o f opinions anci orders showed t h a t RUCO has
had l i t t l e impact i n many cases.
Commission decisions used t o assess irnpact - Auditor General s t a f f
reviewed w r i t t e n Commission decisions t o assess RUCO's effectiveness. Ne
used impact on case outcomes t o evaluate RUCO's effectiveness because we
determined t h a t a f f e c t i n g case outcomes shoul d be RUCO's primary goal,
based on i t s s t a t u t o r y mandate. We also used t h i s method t o measure
RUCO' s effectiveness because agencies performing functions s i m i l ar t o RUCO
i n other states ( Ohio, Pennsylvania and F l o r i d a ) also use f i n a l commission
decisions ( among other methods) t o measure t h e i r effectiveness. Opinions
and orders o f the Corporation Commission i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t o f a p a r t y ' s
impact on a case because they s t a t e reasons for Commission decisions.
Written Commission decisions, o r opinions and orders, generally discuss by
t o p i c s p e c i f i c issues reviewed i n the case, as well as factors i n f l u e n c i n g
Commission decisions on those issues. The Commission's hearing o f f i c e r s
confirmed t h a t the w r i t t e n decisions general ly c r e d i t those p a r t i e s who
were instrumental i n determining the f i n a l decision. Hearing o f f i c e r s
perform a key r o l e i n the Commission's decision- making process, because
they w r i t e proposed orders for Commission review. I n addition, the
hearing o f f i c e r i s the party most f a m i l i a r w i t h proceedings i n which RUCO
has intervened.
We attempted t o compensate f o r any l i m i t a t i o n s our measure rnay have had.
Written decisions occasionally f a i l e d t o give RUCO due c r e d i t , or
conversely, gave RUCO c r e d i t even ttiough it appeared t h a t RUCO had rninor
or minimal impact. We attempted t o c l a r i f y ambiguous points and p i n p o i n t
RUCO's r o l e through other sources such as hearing t r a n s c r i p t s . We gave
RUCO the b e n e f i t o f the doubt whenever we had a question regarding RUCO's
possible impact.
We rejected RUCO's own effectiveness measlrre as s e r i o u s l y flawed. Because
RUCO usually makes recommendations f o r r a t e increases t h a t are lower than
those of ACC s t a f f , RUCO determines the extent t o which the Commission's
recommendations are 1 ewer than ACC s t a f f recommendations and then takes
the e n t i r e d i f f e r e n c e as a measure o f i t s success.*
However, RUCO's measure i s defective because it presumes t h a t nothing else
influences Commission decisions. Yet several other factors a f f e c t
Commission decisions.
* RUCO has used t h i s measure i n annual reports and press releases to
demonstrate i t s effectiveness i n r a t e case interventions.
The independent judgment of the Corporation Commission. Observers
note t h a t recent Commissions have been increasingly s e n s i t i v e t o
consunier needs.
e The independent judgment o f the hearing o f f i c e r s who w r i t e
proposed orders f o r Commission review.
e The e f f e c t o f other p a r t i e s i n the case.
0 P r i o r Commission orders and relevant case law.
I n addition, RUCO1s measure addresses o n l y t h e t o t a l fncrease i n rates
t h a t Commission decisions allow the company, r a t h e r than looking a t i t s
success by i n d i v i d u a l issue. Because the decision on the t o t a l increase
r e s u l t s from the cumulative impact o f decisions on i n d i v i d u a l issues,
RUCO's effectiveness measure presumes t h a t RUCO has had an impact cn each
issue leading t o the decision.
For example, i n a 1984 APS r a t e case, RUCO1s measure showed t h a t it had
saved consumers $ 1 1.4 mil 1 ion. However, review o f the f i n a l Commission
decision showed t h a t other p a r t i e s also affected tne decision. For
example, the Center f o r Law i n t h e P u b l i c I n t e r e s t introduced evidence
showing t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l service charges were too high, leading the
Commission to freeze several r e s i dential r a t e schedules. I n fact, the
Commission agreed with RUCO i n only one o f f i v e issues.
L i t t l e impact i n many cases - Our review o f opinions and orders and other
supporting documentation showed t h a t RUCO has l i t t l e impact i n many
instances. We analyzed i n detai 1 30* opinions and orders, representing
a1 1 RUCO cases i n which the Corrimission issued f i n a l orders between Hay 30,
1984, and March 31, 1986, t o determine RUCO1s impact on case outcomes.
Information from hearing t r a n s c r i p t s as well as interviews w i t h RUCO
* Although RUCO states t h a t it has intervened i n core than 70 cases
between A p r i l 1983 and January 1986, some cases had not been heard
and, thus, no w r i t t e n decision existed. Other cases haa teen heard
b u t the Commission had not made a f i n a l decision. I n one other case,
RUCO f i l e d t o intervene b u t did not attend the hearing. Also, one
Mountain Bell case combined nine dockets i n t o one hearing, for which a
s i n g l e opinion and order was w r i t t e n . X s i n g l e order combining two or
more dockets was counted as one order. I f more than one order covered
the same docket, these were counted as separate oraers. Amendments to
p r i o r orders were considered p a r t o f the o r i g i n a l order.
staff, Commissioners, ACC staff, company official s, and other
documentation supplemented information in the final orders. As shown in
Figure 1, RUCO had no identifiable effect in 17 orders, or 57 percent of
all orders reviewed.* In six ( 20 percent), RUCO had only 1 imited effect
on the outcome of the case.** In seven orders ( 23 percent) RUCO had
considerabl e effect.
FIGURE 1
RUCO's E f f e c t on Cases
RUCO's impact by individual issue was a1 so minimal. Table 3 shows that
RUCO can claim full credit for influencing issue outcomes in only seven of
55 issues i t raised before the Commission. Table 3 also shows RUCO's
issue impact by individual case. We distinguished between issues for
which RUCO was solely responsible for affecting the outcome ( sole impact)
and issues for which other parties also influenced the outcome ( shared
impact ) .
* Of the 77 orders showing no notable impact, ten did not directly
affect resi denti a1 rates. RUCO's Director stated that RUCO may
participate in such cases mainly for inforn~ ational reasons. omitting
orders relating t o these cases, RUCO had no impact in the remaining
seven o u t of 17 orders.
** Auditor General staff di sti ngui shed between 1 imi ted and consi derabl e
impact using the foll owing criteria: 1 ) number of issue outcomes RUCO
influenced, 2) number of customers the decision affected, and 3)
supplemental information regarding RUCO'S performance in each case.
TABLE 3
RUCO'S IMPACT ON CORPORATION COMMISSIOIJ DECISIONS
( FROM COI. 1I. IIISSION OPIIiION AND ORDERS, ISSUED
FROM PAY 30, 1984, THROUGH ItARCH 31, 1986)
Issues Raised Successes Successes
By RUCO ( Sole impact) ( Shared impact)
Rate cases
American Public Service 1 0 0
( Casitas Bonitas)
American Pub1 ic Service 3 0 0
( Sierra Entrada)
APS ( electric- phase I ) 5 1 0
APS ( el ectric- phase 11) 4 0 2
Cottonwood 6 3 0
Dysart 1 0 0
Hidden Valley 1 0 0
Highland Pine 1 1 0
Mountain Be1 1 16 1 2
Southwest Gas ( r a t e s ) 5 0 1
Sunny Boy 1 0 0
White Hills 0 0 0
Llhi tlow Dam 1 0 0
APS ( gas- phase I ) Note ( 2) 0 Note ( 2)
APS ( gas- phase 11) Note ( 2) 0 Note ( 2)
Doney Park Note ( 2) 0 Note ( 2 )
TRICO Electric Cooperative Note ( 3) - 0 Note ( 3)
Subtotal 45 - 6 5
Cases not directly involving rate increases ( 4)
A1 1 net Communications 0 0 0
APS 0 0 0
( corporate restructuring)
APS ( financing) 0 0 0
APS ( fuel adjustor) 3 0
Arizona Water Company 4 Note ( 5) No te Ps
AT& T 0 0 0
Generic Hearing 0 0 0
( CAP surcharge )
Generic Hearing ( i n t r a s t a t e 0 0 0
interexchange competi tion)
GNT Automatic 0 0 0
GTE Sprint 0 0 0
Mountain Be1 1 ( refund) 3 1 1
APS ( sale of gas system) Note ( 2) 0 Note ( 2 )
Southwest Gas Note ( 2 ) 0 Note ( 2 )
( sale of gas system)
Subtotal 10 1 1
TOTAL 5 5 7 6
P
Number of issues as recorded in the opinions and orders, and c l a r i f i e d
by subsequent interviews and review of documents. RUCO may have
discussed other areas in hearings b u t was unable to develop them into
viable issues for consideration in the final decision.
( 2) The decision reflected a negcjtiated settlerilent anlong major parties.
Thus, the opinion and order related to this case does not consistently
identi fy tile specific parties wno brought up each issue. tlo\ vever, as
noted on page 10, these cases uere anlong RUCO's most successful cases.
( 3) Sincc RUCO supported issues brought by the corrlpany in this case, i t was
d i f f i c u l t to identify the specific issues RUCO impacted. However, the
dcci sion supported the colilpany on one contested issue.
( 4) Since these were not rate cases, the outcoifies did not directly atfect
residential rates. According to RuCO's Director, RUCO may participate
in such cases for inforr~ iation that rilay be useful in future rate cases.
( 5) All four issues RUCO raised were determined to be rlot applicable because
the Commission based i t s decision on overriding legal considerations.
Source: Arizona Corporation Comission opinions and orders and hearing
transcripts, supplemented by interviews with Cormissioners and
Conmission s t a f f .
Poor Case Preparation
Decreases RUCO ' s Effectiveness
Inadequate case preparation 1 imi t s RUCO's impact. Because o f inadequate
preparation, RUCO may have f a i l e d t o gather adequate evidence t o support
i t s case i n & any instances. Inadequate preparation has not only 1 i m i t e d
RUCO's impact, b u t has pro1 onged hearing t i m e and increased hearing costs
and costs t o o t h e r p a r t i e s .
Inadequate evidence - I n many instances, inadequate evidence or analyses
l i m i t e d RUCO's a b i l i t y t o convince the Commission t o accept i t s
p o s i t i o n s . Because the Commission must base i t s decisions on evidence
t h a t i s presented, i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence has precluded the Commission from
accepting some RUCO positions. RUCO has been unable t o develop adequate
evidence f o r a number of reasons.
m RUCO tias developed most o f i t s srrlaller cases e n t i r e l y
through cross- examination and has used hearing t i n e t o
gather information from opposing witnesses, which shoul a
have been obtained p r i o r t o the hearing, during discovery.
I n the past, RUCO f r e q u e n t l y used cross- examination instead
of developing i t s case using i t s own technical s t a f f as
witnesses, i . e., through d i r e c t testimony. biore recently,
RUCO has been making increased use o f d i r e c t testimony.
However, even when RUCO has used d i r e c t testiniony, i t s
technical s t a f f may t e s t i f y only on a p o r t i o n o f RUCO's
case. Devel opi ny cases through cross- examination decreases
RUCO's effectiveness because it i s more d i f f i c u l t t o get
information from opposing witnesses. Performing discovery
d u r i n g t h e hearing also decreases RUCO's effectiveness
because RUCO must sin~ ultaneously research and develop i t s
case.
e FiUCO has prepared f o r some cases only s h o r t l y before the
hearing because the O f f i c e does not have a formal process
f o r scheduling cases s t a f f should work on. Yet, s c i l f d u l i n g
i s important because u t i l i t y companies can f i l e a r a t e
request a t any time throughout the year. I n recent years,
l a r g e companies such as APS or Mountain Bell have requested
a hearing a t l e a s t once a year. I n addition, KUCO s t a f f may
work on more than one case a t a time. Even when s t a f f know
what case( s) they are assigned to, ttrey may not know
s u f f i c i e n t l y i n advance the s p e c i f i c issues they should work
on. As a r e s u l t , s t a f f may have no choice i i u t t o prepare
f o r cases a t the 1 a s t minute.
RUCO sometimes takes positions t h a t cannot real i s t i c a l ly
a f f e c t case outcomes. For example, RUCO has taken some
positions t h a t have been unimportant and, therefore, did not
a f f e c t case outcomes. In addition, RUCO r o u t i n e l y
recommends r a t e increases t h a t are lower than any other
party making recommendations. Such recommendations appear
extreme, i n p a r t because RUCO analyses have been inadequate
t o support i t s conclusions. Because recommendations on r a t e
increases are bottom 1 ine measures, RUCO must be able to
perform adequate analyses a t every step t o support i t s
conclusions.
RUCG1s consultants may a1 so have been precluded fron,
performing adequate analyses a t times because o f l i m i t e d
time and resources, given the complexity and scope o f
analyses they have t o perform.
We found many instances i n which RUCO lacked adequate evidence or
analyses. Final Commission orders c i t e d 1 ack o f evidence or inadequate
analyses as reasons the Commission could not support RUCO positions. For
example, the order for a 1984 APS r a t e case characterized one RUCO
recommendation as " a r b i t r a r y . " Other instances o f i n s u f f i c i e n t RUCO
analyses i n c l ude the f o l l owing.
e APS ( Phase I o f a $ 78 m i l l i o n request,* approximately 500,000
customers): I n a recent case, a RUCO s t a f f witness conciuued
from ACC company f i l i n g s t h a t APS was using i t s c o a l - t i r e d plants
i n e f f i c i e n t l y . He concl uded t h a t mismanagement was the reason
for the i n e f f i c i e n c y , even tliough he acknowl edged unaer
cross- examination t h a t he drew h i s concl usion without
i n v e s t i g a t i n g the reasons f o r the resul ts. Instead, he asserted
t h a t it was unnecessary to explore the reasons because the
r e s u l t s were a1 1 he needed to look at. Yet, according t o APS
r e b u t t a l , power outages, pl anned maintenance, unusual weather
conditions and other events could have affected the way APS
operated plants. Under f u r t h e r examination by the hearing
o f f i c e r , RUCO1s kri tness conceded t h a t a f t e r t~ eariny and reading
the testimony of other witnesses, other factors not r e l a t e d to
mismanagement were l i k e l y t o have a f f e c t e d the r e s u l t s .
Mountain Bell ($ 89 m i l l i o n request,** more than 1 m i l l ion
customers): I n t h i s case, RUCO recommended t h a t i.~ ountain Be1 1
receive only a $ 2.6 m i l l i o n increase, even though ACC s t a f f
recommended $ 22 m i 11 ion. Furthermore, RUCG announced i n a press
release t h a t Mountain Bell might a c t u a l l y owe i t s customers money
* APS subsequently reduced i t s request i n the hearing t o $ 54.6 m i l l ion.
** Mountain Bell subsequently reduced i t s request to $ 76 m i l l i o n during
the hearing.
because i t s consul t a n t stated t h a t additional downward
adjustments might be " appropriate" i n areas which RUCO d i d not
examine. Yet, under cross- examination, RUCO' s own expert witness
conceded t h a t it would be unwise t o decrease rates. I n addition,
the decision c i t e d several instances of inadequate evidence or
analyses. For one issue, the decision stated t h a t RUCO made an
" unsupported assertion" which " cannot s u b s t i t u t e f o r the type o f
meticulous review" undertaken by ACC s t a f f and the City o f
Phoenix.
I n another area, RUCO looked a t i n d i v i d u a l accounts i n an attempt
t o compare Mountain Be1 1 ' s p r e - d i v e s t i t u r e and post- divesti t u r e
expenses and i denti fy areas where c u r r e n t costs were excessive.
Had RUCO been successful i n t h i s major area, RUCO's consultant
stated it could have r e s u l t e d i n a d d i t i o n a l impact o f over $ 10
m i l l i o n f o r RUCO. As it was, however, the opinion and order
stated t h a t RUCO' s analysis had several shortcomings. For
exampl e, the d i v e s t i t u r e resul ted i n " obvious" diseconomies which
RUCO's analysis d i d not account f o r .
0 American Pub1 i c Service ($ 53,400 request, 70 customers ): RUCO
developed most of t h i s case through cross- examination. RUCO
cross- examined company witnesses extensively, t r y i n g t o show t h a t
the business r e l a t i o n s h i p between the parent company and i t s
subsidiary u t i l i ty company was inappropriate or unl awful. RUCO
spent over ha1 f i t s cross- exarnirlation time ( equivalent to nearly
o n e - f i f t h o f the e n t i r e hearing t r a n s c r i p t ) attempting t o
e s t a b l i s h foundation and e l i c i t evidence t o support i t s point,
b u t t o no a v a i l . The opinion and order stated t h a t there was no
evidence t o sho~ r t h a t the business re1 ationship was inappropriate
or unlawful.
Furthermore, i n a post- hearing memorandum, RUCO c i t e d a Kansas
s t a t u t e as t h e l e g a l basis f o r arguing t h a t the parent company
and i t s subsidiary should be c l o s e l y scrutinized. The opinion
and order s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d t h i s argument because Arizona had
no such s t a t u t e , and the Arizona L e ~ i s l a t u r e haa refused to enact
such a s t a t u t e i n 1984.
e Hidden Val l e y ($ 2,504 request, 8 customers): Hearing t r a n s c r i p t s
revealed t h a t RUCO's major p. urp. ose i n t h i s case, which RUCO
devel oped en ti r e l y through cross- examination, was t o argue t h a t
not a l l of the company's r a t e base was " used and useful."
However, RUCO's cross- examination on t h i s issue ended rather
abruptly when an ACC s t a f f witness pointed out t h a t t h i s issue
" r e a l l y wasn't important" for t h i s case. The f i n a l opinion and
order affirmed t h a t t h i s argument was not important because the
company was only seeking recovery o f out- of- pocket expenses.
Because o f inadequate research p r i o r t o the hearing, RUCO d i d not
r e a l i z e t h a t t h i s issue was unimportant. Since t h i s was the only
issue RUCO brought f o r t h , RilCO had no impact on the outcome of
the case.
Cottonwood ( request o f approximately $ 78,000, 2,199 customers):
Even though Cottonwood Water Works f i l e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n on
September 14, 1984, and the hearing date was set on Ray 21, 1585,
RUCO d i d not request i n t e r v e n t i o n u n t i l J u l y 8, 1985, one and
one- half weeks p r i o r to the hearing. As a r e s u l t , the
consultant* RUCO h i r e d f o r t h e case worked i n t e n s e l y s h o r t l y
before t h e hearing t o prepare her analysis. One day before the
hearing, Cottonwood's attorney took a deposition o f RUCO's
consul tant. Excerpts frorn the cieposi t i o n r e f 1 e c t the extent o f
l a s t minute preparation on RUCO's part.
Q. ( By Mr. Smitti, company a t t o r n e y ) Right now, as o f the time
we s i t here, which i s 6: 30 p. m. tonight, you have no
opinions and conclusions t o present t o the Arizona
Corporation Commission i n t h i s case. I s n ' t t h a t true?
A. ( RUCO consultant) You a r e c o r r e c t , yes.
Q. Whatever you present t o the Arizona Corporation Commission
i s going t o be determined between you and your counsel
t o n i g h t and then presented tomorrow morning. Isn ' t t h a t
t r u e ?
A. Yes.
0 Kacrest ($ 96,953 request, 1,400 customers): Even though the ACC
approved RUCO's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s case on A p r i l 2, 1985, RUCO
apparently d i d not prepare most o f i t s case u n t i l s h o r t l y before
the hearing, i n November o f 1985. On November 6, 1985, e i g h t
days before the scheauled hearing, RUCO requested, and the ACC
granted, a delay i n the hearing date t o November 21, 1985.
I n part, l a s t minute preparation nay have r e s u l t e d i n numerous
e r r o r s i n RUCO e x h i b i t s and testimony. For example, during one
p o r t i o n of the hearing, RUCO's attorney and witness used hearing
time t o r e c a l c u l a t e f i g u r e s t o determine what a number should
have been. I n addition, RUCO's witness r e l i e d on ACC s t a f f
working papers f o r her analysis without discussing the
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r accounting adjustments w it t ~ e i t her ACC s t a f f o r
the company. Since RUCO withdrew i t s testimony and e x h i b i t s
b e f o r e t h e hearing ended, RUCO's p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n
l i m i t e d impact on the outcome o f the case.
Inadequate preparation prolongs hearir~ gs and increases costs - Inadequate
case preparation on RUCO's p a r t has not only prolonged hearings but has
also increased costs. As stated previously, KUCG has developed many o f
i t s smaller cases l a r g e l y through cross- examination. Not only i s it more
d i f f i c u l t t o obtain information frorn opposing witnesses, but it takes
* This person was subsequently h i r e d by RljCO as a permanent employee.
longer. I n addition, preparing s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e hearing may prolong
hearings because a d d i t i o n a l time may be needed t o c l a r i f y h a s t i l y prepared
e x h i b i t s . For example, RUCO's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Racrest case involved
40 percent o f the t r a n s c r i p t length. I n addition, s i g n i f i c a n t added costs
were incurred: the company's consul tants estimated t h a t they expended an
a d d i t i o n a l $ 1 5,000 as a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f RUCOis p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Because
companies may 1 e g i t i m a t e l y pass hearing c o s t s on t o ratepayers, inadequate
preparation on RUCO's p a r t may have a c t u a l l y increased costs t o
r e s i d e n t i a l consumers.
I n other cases, the Commission may not have even he1 d a hearing Mere it
not for RUCOis decision t o intervene. The Commission may dispense w i t h a
hearing whenever company gross revenues based on proposed rates are below
$ 250,000. However, the Commi ssi on usual ly dispenses w i t h a hearing f o r
companies w i t h gross revenues 1 ess than $ 50,000, unl ess RUCO requests
p a r t i c i p a t i o n . RUCO has requested p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n seven r a t e cases i n
wtiich companies had gross revenues o f l e s s than $ 250,000 a t the time o f
application. Four o f the seven had gross revenues o f l e s s than $ 50,000.
P a r t l y because o f inadequate preparation, i n only one o f the seven cases
d i d RUCO have any impact.
To I m ~ r o v eC ase Preuaration. RUCO Needs
T. o- l- imi- t I- t- s Work L- o. a d. P r i o r i t i z e I- t. s
Work And Perform idore On- Site 2eviews
RUCO should 1 i m i t i t s work load, p r i o r i t i z e i t s work and conduct more
on- site reviews t o improve the preparation of i t s cases. RUCO siiould
review and p r i o r i t i z e upcoming cases so s u f f i c i e n t resources are dllocatea
t o the most important cases. In addition, RUCO needs t o l i m i t the number
o f issues it works on t o a1 1 ow s t a f f and consul tants t o perforr11 aaequate
analyses. Furthermore, RUCO should perform more on- site company reviews
t o increase the qua1 i t y o f the information it gets ana the e f f i c i e n c y by
which it obtains i t s information.
RUCO should review and p r i o r i t i z e upconring cases - RUCO should r e c j ~ l a r l y
review and p r i o r i t i z e upcoming cases so it can d i r e c t l i m i ted resources t o
the most important cases. Although the kCC and consunler advocacy agencies
i n other states plan for and p r i o r i t i z e t h e i r cases, RUCO does not
adequately prioritize i t s upcoming cases. RUCO shoul d establ i sh a system
f o r p r i o r i t i z i n g cases to 1 imit participation to cases were i t s impact
will be greatest.
RUCO does not adequately p r i o r i t i z e upcoming cases. The Arizona
Corporation Commission regulates nearly 500 util i ty companies. Util i ty
companies may f i l e a rate request with the Commission a t any time. Large
companies have filed requests a t l e a s t yearly in recent years, and smaller
companies f i 1 e 1 ess frequently. RUCO routinely participates i n a1 1 cases
involving 1 arger companies, and becomes involved in numerous small cases
a t consumer request. RUCO's Director has stated tnat the Office ri~ ust
remain flexible because of the dynamic nature of the regulatory
environment. As a result, however, RUCO may become involved in more cases
than its resources allow, and consequently, may spend inadequate time and
resources preparing for cases that may have the greatest impact on
residential consumers. For example, RUCO's Director stated that since she
has a1 ready obl i gated al 1 monies for professional and outsiae services,
she has no funds l e f t in fiscal year 1985- 86 to hire a consultant for a
major case involving tlountain Bell l a t e r i n 1486.
In comparison, Auditor General s t a f f i denti fied several consumer iidvocacy
agencies i n other states r~ ittl systems for case selection. For example,
South Carol ina selects cases for intervention through a case sel ection
report on each docketed case. South Carolina's form considers such issues
as the chances of winning the issue, the frequency of rate requests and
agency case load constraints. Ohio also uses a form ( among other
considerations) f o r p r i o r i t i z i n g small er cases. Ohi 0' s form considers
factors such as the number of customers the case affects, the dollar
amount invol ved and schedul ing information. A t h i rd state, i\ ievada,
performs case planning and xork load scheduling weekly, quarterly and
annually. The weekly planning and work load scheduling allows the agency
to deal with the uncertainties of the r e g u l a t ~ r y environment. Cases
selected for intervention are prioritized, based primarily on the number
of people and dollars involved, and then integrated into the b~ ork load
schedul e.
The ACC also performs r o u t i n e planning and scheduling i n t h i s dynamic
regul atory environment. The ACC performs 1 ong- term work 1 oad p l anning by
contacting l a r g e u t i l i t y companies t o ascertain whether and when they w i l l
be f i l i n g r a t e requests for the upcoming f i s c a l year. The ACC also
obtains estimates o f the amount companies plan t o request and uses t h i s
information t o j u s t i f y i t s requests for consul t a n t funding. I n addition,
ACC s t a f f contact company o f f i c i a l s throughout the year t o update i t s
information. ACC s t a f f managers said they would share t h i s information
w i t h RUCO a t i t s request.
To use i t s resources most e f f e c t i v e l y , RUCO should e s t a b l i s h a system f o r
p r i o r i t i z i n g cases and l i m i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o cases i n which it w i l l have
the greatest impact. The Center f o r Law i n the Public I n t e r e s t ,
considered by many t o have been a successful intervenor i n s p i t e o f
1 i m i ted resources, has recognized i t s resource c o n s t r a i n t s and avoided
working on issues t h a t exceed i t s resource c a p a b i l i t i e s . The Ohio
Consumer's Counsel, one o f the n a t i o n ' s l a r g e s t s t a t e u t i l i t y consumer
advocacy agencies, s i m i l a r l y recognizes i t s resource c o n s t r a i n t s and has a
system f o r determining the importance o f each case. RUCO's resources are
also l i m i t e d . Using resources most e f f e c t i v e l y would require RUCO t o
p r i o r i t i z e cases and 1 i r n i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o cases i n wt~ ich i t i s 1 i k e l y to
have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact.
I n cases i n which RUCO's f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n cannot be j u s t i f i e d , less
c o s t l y and less tirne consuming o p t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e . Where appl icabl e,
RUCO should consider p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n only c r i t i c a l portions o f a case,
and s t i p u l a t i n g * t o the f a c t s o f a case ( i n accordance w i t h Commission
r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ) t o decrease hearing costs. For issues o f general
* A s t i p u l a t i o n i s an agreement or concession made by p a r t i e s i n a
j u d i c i a l proceeding r e l a t i n g t o a matter before the court ( o r i n t h i s
case, the Commission).
concern, RUCO should consider b r i n g i n g issues t o the Commission through
workshops the Commission holds weekly t o discuss p o l i c y issues, generic
hearings,* o r informal conversations w i t h Commissioners** or Commission
s t a f f .
RUCO should 1 i m i t issues - RUCO should a1 so be more s e l e c t i v e about the
issues it brings before the Commission. RUCO has shown an increasing
tendency t o cover many issues. However, attempting t o present too nrany
issues may decrease RUCO's impact on Commission decisions.
RUCO's tendency t o address many issues i n l a r g e and complex cases has
increased as the O f f i c e has matured. According t o RUCO's D i r e c t o r ,
formerly the Office re1 i e d mainly on i t s consul t a n t s t o decide what topics
t o analyze i n a case. However, as RUCO has gained more experience, i t s
own s t a f f has played a greater r o l e i n deciding what RUCO w i l l study. The
increasing number o f issues RUCO has t r i e d t o address i s r e f l e c t e d by i t s
e f f o r t s i n the most recent APS and Mountain Be1 1 cases. The Nountain Eel 1
opinion and order i n d i c a t e s t h a t RUCO brought up 16 issues. By
comparison, the 14 other intervenors averaged l e s s than four issues per
intervenor. For example, the City o f Tucson s e l e c t e d t h r e e issues t o
present before the Commission.
RUCO's extensive involvement i n cases may be r e f l e c t e d i n the voluminous
data requests it submits. We reviewed data requests submitted by RUCO and
o t h e r p a r t i e s re1 a t i n g t o a recent APS case, as shown i n Tab1 e 4.
* Tne Commission holds generic hearings t o discuss general issues
a f f e c t i n g more than one company.
** I n accordance w i t h ex ~ a r t eru les.
TABLE 4
DATA REQUESTS AND QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO APS
THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 1986 ( DOCKET NO. 1345- 85- 1 56)
P a r t i c i p a n t Data Requests Questions
RUCO 3 7
ACC s t a f f and consultants 3 1
Coal i t i o n f o r Responsible Energy Education 10
Department o f Defense 5
Southwest Gas 2
Association o f Industries, e t a l . 4
Source: Data requests, Arizona Public Service Cor~ ipany.
As the Table shows, RUCO submitted more data requests than any other
party. The number o f questions RUCO asked exceeded even those o f ACC
staff and consul tants, who present the most comprehensive case. Indeed,
RUCO asked over 400 more questions than a l l other p a r t i e s combined.
However, attempting t o look a t too many issues may decrease RUCO's
effectiveness. I n developing a case, RUCO may expand some issues ; ~ h i l e
adding other new issues. In part, covering many issues nay decrease
effectiveness because it prevents RUCO from focusing on s p e c i f i c issues
u n t i l l a t e r i n the process. As a r e s u l t , s t a f f and consultants may have
much l e s s time t o analyze s p e c i f i c issues i n depth. Coverins many issues
may also, i n and o f i t s e l f , l i m i t RUCO's effectiveness. RUCC's
consultant f o r the Plountain Bell case adaressed both expanding and
a d d i t i o n o f issues i n a March 13, 1985, l e t t e r t o RUCO's Director. The
l e t t e r , w r i t t e n only two months before ttle deadline ( a t che tinie) f o r
f i l i n g RUCO's testimony, responded t o discussion w i t h i n RUCO t o have the
consul t i n g f i r m study a d d i t i o n a l issues.
. . . Lie would c e r t a i n l y be w i l l i n g t o do
[ morel . . . but I do not recommend it. . . . It has
been b u r experience t h a t the l a r g e r the number o f
issues beina debated i n a r a t e case, the lower the
p o s s i b i l i t y o f winning any one issue. We are already
recommending t h a t RUCO pursue numerous s p e c i f i c issues
which are very technical. As a r e s u l t , our testimony
w i l l be long, and h i g h l y technical, even without adding
any a d d i t i o n a l issues. . . . As you may r e c a l l , we have
already expanded the scope of your testimony far beyond
that env~ s~ onea in our RFP and our
proposal . . . . Accoraingly , I reconimend that no
additional issues be added. . . ." ( emphasis added)
On- site review leads to better inforrcation - Unaer certain circumstances
on- si te review would allow RUCO to collect more accurate and complete
information more efficiently. A1 though a1 1 nine states contacted by
Auditor General staff use data requests as their primary information
source, seven of the states routinely use on- site review to supplement
information for cases. An official a t New Mexico's u t i l i t y consumer
advocacy agency stated that the agency has begun to develop relationships
with the company because of time constraints on a hearing. Florida takes
i t s depositions a t company offices and may a t that time also conduct an
on- site review of the company's books. Use of on- site review i n Nevada is
second only to i t s use of data requests. Pennsylvania v i s i t s the company
i n particularly complex cases. In addition, Ohio and Arkansas also
regularly use on- site review. In contrast, RUCO rarely conducts on- site
reviews of a company or company documents. A t present, RUCO re1 ies alnios t
exclusively on company written responses to data requests, company f i l irlgs
a t the Commission and depositions to develop i t s case. Although RUCG
s t a f f cited various reasons for not using this niethod, on- site review
would allow RUCO to collect more complete and higher qua1 ity information
more efficiently.
e Some RUCO s t a f f stated that current rriethods are superior or
adequate. However, current methods rely largely on what a
company reports, whereas on- si te review would a1 low RUCG to
determine i n some cases whether that information i s
complete. For example, according to i t s director, New
Mexico's consumer advocate has actively developed
re1 ationships wi t h companies and thereby has improved the
content of i t s information.
e One RUCO employee stated that RUCO saves time by not having
to v i s i t companies i n person. However, on- site reviews
would allow RUCO to save tinie by obtair~ iriy information more
efficiently. RUCG develops its larger and more complex
cases using data requests, to which tile company must provi~ e
a written response within a reasonable time. For example,
in the current APS case the company ( as well as other
parties) has ten working days to respond to a data request.
RUCO1s data requests in the most recent APS case contained
from two t o 243 questions per request, f o r an average o f 34
questions per request. Without v i s i t i n g the company,
however, RUCO can f o l l o w up on responses only by submitting
another data request. I n the c u r r e n t APS case t h i s means the
company w i l l have another ten days t o respona. Follow- up nay
be needed because RUCO may have a d d i t i o n a l questions o r
because the company m i sunderstood the question, gave an
incompl ete response, or consi ders the requested information
voluminous o r c o n f i d e n t i a l . Fol1 ow- up coul d occur more
q u i c k l y through an on- site v i s i t , because RUCO would not have
t o w a i t days merely t o discover, f o r example, t h a t the
information i s voluminous or t h a t the company misunderstood
the question.
e Some RUCO s t a f f believed it was i l l e g a l or unethical to
contact a company d i r e c t l y without p r i o r permission.
However, RUCO may request an on- site review through a data
request. In the event t h a t RUCO cannot obtain permission t o
conduct on- site reviews, RUCO could f i l e a motion requestincj
t h a t the hearing o f f i c e r d i r e c t company o f f i c i a l s t o open i t s
records t o KUCO alld a1 1 ow RUCO on- si te t o conuuct revieus.
CONCLUSIONS
EUCO coul d increase i t s case effectiveness. F; UCO's function i s important
and necessary. Although RUCO has been e f f e c t i v e i n some cases, it has had
l i t t l e impact i n many cases. RUCO's effectiveness has been impaired
because o f poor case preparation. I n addition, RUCO should l i m i t i t s work
load and p r i o r i t i z e i t s work.
1. RUCO should develop a more accurate method o f evaluating i t s
effectiveness i n case i n t e r v e n t i o n .
2. RUCO should develop a system f o r determining whether i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i s warranted so resources can be directed t o cases on which it i s
1 i k e l y t o have the most s i g n i f i c a n t impact.
3. RUCO should develop a method t o p r i o r i t i z e those cases and issues
w i t t i i n cases i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s j u s t i f i e d . RUCO should
a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e only i n higher p r i o r i t y cases or issues t h a t
a v a i l a b l e time, resources and s t a f f can hanale.
4. For lower p r i o r i t y cases or issues, RUCC should consider less time
consuming or l e s s c o s t l y ways o f addressing i t s concerns. When
concern i s over a pol i c y issue o r other general issue, RUCO should
consider b r i n g i n g these issues t o Commission a t t e n t i o n through
workshops, informal discussions w i t h Comn~ issioners or ACC s t a f f , o r a
generic docket. When an issue i s case s p e c i f i c , RUCO should consider
1 i m i t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o c r i t i c a l portions o f the hearing, or attempt
t o s t i p u l a t e t o f a c t s of a case.
5. When RUCO does a c t i v e l y intervene, RUCO should increase i t s
probabil i ty f o r success by:
a. Selecting issues f o r analysis i n which RUCC i s l i k e l y t o
have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact, and gathering evidence t o
persuaae i t s audience.
b. I d e n t i f y i n g issues e a r l y i n the process, and l i m i t i n g
subsequent work and analysis t o those issues.
c. Performing more frequent on- site review and inspection o f
companies as needed t o obtain more accurate and
con~ prehensive information.
d. Using d i r e c t testimony more frequently.
FINDING I 1
RESICENTIAL CONSUI. 1ER UTILITY OFFICE COULG IltlPROVE ITS LEGAL WRITIhG TO
INCREASE IMPACT
The Residential Consumer U t i l i t y O f f i c e ( RUCO) could have a greater i i i ~ p a c t
on case outcomes by strengthening i t s l e g a l work. RUCO could make i t s
1 egal w r i t i n g more persuasive by improving the organization, c l a r i t y and
conciseness o f i t s documents. I n addition, RUCO could improve the
s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t o f i t s documents.
Backaround
Ciell w r i t t e n l e g a l arguments can influence case outcomes. Parties t o a
case submit w r i t t e n 1 egal arguments t o the Arizona Corporati on Commission
( ACC) under c e r t a i n circumstances. For exarnpl e, a f t e r a hear'ing o f f i c e r
issues a recommended opinion and order, p a r t i e s can try t o change the
Conmi s s i on ' s decision by w r i t i n g exceptions t o the recommenaed order.
Since the Commission has f i n a l deci sion- making power, persuasively w r i t t e n
exceptions can change portions of the f i n a l order. Ttie Co~ niission may
also ask p a r t i e s t o submit b r i e f s a t the beginning or end o f major cases
t o summarize arguments t h a t they have brought o r w i l l b r i n y f o r t h . Since
b r i e f s should concisely summarize a p a r t y ' s major arguments and when
appropriate, rebut opposing arguments, they can also a f f e c t Commission
decisions. I n addition, because Commissioners are n o t a t a l l hearings a t
a l l times, b r i e f s and exceptions may also a s s i s t the Commission i n
understanding complex cases.
Persuasiveness i s even more important f o r documents submitted i n c o u r t
actions. Since the c o u r t does n o t have p r i o r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h Commission
cases, it must base i t s decision t o proceed mainly on the d o c ~ r ~ ~ e n t s
submitted before it. RUCO has submitted l e g a l documents i n four c o u r t
a c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e Commission, ana has sougtlt c o u r t a c t i o n i n three cases
f i l e d w i t h the Maricopa County Superior Court and i n one Special Action
f i l e d w i t h the Arizona Supreme Court.
Because o f t h e p o t e n t i a l impact o f RUCO's l e g a l documents, we h i r e d two
consul tants, working independently o f one another, t o eval uate the qua1 i ty
and persuasiveness o f RUCO's legal w r i t i n g . Both consultants are
professors o f law a t Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y and were recommended f o r
t h e i r expertise i n l e g a l w r i t i n g . ( Copies o f the consultants' reports and
resumes are a v a i l a b l e upon request. )
The consul t a n t s reviewed 1 egal w r i t i n g RUCO had submitted before the
Commission and the courts. Both consultants reviewed three samples o f
l e g a l w r i t i n g t h a t RUCO submitted t o the Commission i n the most recent
Mountain B e l l and Arizona Public Service ( APS) general r a t e cases: i t s
opening b r i e f ( i n i t i a l post- hearing b r i e f ) and r e p l y i n a 1985 C~ ountain
Bell case, and w r i t t e n exceptions t o a recommended opinion and order i n a
1984 APS general r a t e case.* The consultants also reviewed RUCO documents
from two c o u r t cases: a RUCO case f i l e d before Maricopa County Superior
Court r e l a t e d t o a Commission decision i n a 1984 Southwest Gas case, dnd
RUCO's Special Action f i l e d b e f o r e t h e Arizona Supreme Court regarding the
Commission's decision i n a 1985 APS f u e l adjustor case.
RUCO Could Improve
I t s Legal Wri ti rig
RUCO coul d increase i t s persuasiveness and effectiveness by improving i t s
1 egal w r i t i n g i n several areas.
Persuasiveness o f arguments - Both consultants noted p r o ~ l e n s w i t h
persuasiveness i n RUCO documents they reviewed. One consultant f e l t t h a t
the " almost n e u t r a l " format o f RUCO's i n i t i a l post- hearing b r i e f f o r tile
Mountain B e l l case ( r e s u l t i n g from RUCO's decision t o w r i t e an executive
sumrflary of i t s p o s i t i o n s i n l i e u o f a t r a d i t i o n a l b r i e f ) rendered it
i n e f f e c t i v e . The o t h e r c o n s u l t a n t f e l t t h a t problems existed, even
without considering whether RUCO' s decision not t o w r i t e a t r a d i t i o n a l
b r i e f " makes sense. " Both consul tants pointed out t h a t RUCO's arguments
* This was the most c u r r e n t APS general r a t e case i n which the
Commission had issued a f i n a l opinion and order.
were n o t c l e a r l y evident, e i t h e r a t the beginning or i n each section o f
the b r i e f . Both consultants also had concerns w i t h one o f RUCO's
arguments i n the APS case. RUCO wanted the Commission t o award attorney
fees and costs f o r work Arizona Corporation Commission s t a f f and other
intervenors ( i n c l u d i n g RUCO) had completed on issues t h a t APS subsequently
withdrew from the case. The consultants concl uded t h a t RUCO's argument
was not o n l y i n e f f e c t i v e and unclear, b u t d i d not focus on the c r i t i c a l
issue o f whether the Commission was authorized t o make such an award.
Indeed, the Commission decision stated, ". . . The power t o
award . . . attorneys' fees i s an inherent j u d i c i a l power which can only
be conferred . . . by s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l enactment.
Therefore, RUCO's motion . . . w i l l be denied."
Organization and use o f t r a n s i t i o n s - Organization problems appeared
throughout both Plountain B e l l and APS b r i e f s . For example, both
c o n s u l t a n t s s t a t e d t h a t RUCO could have improved i t s exceptions i n the BPS
case and i t s i n i t i a l post- hearing b r i e f i n the Mountain Bell case if it
had summarized i t s arguments a t the outset.
Organization i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n long documents and technical
argurnents. RUCO' s i n i t i a l post- hearing b r i e f i n the blountain Lie1 l case
was 59 pages long,* excluding 33 pages o f appendices, and summarized d
h i g h l y technical case i n which t r a n s c r i p t s were more than 6,000 pages i n
length. One consultant noted t h a t he tended t o " lose s i g h t o f t h e f o r e s t
for t h e t r e e s " while reading the post- hearing b r i e f . The other c i t e d
paragraphs t h a t " s t r i n g one a f t e r the other without any conclusions."
Inadequate c i t a t i o n s , and e r r o r s i n gramnlar, t y p i n s and punctuation - Both
consultants noted inadequate c i t a t i o n s t o the record and other e r r o r s i n
typing and grammar. For example, i n one b r i e f the consultant showed t h a t
RUCO quoted testimony without c i t i n g t o the record and mentioned a case
without c i t i n g t o it. I n addition, i n one document f i l e d before tblaricopa
County Superior Court, RUCO made an apparent typing e r r o r i n r e f e r r i n g t o
* Procedural orders 1 i m i ted the length o f t h i s b r i e f t o 60 pages f o r a1 1
p a r t i e s .
" ARS 40- 454" as the legal basis for RUCO's request for a " t r i a l de novo."
However, Arizona Revised Statutes does not contain a $ 40- 454. RUCO was
apparently referring to A. R. S. S40- 254. Because the document in which
this error appeared was not very long, one consultant commented that there
was " no excuse for such sloppiness in a five page document upon whicti the
Superior Court will judge the propriety of a t r i a l de novo."
Clear and concise - The consultants found problems with c l a r i t y and
conciseness i n all the documents. For example, one or more of the
documents were wordy, used the passive voice unnecessarily, or used legal
jargon and overly complex sentences. One consultant stated that a
particular brief " distracts the reader with an absent- minded series of
incompl ete sentences. " The other consul tant pointed out that another
brief " wastes time i n developing an irrelevant point in a confusing
manner. "
In the recent Idountai n Be1 1 case, one Colilni ssioner expressea appreciation
t o a l l b u t one party for keeping the exceptions to proposed Commission
orders short, due to time constraints on Commission review. In this
instance, RUCO's exceptions were the lengthiest - longer than the proposed
opinion and order to which i t was responaing.
The poor qua1 i t y of RUCO's briefs decreases i t s a b i l i t y to persuade tile
Commission and the courts. A1 though sorile concerns appear ini nor \ hen
viewed individual ly, together they produce a negative effect. Consul tants
cited a variety of possible reasons why RUCO documents are senerally
deficient, including insufficient editing, failure to read the material
from the perspective of an outside audience, time constraints, and
inadequate 1 egal writing programs i n school. In addition, RUCO attorneys
have worked wittlout secretarial resources for more than a year, aue to
reclassification of the RUCO secretarial position. A 1 egal secretary has
been approved for the 1986- 87 budget year.
Other Concerns Characterize Legal Writing
In addition to concerns with writing and organization, other problems were
noted in written documents RUCO submitted to the courts. RUCO exliibi ted
difficulty in providing sufficient grounds for action and in following
rules of procedure in a Superior Court case, and in establishing grounds
i n a Special Action before the Arizona Supreme Court.
Difficulties in Superior Court case - RUCO had difficulty establ ishing
legal grounds for action and following established rules of procedure in a
Superior Court case i n which RUCO challenged a Commission decision i n a
Southwest Gas case. In t h i s case, RUCO's " notice of appeal" l i s t e d five
points upon which RUCO sought Court action. Opposing parties argued that
RUCO failed t o s t a t e any legal claims upon which the Court could act and,
therefore, the case should be dismissed. On November 6, 1984, the Court
issued t h i s decision.
THE COURT FINDS that P l a i n t i f f ' s [ RUCC1sl " riotice of
Appeal ," read in the 1 ight most favorabl e to Pl ainti f f ,
s t a t e s one legally Lrejcognizaole ciaia . . .
P l a i n t i f f ' s a1 1 egatioris regarding post- test year CKIP,
future projected expenses, NAP, and tax normal ization,
f a i l to state claims upon which relief can be granted
and are hereby dismissed. PI a i n t i f f ' s a1 legations
regarding increases i n customer charges . . . do not
s t a t e a claim and are hereby dismisses for the reason
t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion for Re- Hearing on this point
was not sufficiently specific. Instead, the isrotion . . .
made a vague, general reference to previous " briefs",
" arguments", and " exceptions." ( emphasis aaaed)
RUCO a1 so twice f a i l e d t o follow rules of procedure i n this case, thereby
delaying the case and increasing costs to other parties. RbCO filed the
original appeal in July 1984. In May 1985 the Superior Court ordered RUCG
to f i l e certain documents ( I4otion to Set and Certificate of Reaciiness) by
July 23, 1985, or face dismissal of the action. On July 23, 1985, RUCO
submitted one docurnent so labeled. Both Commission and Southwest Gas
attorneys stated the document did not meet the requirements of Rule V of
the Uniform Rules of Practice of the Superior Court. In separate notions,
both parties stated that RUCO's motion was not preceded by the subinission
of a l i s t of witnesses and exhibits as required by Rule V. The Court
found that RUCO f a i l e d t o comply with the rules and ordered RUCO to f i l e a
proper motion by October 18, 1985. On that date RUCO filed another
defective document, which : vas s t i l l not in compliance with Rule V. In both
instances, records i n d i c a t e t h a t RUCO d i d not respond e a r l i e r than the day
p r i o r t o the deadline given by c o u r t order. I n both instances, RUCO1s
documents were defective. The Court dismissed the case on March 5, 1986.
One consul tan t* stated:
I f i n d RUCO's f a i l u r e t o respond properly t o the
Court's order( s) inexpl icabl e. The case has been
pending since November 1984. The documents r e f l e c t no
a c t i o n by RUCO. If they do not intend t o pursue the
case, they should withdraw it. If they intend t o
pursue it, they should get on w i t h it. . . . RUCO1s
behavior i s c o s t l y t o the Co~ mission, Southwest Gas,
and the Court. . . .
Special a c t i o n - RUCG's Special Action P e t i t i o n was a l s o d e f i c i e n t . One
o f our consultants stated t h a t because the Supreme Court does not often
grant a Special Action, the p e t i t i o n e r ( RUCO) must convince the Court o f a
compel 1 ing need t o hear the case, based on strong 1 egal arguments.
However, she pointed out t h a t RUCO's argument focused on factual arguments
more a p p r o p r i a t e l y made t o the Commission than t o the Court i n a Special
Action. I n addition, RUCO based most o f i t s l e g a l arguments on a single
Arizona Court o f Appeals case, Scates v. Arizona Corporation Cornmission.
Whether or not t h i s case supports RUCO1s argument,** kUCG d i d not address
the c r i t i c a l issue o f why the Court should adopt the reasoning o f Scates.
RUCO needed t o address t h i s issue because the Supreme Court o f Arizona i s
not bound by decisions o f t h e ( i n t e r m e d i a t e ) S t a t e appellate court.
Subsequently, on Elovember 26, 1 985, the Arizona Suprerne Court decl ined to
accept j u r i s d i c t i o n o f RUCO's p e t i t i o n .
* The other consultarit indicated t h a t he noted t h i s aspect o f RUCC's
work b u t d i d not include it i n h i s r e p o r t because he d i d not feel i t
was w i t h i n the scope o f h i s assignment.
** Other documents i n d i c a t e t h a t it does not. I n addition, only t ~ o
months before RUCG f i l e d t h i s case, an Arizona Capitdl Times a r t i c l e
i n d i c a t e d t h a t RUCO's D i r e c t o r said she would not challenge the
Commission's decision i n court because i t s a u t h o r i t y i n fuel
adjustment cases was so c l e a r l y establ ished.
CONCLUSIONS
RUCO could increase i t s effectiveness by improving i t s legal work. RUCO
could make i t s l e g a l w r i t i n g more persuasive by improving the
organization, c l a r i t y , and conciseness o f i t s documents. I n addition,
RUCO could improve the substantive content o f i t s c o u r t documents.
RECGIGMENDATI ONS
RUCO should implement the f o l l o w i n g procedures t o improve the q u a l i t y o f
i t s legal work.
1. Increase the i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g o f b r i e f s , exceptions and other
documents w r i t t e n by i t s attorneys.
2. I n i t i a t e s t a f f t r a i n i n g t o improve w r i t i n g and legal s k i l l s .
3. Plan ahead or modify i t s work schedule t o allow adequate time t o
prepare required documents.
FINGING I11
RESI DENTIAL UTILITY CCtiSUliER OFFICE ' S INVESTIGATI OEl OF CONSUMER COtiiPLAINTS
IS INAPPROPRIATE
The Residential Util i ty Consumer Office ( RUCG) should not investigate
consumer compl aints. RUCO's investigation of consumer complaints
duplicates some services provided by the Consumer Services Section of the
Arizona Corporation Commission ( A C C ) . Moreover, the investigation of
consumer compl aints has 1 e f t RUCO without needed clerical support.
RUCO receives both written and telephone complaints asainst u t i l i t y
companies from residential consumers. Compl aints can re1 ate to a
consumer's specific bill ing or util i ty service problems, or t o general
util i ty rate concerns. In order t o resolve conipl aints, f; UCO1s consumer
service specialist has contacted utility companies or the ACC to
investigate circumstances of corlsunler complaints, and has a1 so ~ iediatea
resolutions. Because n o t all incoming telephone calls are recorded, i t i s
n o t possible t o ascertain the exact nurnber of calls concerning various
forms of complaints. However, review of RUCO files shows that between
January 1985 and February 1986 RUCCi recorded approxirilately 190 telephone*
and 140 written compl aints.
RUCO Cup1 icates Some
Services O f The ACC
RUCO1s investigation of residential consumer complaints dupl icates, in
part, the efforts of the Consumer Services Section of the ACC. RUCO does
not appear t o have authority t o investigate complaints. Ttie Consumer
Services Section of the ACC has jurisdiction over compl aint resol ution.
Further, RUCO does not need t o resolve complaints to identify public
concerns.
* The number of telephone calls could be higher because 44 teleptione
calls had no recorded date.
RUCO 1 acks a u t h o r i t y f o r complaint r e s o l u t i o n - RUCO does not appear t o
have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e consumer complaints. The
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f RUCO's Director, as set f o r t h i n Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. S. ) 540- 464. A. 1, are as follows.
A. The d i r e c t o r may:
1. Research, study and analyze r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i t y
consumer i n t e r e s t s .
Prepare and present b r i e f s , arguments, proposed
r a t e s or orders and intervene o r appear on behalf
o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i l i ty consumers before hearing
o f f i c e r s and the corporation commission as a party
i n i n t e r e s t and also p a r t i c i p a t e as a party i n
i n t e r e s t pursuant t o $ 40- 254 i n proceedings
r e l a t i n g t o r a t e naking o r r a t e design and
i n v o l v i n g pub1 i c service corporations.
3. Make and execute contracts and other instruments
as necessary t o perform h i s duties.
4. Hire employees as necessary t o c a r r y o u t t h i s
a r t i c l e and c o n t r a c t f o r special services as
needed.
5. Employ such attorneys as are required t o represent
the i n t e r e s t s o f r e s i d e n t i a l u t i 1 i ty consumers.
According t o a L e g i s l a t i v e Council memorandum dated February 24, 1986,
RUCO's mediation o f consumer complaints does not appear t o be authorized
by A. R. S. $ 40- 464. L e g i s l a t i v e Counci 1 f u r t h e r notes t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e
had t h e o p t i o n t o place complaint mediation a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n RUCO, but
gave the Corporation Colcrnissi on t h i s function. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the
s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n states:
RUCO' s mediation between u t i l i ty companies and consumers
regarding complaints does not appear t o be authorized e i t h e r as a
research function under A. k. S. $ 40- 464, subsection A, paragraptr
1 , as making presentations before the Corporation Commission
under paragraph 2 or as employing attorneys t o represent the
i n t e r e s t s o f consumers under paragraph 5. A1 so, t h i s function
was speci f i c a l ly given t o the Corporation Commission u t i 1 i t i e s
d i v i s i o n by A. R. S. $ 40- 110, which was enacted i n the sane measure
which created RUCO ( Laws 1983, Chapter 308, Section 6 ) . *
3r For the complete t e x t o f the opinion, see Appendix.
ACC has a u t h o r i t y t o mediate complaints - A u t h o r i t y f o r complaint
r e s o l u t i o n l i e s w i t h i n the Consumer Services Section o f the ACC. As
previously noted, A. R. S. $ 40- 110, enacted i n the same measure t h a t
establ ished RUCO, placed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h i n
the u t i l i t i e s d i v i s i o n of the ACC. I n 1983 the L e g i s l a t u r e establ ished a
Consumer Services Section t o " receive and i n v e s t i g a t e consumer compl a i n t s
and t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n concerning u t i l i t y rates and regulatory
proceedings o f publ i c s e r v i c e c o r p o r a t i o n s regul a t e d b y the commission. "
The Section employs n i n e i n v e s t i g a t o r s , who handled 11, GOO consumer
i n q u i r i e s i n f i s c a l year 1984- 85.
The ACC i s b e t t e r prepared than RUCG t o address consunter complaints.
Commission i n v e s t i g a t o r s receive t r a i n i n g i n complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n
which they learn t o properly l o g a complaint, complete follow- up r ~ t hi a
u t i l i ty company, and i n t e r p r e t ACC r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and comparly
t a r i f f s . Conversely, RliCG' s consumer special i s t has not been t r a i n e d i n
u t i l i ty complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n . According t o the RUCO consumer
s p e c i a l i s t , she has not received t r a i n i n g on ACC r u l e s and regulations.
Therefore, when a question has arisen regarding t a r i f f s o r ACC r u l e s and
regulations, she has contacted ACC s t a f f o r the u t i l i t y company t o obtain
p e r t i n e n t information.
RUCO' s compl a i n t i n v o l venlent i s unnecessary t o i d e n t i f y publ i c concerns -
RUCO does not need t o handle consumer complaints t o i d e n t i f y publ i c
concerns. A1 though RUCO's D i r e c t o r acknowledged t h a t the ACC i s
responsible f o r processing compl a i n t s , she be1 ieves t h a t RUCO's
involvement i s important t o i d e n t i f y p u b l i c concerns. However, it i s
questionable whether RUCO can c o n s i s t e n t l y i denti fy consumer concerns
through i t s complaint process. A review o f t i l e complaint process found
t h a t thorough records have not been maintained. The consumer special i s t
i n d i c a t e d t h a t she does not record a11 c a l l s received. bloreover, RUCO
could i d e n t i f y consumer concerns through other means, such as continual
informal contact w i t h ACC consumer special i s t s and through Residential
U t i l i t y Board meetings. I n addition, when RUCO needs t o i d e n t i f y pub1 i c
concerns on s p e c i f i c r a t e cases, it could sponsor a p u b l i c comment meeting
or attend an ACC sponsored meeting.
RUCO's Director also indicated, as a reason for addressing consumer
concerns, that l e g i s l a t o r s r e f e r constituents to RUCO. However, i n a
review of written responses to consumer complaints, we found that only
three cases appeared to foll ow a prior 1 egis1 ative contact. Furthermore,
those cases of specific consumer problems should be referred to the ACC
because of the Commission's authority to investigate complaints.
Compl aint Investigation Has
Di sul aced Needed Cl erical Services
Because RUCO reclassified i t s secretarial position to hand1 e consumer
complaints, i t lacks needed clerical support. Prior to January 1985, RUCO
had an administrative secretary I1 position. However, the position rias
reclassified to a consumer service specialist i n early 1985 to allow RUCO
to handle complaints. This reclassification el iminated RbCO's only
secretarial position. Because RUCO was l e f t without secretarial s t a f f ,
the specialist divides her work time between addressing consurner inquiries
and clerical tasks, a1 though her primary responsibil ity i s responding to
consumer inquiries. However, the special ist i s unable to compl ete both
the consuner complaints and the clerical tasks. For example, as of flarcrl
7, 1986, the specialist had a backlog of 71 written consmer complaints
dated between January 1985 and March 1986.
Due to the volume of clerical i~ ork handled by the consumer s p e c i a l i s t ,
some clerical tasks have been delegatea to professional s t a f f . The
professional s t a f f regularly ansliier the telephones, run errands, type the
final draft copy of documents and photocopy materials. In addition, some
professional s t a f f have done basic i; ool: keepirig data entry for travel and
consul tant expenditures. liobrever, use of these higher paid professional
stdff to do clerical work i s noL cost e f f i c i e n t .
RUCO has requested a legal secretary I11 position in i t s fiscal year
19%- 87 budget. If funded, this rnay alleviate tile need to use
professional s t a f f for cl erical work.
CONCLUSIOFJ
RUCO' s i nvesti gation of consumer conipl aints dupl icates sorne services
provided by the Consumer Service's Section of the Arizona Corporation
Commi ssion. In addition, RUCO's handl ing of consumer complaints has
di spl aced needed cl erical support.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. RUCO shoul d discontinue handl ing consurner compl aints and refer
compl aints requiring resol ution to the Consumer Services Section of
the ACC.
2. RUCO should reassign the consumer service specialist position to other
duties and, if necessary, request reclassification of the position.
3. RUCO should eliminate clerical responsibilities frorn the work loati of
professional staff and reassign clerical tasks to appropriate staff.
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of our a u d i t we i d e n t i f i e d a p o t e n t i a l issue t h a t we
were unable t o pursue due t o time constraints.
0 Should the Residential U t i l i t y Consumer O f f i c e ( RUCO) be granted
a u t h o r i t y t o intervene i n the Federal u t i 1 i ty regul atory process?
Some Residential U t i l i ty Consumer Board members and RUCO' s Director have
indicated t h a t RUCO's i n t e r v e n t i o n a t the Federal l e v e l o f u t i l i t y
regulation could have a large impact on Arizona consumers' u t i l i t y costs.
According t o an attorney f o r the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
( FERC), the Commission can regulate from 1 to 100 percent o f natural gas
and o i l i n t e r s t a t e costs. According to RUCG's Director, RUCO does not
presently have the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to intervene i n Federal cases.
However, a l l 13 o f the s t a t e advocacy o f f i c e s t h a t responded t o an Auditor
General survey have or a r e p r e s e n t l y intervening a t the Federal level.
Since 1984, Arizona consumers have been represented i n Federal cases by
the Arizona Corporation Commission ( ACC), according to ACC s t a f f . Further
a u d i t work i s needed t o determine what e f f e c t RUCO would have a t the
Federal 1 eve1 and whether it should a1 so have i n t e r v e n t i o n a u t h o r i t y .
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUMER OFFICE
34 WEST MONROE, SUITE 1016 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003
Bruce Babbitt
GOVERNOR
C
RUCO BOARD
John L. Ahearn
Chairman
Phoenix
James A. Fein
Vice Chairman
Tucson
Walter A. Bush,
Sun City
e Janice Cox
Tucson
Me1 Hannah
Flagstaff
Doilglas 3.. Tiorton
Auclit~ r General
Office of the Auditor General
2700 I J . Central, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 35004
Susan A. Williams
: 1- 1 1 . ; i 2 L , l 5 3 I'. DIRECTOR
( 602) 255- 1431
D a r P 4 r . : : o r t o n :
l:; lj. l,? CrJC( 7 < J:?(!. t:.,:: :;: j,?:!< iqx; z:: <(;>,:; ; J i L : : c; 1< 2 . . I < . L - ' I C > ~ L C~~;~? T: n, z
- . a\.~ rl, j. t:: :- fi,;:> r:.': i D . ~ : ? c ~ ; ~ : I ~ ~ ~ : ~ : ~ ~ :,..: z t : LjJ~~ c> T: l:~: ~,: :: ~ I U L L I c~ j f~ L. i: :.;
other :: cn; 71 1 1 i 0 r l . r ; . ri i i,>,: ; - : c l , : 1 ; r i : j . i " ~ . ~ . . L ~ l l c ; ~ y c ?~. ~: : t~: L; : ; t c ~ r c ~ : l L ~ r : /
I
n ; , j . ? i ? t : . c . 3 n r L = r r ; i ; : q tr1.2 :- l: ii- ll:.: l1,: ~ ~ ~ i . ~ ~ , r , ~ r;;: r;&~ eer(: i i~ il~,;~ s Z f i G 2
C .. ' 1 ,.-- . . .- . ,
. 2 ,. LL!:-? t.,) r . ~ < ~ . , ! ~ > T C~!: il:;~. k~: L~. J(' i j. ,?: j,;? c;.; Jj: :-;:? ).*<<(- i! JlayCj. f\ 7
; 3 i " O c ; 3 : ; t l . . yr, . . I ; ~ ~ . , . . - A , ..-.- ~.):-: cl?;; io. l; iI; T - , ~ i . . ~ : ; i y 110: s a j j p o r t n c ? ~ yan y
E3c: t::.
T. 7. , IF! ,- t~? e. iLt - T S ~ : O T3~ ' , scl3 ~ j l : ; i l i t i k , ? t i . , r , - . , z c t ~ u r ? U E .- 2. UC01:,
r; ucc(.? sr, i.:+ +: h? n[ j,.~ 5,.? 1 f: t_- t i i L , - s t l l c ? , ~ : ', OCC: i; ,,, enLione:! i n .', CC d
F i n a l > r+. pj-:-. G. i.\ i:>:? t : 1 : : co;. ir: l_ a:< ity af i ; s u e s t i l e l c ! i c i f - i l oE
, . I 1 "; I-. :~ zr.: ir, q ~ ~ o s l . - , l o ~ olfs all :: ile t l i i ' f c r e n t - . .- ai- tj.. ra, an.:? thi? l : : : ; i i . o ~ o [ ~ : i ) ~ r,~, :~, Lr s ; ~ ; ? c t i g i : so f Lr. i115
:! ecision.: ia:; ers, a co~;. il'i: o f t! iz2 ~~ u~,, l_ ic- o, iFL- - L'^ ;~ LCa? S1 ~ drt;~ iys
c r ~ . r ? i t - . cv' , i i t h : i. inni:: rj ; 1cTbr. ; ; ~ c c j . f i c i s s u e i; at1 u r l r c a l i s c i c rnearls
c. - o ~ tieasuzr! e E f e c t i v e i - , c i t ; ~ ; . .-- iaurthi: rlz ere c o ~ ~ r lcta n c o t d
a c ! < n o ~ . ~ ~ lasicl ~ a~ Cs. v oc> cy sqency':: : s c c c c s s i n i n t r a c : u c i n q i s s u e s
or in L , r c . s o r v i n q t h e {?. u- ~ r o c e s sr i ~ : h t so f i ~ csl i s i l t s through
procedural r e f o r a s .
Further, t h e tiit1efr;;~! ie s e l e c t e i : f a r c? nalv; is / > r e v e n t s r e v i e w
of ~ : J Q: i : ajor RUCO 7 ~ i c t : o r i s ~ t 5, e 230.3 APE :?:; erqeiic: i r? t:? rcr; uas; •
L ~
i: i :.: hich RTJCD s;:-: v.- i$ : czt:::; a*. r:? r;;$ 75 , iiiii,, fi . ; i l , i - L- IA 1r.? 2311
c? Lierqer, ci7 rate r ~ c r i j e , ! ; ;. n ; i- il..~~ .: i ? i_;(: C S;;;; VZC, i : ; i t ~ . ~ j ; l . . i t ? ; : ; ; . I<: 1 e : l ~ t
PL , 7 < o> .. I i 1 1i Q 11 . C; C? 6.1 - 7 L2 bL3 11 :- I l-! h <$ ,-', C : I ( 3 5 5 ~ ::, i c- i , -, j t- 2 c i 1- >: 2 : o .
5fi39.4. F->:: 71jl !;\ 7 / , , LLI, - , k: ->\:(.< i2t is(; (-:..;~ y;::;;~ r<:~ i-. Ec2 :;
.=, ccce.~:: i; n j.: lstj. tllt- r; c: ,- r , i t c ~ i v i t . . o; r C i k i z e i ; . ; T J t i l i ' ; i e s
::,>: t;!>< 212x,? ! 3Y,,? E, .,? <? :,. cc, < : , , , .: j:; i- j7: Jcc, <::;: oL" t.
,, ,-,. . : . - .. j : : 7 ; : c . 7- i l I : . i . . I, , ,,- i, g\ ti C O : I C : ~ L " ~ S
,\,! ,.;,. LL?, . i kl; c 7r: L:: rl::. j. f:?- <;:.~ 2,- 1 ;. c::: <)< j.: I-<-;?:;,: - 2: : j ; ; : : (, I.- . i:,., 2 ,;,,! a ill
r o ! i s ~ l ~ t ; i r ; ; - . :'; l i.?~. 7 ~ 1 3. v ::!-.:: , - : I ~ I ? ~ , ~ O T ' :;; k Lj.;: f ;.. 2 ., b- ,.: 1 ; L,! 2 7~
, c, Te,, c., 1 ,; ,3- 2+- v<:-, ;- 1 - 7.:. , . - 7 % ,. c'.: i: ; :,? z:: l.:!; l :);; a ' , 2 . : ! ) i: j.:->:,.! 2.5
I ]' , i > . . J'. : ' 1 r - 1 ~:,.~ L,! I . C..: L: ,> L:: i -. 1 L:; 1 : < . ~ 1 . i . t : ~
C:. 5 .?" ;,? . 71 1. ;: -; . -- .' > .,. - 4 - :-, .-., ?- -.. ?,. ., , , <
, . . . . ., ; i:? l~: 1. t ,- :; L. 5: ;, :.- : .:: ..,: r: ?. ;; > i: , j!!::.: :< lL-
< ,,- !- :-, ,> . ,-; LC,+- , ; . , , - , r - . ' 1 . - . . . . . . A ~ 2.3.'.-::.; Z ' l ' . , .:- . \..: a; . . . L i z. 1 >] I,?
,-; :<-) p (; : j :-: , 17 T,, :> 1 7 ) r r, , :. A. ,1 . - . ..,-.: 7 - - . + . , - - . . L . L . ! I . . i.:; ,. c :;::> Is.< 3 . , - ,
II
<:>, I :>< cpL-~.> f :,~??.-+ . r:, - - ,. , . ' 7 ' : ,:> J, L. L. .. i.: , j - , l c , i . j 2.: Llc; c- i> r~~ t. r:
. L - .
J --
, , > r j ; , - 2 , , , : 3 . - : ; ;,': I, -.. : ' , 3 \ - , ' , , ' 7 , , . < I ? " .. L . , . : : A L ,. .
co:~;;";. ? i?~. T \ ~ ? ~ c , ~ . lil '~, ~:,~' 3 ~ li~: : its:; i,- i~ e ? rovideci by ? TJ7? 9 t t r j
cons~ ii~ ier:; r c l a t ~ st o ~ r ~ c o ! ~ r ; l ; y iL:~! e i y c orisu.:: er t o \" or!< ; . g, i. T f, i < I
rcnre:; cr? t.? Ltj. v! 5c ; f ?. he :: n.~;.?;, r:;~ i n ~ s s i a t i n ~ t:? ic consiit.; er tc3
. ; n j . n t a i z ::; e^ rvicci f: hnn c u t - e f f . is c: jritat~ ned. O f t e n t i l l l e s it has
i-_ le: l_ n :: i'zS1 5 f i n d i . n g that t h r . s i $ L . : i . i k t : i r s can ;,- i , ~ o r l c e c i out
.~ 1: 1i- ca! 2. I. y -- s a t h a t s c c v i c c 1; jiot c u t - o E E Eor n r; e 3 (. I : T
Ln~; iivj. 2i; al ( ciisah!.? c!, 11,1n:': i c; i.~ .?~ .:<? i: J-,., L L? rl:,:) 2nd he ilcilitlr
r c c e i v f i .. ; a.: ~ i ! i ~ n t . ?. GC;! 112s 2ounti that chroucjh zoo;: ercitive
2 f f ~ r t . s ;! itil 1: tili. t~ co1. ip31ii.? s, rie q.. ierz r* blc- t o r e s u i v ? i~ la~ ly
i s s u e s i: ef ore it \: as : ? z c e : ; s s . ~ y Eor tlie : ons1ui:~ er, ci? e i l c i l i t y,
and t h e ACC t o e: t? cnd t i ; , , e and .,; oncy o: i tile f o r i . i a l c o ~ ~ i n l a i n t
s r o c e s s . T, ecji:; lator:; have r c f c r r c ? . coiisui~ iers t o I? iiCO. The
s t a f f of t h s ACC C o n s u ~ ~ i cSr e c t i o n : is:; r e f s r r e d d i s s a t i s f i e d
c o n s u x c r s t o RUCC. PUCO c o n c l u d e s , t j i e r e f o r e , that .-? roLe
, ? ~ : i s t s7 ; i j - c h tyct ?., cjenc;. i; iu:; t ~ 1ii. j?~- 1 - 1 ordcr ~ c : il~ i-. ee : I;:? - 1iillic L-s
: : n e c t a z i o n .
-'.-, a- "'- a -*'---'- r, t3 . i:;:, jlct:? s, j e l i e v e ; ; i[; i.' j i ..,.; e r a z i ~ e , L ... - k[~,(.,
c,. .., 7.. ; tt. t:: z ? , - j a n , ~ -! il ave ' : j > ~ i - : ~ > ~ / t'o~ ~, ' a f t i ~ ~ . ; & tiel l i; L1s ! i-'>- - l i . z \ j
" ,..
i a q ! . l l , 3 t ~ ~ " T : T C ~ C L : S S i? t_ ' I- .,;. i::: d~ r; li L ~ ? V ~ ^ ; sI. i nc:-? 31. i i n c r - - i i ; i n , , ... . -, . n, iLL>,~. i-.- - c i: t- i, lfy j _ ~ : ; i i ~ r ; + ci, 4c- yl ;\; Ead:, rai ; jur:,: i: ic", j- jns
i ,;- .-> .. 7, \:~.- ~ r z . 1 . Z D . ? T R ~ ? i ~ , ~ ~ ~ \ l i ~ C : L~ t ~< L> L~ 1' i~;~ i<:! i ~< i ~ ~? ie e~(~ j ?~ r c : i
., i .. . ? . c : : > , , i , ; ~ J . ~ i : - ? . ~ j . Q : ? ; 5 c:~.~ l,,~ i5s~.. ~; r~) ; a . s the a L : c : . L t : 1: 11:,>:;, 2L. L ,?: L? r:
. . . ~. i, tijc- r ;~.:,:. L.:- il. tat^ CaIlSui. 13r :? i~ y~-: j~; lC2<; f; ~ 11CiisC Ollt. 2Z::'; a 317 tcie
,, . . 1.1 fi i 9 1 ; ,; +; ,: 5 5 ' 1 , J 17 #,-< :> l. 1 c 1; ;; 3 1) ( 2 1: .
T ,-. , .. -. ,- c T f e . ? t ; jn:~ c o i ~ i ~ > c t i f~ 3i. r~ nZ: lrtjs !; cti: ee. t? . t., l: -:. . L. C:: ;<: lit
7 ' t- i,\- > 3., , y <- 1; .7 5 (; 1. , .: +- :> ;.- F , c 7- . - ,,.-....-- 129 , : , , 7 i t h , . ::;-. : . i u t i > s c.: :: UcI: , in:> t: le
7,,-,, 4L ili+- i:- a3c7 i , : c ~ ~ ? L DivLi; i:; n=; :; < jle -\ LC, 7 ,- i:! p ,:, io- i~; illii L . i L t cf
, . , . - . -':.: TJc$. i:::.-. c ; s:;~ ss,,;- n-;. s;? cuii. llot I: c a co.~ r., lorl f u n d i n g . . ,
, 7
. L .. lli 1 t i3 t 1 17 7 1 7 . 3 i l p ?-': e [ ; t i l i t i : : s , i s : ; p s s : , i c n t ~ a f ic0 11cj. n13:?
~ ? .. , - , , 7 ,.>? ,..>'.? ~ c j ! ~ n c L?. i!~ CO~ , T ? C O : . , ~ C ~ E I ? : ~ Ss ci_? cirzt:; l i L k L i t a c i o :, i3 ~, iounts
1. ", iJCTj ;. r:?: c:; s i : ' i , i i - , ?: c -) s:; l. lz~ ci : ! ~ ~ : > ; i;>,- 2: i;);:. i. L,!:!-~ ~- I. L ~ ~ - ] . : ~ ;; J> lLi(~ j.~ , ~ ~ : - r r l : a n t i t a t i . v r ? ;: tnnr5;?::? s a r e . i l ~ ~. > l l, e ic. !~. .;:- i:> iil.,: :':. : L: : l! e : : . i L . t & ! L~ O
c ? n v ~ 1 2 , ; f u r t ' ? c - r : , i c a ~ u r c fo; f ty-. ' > < , , - : 7 2 c : t , 7 1 . , 3 1 : ,.~ ,--. c : .:- -,:. <-: 2 '.: :; : s .
2 . Z ! ! C D ?: ccoqnizcs t!~<;.?:.; tt : i'? oul. c- l -- l . t c r:: ( 1. .,, 3 - i i ii:.; , : v l ::? L 1~ . i L 0 :?
case s e l e c t i o n so t h z i t i ~ ~ ~ r ? i t i ? c::-, r c hf-: . i:;:; ill: ccj i:,;; ii-. .: UCO toes,
i n d e e d , have a s y r ; t e i ~ far - ; . r - i ~ r i . ? : i z i n . ~ t- h e c r i ' c i c ; ~ li s s i l n s i r - i
i t s i n t e r v e n t i o n i n r a t , ? c < ? s - s .
. I c l c _ n t i . f y i . n r j isstlcs car17, i i n th-. ,~ rocess. ;? IICC
n c s i l i l t f c - 5 2:; : ; r : c : Lij.'; U:$ s
critical. to the r ~ s i d c n t i a lr z t c ! ? a y c r s 1 interests.
c . RLJCO h a s no i. n!? ere:? L , a u t h o i - i . t y c:: ;> erfor,, i o n - s i t s
r c v i . e i t ? s . :, Jerc th: I1.3c; j. sl;* t:: r2 c ; r i l : l t : !?. ijCO i::?" po. j" r - 0
i. llv.? st, ic~ i. ate 2nd to ~ p ~ - ; ~ ~ c 2 ; - + 2-.+- L,:?;; - ~ c ; ) L - ,-? .-: 05 ;;; lC i.~ t- lit-~ s ( d 0 ,: J e if
cjrantlci. r! to the ACC 5; i t h a ( zaps ti tutloi:, ~ i r l c j . to o t l i c r c o ~ ~ i ; u ~ ~ i e r
advoc2t. e of. fi. ces b\ r t F l p i ; - ys.-;. I " c 7- 1- .- L( b- (? <: : : ' t 1 ,.> 91 2 1? , :[ ~ 1 :( 2 5 ) , :. . T J ( 1 G
: vould 1 . 7 ~ ,~ J- c. asectjo conc? uct a ? , - s i t e ~ : : v i e v s, i i l G j-; l;:: i; c- i: io:? of
. - . utjlit\ r co~~! ra; 2ii7. i;. ? rJC! l i s : i?-?- i. il; c; i. 9 :;! 313j.: ? i:)\ r s!;~~ ro[;;:- iatc a
, . r;, ethods : 7 j . t i ! i ? t:? n sco-? r: i: f' t:- 3 ::,:::,~ iir:; 3 r ; ~ i : t e d 1: ):.- c r l e
Lngi; l. ature to o b t s . i . ! ~[ :, or'a? c c: irat2 < jnd coi..~~ re:; ii:: nslv?.?? lc~!~~ s~ v~?
infor: nation froLii utility c o ~ . ; ~ ~ n i e s .
2 . ;? KC(? s n r i ? e c ; k h a t t r a i n i n q of ;-?:. I.; La f ,: ..;> i;!! 2ers, i. lclgc.: in: j
t i l e ; j, ttorri? vs, i:; c: riticnl 53 ; ? ; ' i ' i - ' ~ c t i . v : >, :- ir;: ii: ii- j; iti~>; l t: le - . r c r j u l ; i t o r ! ? . : ~ O C < ? S S . T! ie i7i-- c; oz s .) Q : l . c y , , 2nd ,;; ill
COllti. lluc? i: 3 b ? , To , i? rir1 : t,: Zf ,~::.~ t:> er:; I:!]:> -::<? x;- - c r s i i . l i i l g
SF. i. ilnaKS o f f . ? r F t r l y?; t.- l; r a n t i ',-:-, :] tli? r : L. a~ cjr.;-.; i; lk .;:: l,, ina;- s , IS t i l t ! ~
and r P f r i i ) t i r Z ? S i ) ' ? . r r . i i t .
3 . RVCC t:( yre- s t h t 3 . t , 3s : 1 ~ 2 2 c!~ n. z 1- 11 ~ il:: ;; ase, it L!~.: si: 2 lari
ahead so t h a t no 1 1 . n 3 n t . i c i : ; j t c c t o r i~ r: pl~ tn,-- e( j f o r a c t i o n s :, y eiic
n t i . l i . t i c? s ox the ACC: :-~ i. lI~ ; ury; ri.:; eJ.. ;-. . .
Y I i ? 3 I i ? 1 G III
1. RUCO aarees t h a t , u n t i l . f u r t ! : e r l e ~. ~ ~ s i n t iclvaer ification i s
obtained, the ? icgcric. r :: ill infor;,: .: c; n:;~. i,~ ir; rs of isill.: ;; llijlzar
G s n e r a l . ' ~ n c s i t j . 0 3 that ?,' Y'CQ , , i u ~ t ,?. i,..-. . - . ~~~ ot~ i;. i.; ziueei : ? r n q ~ ; i . L ~ ~ L ~ l : l a c o n s n . ~ ~ e r : ;! tho rite or c , l l i . tile >. cjzrlc! i flor : issi.~ tan~ e, i, ll c; t i l a t
it wil. 1 c o n t i - n u e t o r s f c r a l l i r i t l i v i , < u a i c ~ n s u ~ ~ cics;; r, ,-? i. sl: 1-:;
5ac. k t. 0 ?! 7C? Con:; u:.! er rjcr- jicns s z c t $ ~ i lo f t k t i;(: C ; for
a g e n c y ' s fi. zrthc? r ; i t t e , , r ; t : ; - 1k r-, soi 2tio: l.
i_. 7 . I,- i.. : a, j . : : j.:; i-.! oT , : 7 L ~ r y 2 ; T :.. , ; ~ -. : ; ~ ~ t:.:<: t L: iz & uL: j.~; l i ~ l ~ ii .:; r?,:.::: z..! m3~ : 7 : j
- 7 - - 1 . 1 -: 3 : , , j ; , - ) j ; ( 3 : " : > , <? tv1 2 c.: ;- . . 7 , " , . . !.' I(; - . 1 i ! 2 '! - L , . . .
. - : ' 2. , 7. ? 2 if J- -:> ( ! : > i : ~ ~ t ; ~ , , i , ? i . + iY::,?'..; j . A . s . Q c i ~ i ; g , ~ c:,; > C , ! L ~ ~ ~ , 2 . . ! , : , : > 3 ' : 2.,;
,~ o;,, c?: ;,? r<.,*? 1!. 5 :~.:- l-' J:. i. 3 - q , . . ;? i:< 3 :,:.? ..;, , t:. 12
- - - : 1 . r j I, . : , ; 2 : < G z s 2. . 1 -;. {> y<..-;:
1 7 - l n C 7 - ) ~ . J - l l Q , - ; : . ' - ) 2 1 1 - ~, .
. . c i i Z CC-,.;::, , L', JU- ::;: 21 LICL25
th3- t 7, Ui: n r;?:; o ; ? I - i . ~ t ~ ~ c : ~ s : i.:;. ; f.:~'! ric~:::~, . . ' , .; 7 ., - - . 1 2. i
acj; nc? i.; l.?< ir? i: ' rhr- i. f; i..: t2:; - - - t . . - k': c ;: I ,:,:. I: ,; r,.; ci . 11 < : .>,:. i ;:.: 7: i <, , i E
- , - , ,<; I -,:\; t . 7 , - . - . Y V - ' - ' - , : I f ] - : - r , V~ - - .- -.- i ,-,. 9.. ,.. . k-\, L . ~ ; . . ! ( 2 < 2 . ! , : > ' .:<-; 2:. <-. , . A7L 2 3
f o l l c : . j . : l , - i ;,>:-;.!,,>.; -;, ,.. .-.: ;--.. .,-. , . .:, ... ."- L 8 . '-- . :. . - . L - - 1 43 3 : . 2 . : ;. L 1,. I. \ :; c; t
7 : : : iT,: ri :
c) I l e s s : ~ c T3tc S e r v i c e - ,.-.,, o t ' l :;- I1 , l? d z'?? ACC : < t < a f f : rani:- ci @
t o zf. i;: lj. nat? :-": is s e r v i c i , ; " IJCO op,? osec'; its ~ : ~ l i ~ . i i . n i l t. i o , Tl he
ACC di 6 not c ~ iL~ ~~ Cie: ; t > h e r ; , ? n v i c e .
r:) C ~ i ; . ! > r ~ s ~ i t )- r l3 ~ t h; e l: an(: ; iZC S t a f f nrcljueci
coilinress tile t h r e e e : ; i s t i n ' : ~ r<:?, i2cntiil r a t e 2roups in th. 2 s t a t e
, . i n t o two g r o l ~ ? ? s . RVCO ~ r c j i ~ e ctlo r3;: aln d1i k!; ree rai; e ~ jrou;> s. 0
The ACC r e t a i n e d t ? ~ r c eq ronps.
el Regrade ; ~ l u l t i - p a r t y s e r v i c e - Tile c o i ~ i p a n ; w~ a ntel2 to
e l i m i n a t e r l i u l t i - p a r t y s e r v i c e . :: UCO arguetl t:~ st t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d c d g r e c i t e r flexibility t o t h e r r s l. c- e n t i a l r a t e p a y e r , ~ 2nd
t - h z t it si~ ould still 5% a v ( - : ~ . l a S l zt o c a : ; t. - . ~ . ~ , p a r t i c n l ; i r l y t o •
. t h c ? s c t i l l 3 c o n t r a c t e c . ! Eor the servic? 1: 1 r,::: i.. ;; st . 7-.' 11e C o ~ ~ j i ~ ~ i s s ~ allov~ eri Cell r. o red~::? t? ie : ; e r v i c ? , I.; a f a t o~ f 2 z~ r i l 1~ r j , : lit
g r a n d f a " ile- rei:: j. 1.1 t h e p:: j-:; y. i.:? c~ l., glt$-; j;~ rtxs,(~ y p;: c<? .
In ~ c! r'ri_ t: i:, n 2 - ) El?..? =[: c. i .. >' . , I: ~ - .]. IJ...- C; :: c: *:! ! j . - i : ? : ? ;;?? :.-.? cruL; l+-~~~,;
i C; c; ~ : 61 5 ~ ~ : ; ; ~ ? f f . ~ - . - < , . - - - - . zlLt! - r ; t ! ] , - 7 . . L , . :- < A ~ z ,.~ 2.1> ; -,?-:: 1 ( Y i i ; : l ~ : - ? i j
c n f n i r l . , ~. ;: l! i. i,-! ri.-.:?:; ? T; CC1 ..- .. I F ' . - . . - - -, . - : .- -: Ll<"?,: l~ e i~? ic "; il;; i
- -
t ? : r t _ star.^,: t?; ik ''? r? CO ci31: - l: i,.. :;. 1!. 1< : r:? c.. i..,: c'' ~ rc~ ~ c- iil
i . s ~ i l c 3 , L'? i? '? jL;: i s , - Z", .~:: r+ _ i. --,-. Jue-.; ; I:> n ;: c;.;\ .;, L] c: c: 2;:; z. 2
" Ciin: s i. c: i? i: i?: i? i: l." , ( 7 I? ;-! C? ,, -- - - -- ~. : l;, L* ', L. .7 - u j: 5 Sf - . -;- 7,-.. ,- g. ' 12s nad " 2l1ar2c;
i- .. 3. .., Ll., act": n c1I7":~ i . ~ z i 1 ~ ~ L>,. ~:- L~ i-::. t - i . , L i j l i s i ; c : s ?:>, AX ~ ; ~ L ~ tk~ 2 ~ ~ ! ; I1 ~,-., ;- <. L t zedL . i "
- i- l ~ . ? r t h ( j ~ i. j llj- l.~> t:' 13 ti::;:: ? ; :>-., x L l,, > - g L e i - ; : ; : S 2; ' iU(:!> ' *-
a c j r c : = t a s t
succ,- ss:? s ti- 1.7 Z p l l . ~ - - f l ~ . n S!: as:? a: lS :: i.. e t' 30 r:-. qo4- ia:: zti
s e t t l e a - : n : ; s , , c i p i L ; j ( > r Tt:,: rc> 1 ; lei ,. L- ---'.' 3-' ,?' cIc!~~:~ tI_ 3 ~ i ! n n t i f l :
th? succcsscs, : : u c h 1~; s:; i ~ hi?, .; on.?; lii uveci zoiisu~! lei- s. ' 4s r l ? e
reoort nctes, 4UCO ha-; intcrvencii i n ten cases Ear infori,: acional
pu. rcoscs only. Yzt Fiqur:? I inclcdcs ?! lese ten cases in its
conclusion that RUCO l ~ z d no c f f e c t ;,- I 17 c; sor ~..>. O ~ l l y in a
f o o t n o t . ? iioes th- l r i 3 ~ 3 r tI ? c : ; ~ o s I ~ , ? ~ ;:!(: a: x( ? ,- h: ICCl ? LC? not < n t ? ! i ( ' to
, ., in€ l. i. le~~ c:~? . S S I ~ C, o I L ~ : : : > - ~ ~ c s 5 3 Z~; L?.~.: t- e::~ L I;: - . . : l- A < . .> . .. L- 2 :;?. L- : l -: : I
s11ch a . iisLenc? inr: ch::.. rL P C-?.~ ~ I ~ ZC~ SC : ; ;:: cTL ' =: : ; r c a ;, i a t
; J R ; L : C , ~ I J E ~ , ~ ; t : 2 t ~ : ~ ! ? : l t ?::>.: 2; ~ L V C ~. : S~ c - I : : 1- Lk5. L:; L . : ; z c ~ : TI . ! ~ i l ? :~ c i ~ ( z , s .
,; I . I- L, . . 3 r- lort :.: tat(. cii :'.- <, I,-~,~ 1.: '. . ,
. .
-, .. A t-& I: 3c t::? , l t ; c L t : Z j L 2 . f 5 t2~ J< llcL: L,:< 2
'?.? jr[' 3 .; .: f. rfcr..:,?. qce ' 7x1 ,; il;; i; l ~:~~:? nt-, i: ;:;. :. i7inz r:) z-;,; . f z :, J 1. 1~ ,
<. r \ , . . . - -
- . . L , ~ ~ . ; p : ~ t'.- sj x ~ l ? ; - . : - j i y : : ~ (,,: 1, ; ; i i i ~ ~:. j:. fj-: ii-, 15 ~ r l f i; - tee < jt-;::-. ' ? i l C . l ,.:;
,2 .:?, ?, . .., c-., r : , . . : ? -. P. ,-, L.. - ,.. 2f1,5? ctz 2 c o ' . l ~ ~ l < ? zL62i: SL- c t~ cf3~.~~: rzkl\?! iL
,; r - l X 7 c , ,-:;, 2 - ", . -
:;! I. ;; 2" i:; r,> C : ':; 18 . ; r O c C > : : <-~ ,; - L ( . J . ; Ij? L^ ar:? ;.:;- i<: .--:-,.
, . - * :: cn,:. L.-! prj. r: rr t!: i! t ,~~~~~ 1s;; t~ s i.; i~:: iver; .; ot< 2nei; l- l,. . IifL- 1 2 _ L : j ; l . r : c L , i ! -
f - ., < 7,., P., . l..- . r>- ,) I? '- ;,- "
- . ilt j- l 5 51 . . , , 5 I-, :? : j : c 1 ,: ,> . I .: .,> : 5 -:~ 2 2 r~ :-, : .> :; ( 1 ; :
~ Ci~ ie~::; irj. c; s? r : + e l ~ ~ i i 3i- 5i, i;? c3r: i. t: j. 2" , , - - . / t i . ..' A . L : . l. 1 ~.. ..> - L : *.-- .;=. -.-: L, : L
!>_, . I .< 2 :; eF ,? ,; .> i- 3 j. :;.: l . i' -
grl 7 ? a ~ p1 .7 l: ji. r: Ll~ j.? - l< r, ?( 2 ~ i : t .. taj:~.; t ~ t : ~ l . l~\~~~ ~~.- S . : - ! I I ~ ~ G T ~ Z C
a s r , e r t i o i ~ s conc-. rnj. ny :; hat i. t considsr; zc be unr~ a1isci. z an:? . . " uniiiportant" c a c ? - t ~ o n si n r a t e care;, :? ut 1,~ iLlloutr c f n r c r i c : ? to
any : ; p e c i f i c 5' z: ics f o r ", '- j .: iili? rc t!? c r(.?;~ ortS OPS
- '
1.1ti. lj., ye ? ; : ; ~ ; ~ ; , q l , 2 ~ ~ t: '~:? ;: LI(.: J.!:: J:; ~ , J v ? f 1 i 1 - e ~? I:; ? . I . ~ . ~ ~ ~ s ~ L I LCI:- cI?:
11 3S I J ~ : ; iz ~ . ~ . ~ j . - ~ s r~ ~;:: i:: j , ~:;: r~~: i::- :<;. ll~- z. :-- t j .. .. ~ : L : z . . : v : i . z :
fiscal .! qar ': i: t r7:? L:, . ,- , . - . i) n;:::.;.,,? ;: r: :: r: a: lcl:. Fc: r r ; ! : ? c r ; i c i,. lt:. i,~ c.,,
. . r- tn: i~!: i. na tral; ll:? r: a ! : t i l ,. let::: f o l i , : j j : i i n g t! ir, :; aariily, !:( jC3
- . r ? i d not :: rol: o:; e " r? :;:: I>.., ik r: lr.? ci: L c : s i : i , . i c > i i : ~ ~ sf :: I:? -'; CCOIJ:?~~~~?~. . .
Tl~ us, +: lie . - , ! j l : r;? r;.!, ryfs <-: uot:: fro,, i cl;?.: os~. crorl q:: z; ti:>:, r: s :,, r a
i ta .13 j - :(; or 2 r ~ ~ ~ : 3 . ~ : 1 ~ 7~.~~;- 1~ cL~: 1, lsf t @
, . 171~ t r a t h s z c3r~ f: ll r: r-~ zrne- n to c;?;: :;- st nf oilr ~ ! > i : i : ; j : under
t'? e circ:~:.,;:; tn~> c:~:$;.
r,?,~ re~- tF . TlCC -':\: st ~ ft: fl> 013 ' 1( 711 . i c a f f ? l(> r'!: sasers c . 1 ~
other :> a~ t: i.:? s. --, I 1 LI~ L~;~ c~:; fr;;:: cs i, l; ntL> 7 \. T~ J;<!; ui; c z - i z i ~ l ~ ~ i o i l : . ;
w h i . 1 ~: ? a tile iiitnn:;:; s l r . n ; ! 2 . ,.. ,,>.--- L:$ !~:.~ 1Lur: i.:> 2 i ~ : ~ c i e r ~ i zL~ hte~ s~ e? . 0
, . ? roccc? ur? s is ;:, a,:: l:. 2c.'. 1:; 7 -; 1.1 :; ii. J(..-*- L- C o' re:? or:_ ~ 2.11. L ' ~ ? c t s : ' IUZC!
~. it!? 4r? i.; ,- ortion ( 7f its t~;~ tj.: io~ i; riri- l il :. lad ec ~ l ; tS :- IOT-;, 1, ts
presentation hecauss thc? - Yli\: C < ii", nes bec&~! lc st? ric; usiy ill anti
had to be 2lacc- li. 2 under : a ~.. icdical c! oei- or's car,?. Tlic ;. ludit n g a i r ?
apparently t a k e s at face v,~. inet 2c ukility coL, i? an> 7' s
unsu!: stantiatF.; d ,?. s:;-. rtlr/ i; i-.:?;; e I? rSCO c a u s e i l 3dc: it. ic: 1n. i . r;; i: n case a
. n.. v., r ; n, n c.,. p... c, cv:?? c ? ! 3 : : r r h : I:' (?, cC (?. 7-< jcii loe:; ! l( ji: rr;- flx. 2ct :: kc?
CG!<:: > aIlb- s : 1. ( 3 i. . I *
-,? Tr-.(- ,- cr.,- c>,= L: ,,,; ,- -, >: - . -, . .
i, L,, . .- ..\ 0 . -. L., t . . l C 311,( :. ( 1 :: i- ial: <-! J . L L L : I - L ? ~ . ,,; t2: c': 12J~: '! C! LllL ..; e
, , ,-': ,? ,: A :> t; .; ~> r;,-: TI,? , ;: .; ~ ' 1 ~ i 2 ,; r e f 7 : y , ?;.! I $ 2 . ( 7 r-- ;.:. L) ; Le; t 1 3 11 y; a . .
! :>. I12 i::
,-, (-! c, u 7. -- 2 5 , , 2 1 :> ;. ; , ;. 5 , . -: -., ~- : L:~: ,<? a--: J - I '. I ~ -. c ~ - ij:. i.: <.: C :. , . ;:%:<.: ?,*, L.*;~?.>::
,.; Ll,,!,> -> :,- ,: &: .-. - . ? ,~,- . --, . . . ... .. i , L , , \ : L :> . L : < .! ;.> c-: :: I ::: 3,2<:., .: c : .-. f - . A i ' . i , t ! ~ ; L - , 2 12- . . . , . . , c:,,,:- ! 2 ::.< llzL1: LzJ-:~ z ,;;; ;!<$.; .!. . . . , . - a . l: i - 1 5 .:- LTill., ;] i 5,1:?. j '[ TZ'' f: - $ 5 , ; < ) ~ t l c : ~> L
LL,(? .,:- _ L , . . - . . - , 7 , : : I . : : 2 ' :..; :.. *:: ,,>:,-'::; !- s
r: ., . . ,/ ' ! - j , - ' , , , ; j , , i j l : r 1 A ' L- . ... ... i_ i- . i ' ' > : ., - .
conr, r. l iuinq -' 3i%. lc~ tiorl.?. 1c ;-:.> : ~ o ~ : t u ; i i - ~ j . s.~ it, has been and will
canti:? ile to 5i? th:: : ? o l i . ~ - o~ f t l i : ? XUCC i3l. recrlorr t o ~.~ a: cez vaiLablc
t o 211 7UCO staff, i n c l u 5 i n q Lhc a t t o r n e y s , t h e t r a i n i n g
necnssary t o assure h i g h q u a l i t v o z r f o r ~ : i a n c e .
",!!(: O c 2 0 r ? s ; lo+ " ~ ~ y ~ , ; ~ : ; c': ir:.:. r~~::.~, i?-. f - ~; g:, t;~! 3" 1 d i ! ? t j5 L; li. e i. r. :; a;
no T ; ~ \ , , ~ - c I I i . : ~ ~ ? ~ t j . r : : ? k, ~ J t(- ,:; i - ; ; . ' ( ; - . - !;*) j . & ; : 3' 7 . ; t ; > , ~ ~ l t 2 . L- i :;: l,) i~ c
e, .,; ,,- n, r,. L, . , 1 j ; ; , , , -,, % 7 - - ' - , .... - . '- < L C - \.-.,'./, . A , > i * . l ' C : t > l i ' ; l l l . i ! 2 r ~ i S t v 0 ~ i l t - e
a~ jeilc:?, T i . - ; ~ F - ; t ~(-) n:~~ l~-:-:. j? l ? r. : :;' ?: l\ ir? ' j:>;:: l iiii;! ljli: ti> i ; : s a i ~ et '- ii? ir
d i f f j . c u 1 t i . e ~ w i t 1 1 a t i l j . t i . . ? ; 212 r, .,,- ,;.. :. r J ; . J ~ . :,': liLc? jLt i s true,
the s n c ? j . t notes, t i l z t tl. it-- ? c:? sui.~ cr St?; c2ion of ciic- ; ICC i l a s a
iila!? d:. it: C? f r O : ; l t h e L , f ? q i .?!., i klil: 2 t c j i::::; oLvi? coaSi, lL. iei co: ti2lai1lts , tile
real it;^ j.;; f-- l;, t (:~ n:~ jj.,~~?;,?;;?:';; -, 3, . r: 7 fAl i~?-', .>- L~ --;,,. A; .- ; A 3. .< .- : J i: 1l 2 ~ if : t k? f t. i- 1 C? ;>. c c
, . _ - . . .
' 1 a s f a j. 1 E 5 2 : I ;: : i 9 1 7 r: k :- t ,? , i :, .* <, .. :.. . I i: . : :: 2. L- . i 3 L i 23 1: ; I c L i C; 11 . :. 7 11 L c 11 ' 2 r ,
L,- 1.. IP . X C C c n s : ~ . ; i i ? r i-',: cki,?--: : 1;. 1; ~ 3 f t r 3 ; l :::: f;":: r,: i. C O I I Y : : ; ~ ~ ~ L . .,~: 0 .! i: CO.
7- ,- c. .> 2 , c . ( 3 ,., ' Z - .- , .- , . . t. ., ., . "'"" . . 3 % . . ! , , : ' . ! ? . 1 . ; L O i , .
. - ~ -. ~- ~ ~ . - , ~ . ~ ~ . < . , ~ ,. . , :. .:. L .. . . .. . {.: 0.!, sJ,,, l : ; ~ , ~ p; 2 : : > L , , , : ~ :-:: t-:~ rr.: f: r-:> -\::<:<; '..- , . ,
i y i. i!? LL
j 1 ,, .:, I5 : IFc :: : j sr: ,--" .:; *' .- .;::(! f Ti:' "'" - ," , - ,- , . . i > L t ~ ? ui' ~ . t . ? . c ? r
;. L -. , z g
2 1- . . . ; , - ? ; L ? >: - ,~~ rr ~,.:; : ; i c : r l j - ~ : , - , ~ p ; . .~.,: FE; I :,::~:-:> ri ; ~ i . ~ i ; d f \ ;
.,- - .. I. . . G ! ; 3 n : ; j . 1 2 i . 1 j . < - , T 7 Fo," z - ~ : ? f < . > < ~ : j ,- j, < ~~ ? r j . : . ; i i , , < : . ~ ~ c . : ~ : ->:.-<; ;'?,.- j . - ~ ? i i , i ~ L, C~.; : i
. j n 1 : +: i f ' . - -.,. . ' : . : 3 . ; . . . : I : , , : . .: -, .. . ~ . ; L > : ! L ~ . : . I ~ J I G L S S I , ~ C S 0 2
( 7 2 7 - -< - ,-. .'. 7 #. ,, r- :; . .
, , , .. '. . t: ,- j 1: - 1 ,?*, 1.- c-: ,; .: < *, 7 1 b,
. , . . . - - - . . , .. . . # , . .. J., .: . I .-. L 5. ~ i : . , . " . J. r . :? IJI.~:::(:~~ K
^ . . 1 _ _ 1 ' - . . ? I1 r ,.:. I i : i i i ! . ~ . , i : I : L: ! I , > ~ - c ; > L I . ~ J . ~ ~ Z
-, - 7 2 ,? ( 2 ;! +: . j 2 1: ' , . . A ;! ,- 1.1 (.: <> --, ; j (: I , - :, :-, 7 . . . - . - - . 3 , I , i ; I L : ., 1 . I.. ..-, ,. ~ , ill: - <~ - <..,* ,: ' i 11, ;? T'.: .
G? c* cial. ist r e s e a . r c h : : : i tl;? tar- EEs ir'i:;: i ;;. I '-.- r. k u ' i i . l. l k i, e s at thc
ACC and r e v i e w s the? ;' Lc: C :: ill. es .; a(? ~ - c . r ; u l a t i : ) n s c i s i:.' ir'~ 0 2 I;. UCOts
c r e ~ a r a t i o n of i s s u d s .
A s t i 1 r e :: e l 1;; LC' l G C % o O j I c i ~ a ~ u jras~ ~ i
c o s t s a r e c ~ e t e r , ~ ~ n e3c;, : t- 72 ; a<, e~,?~ lel vel b e f o r e the P e 8 5 a r a i
,:- j n e r g ) 7 S e q ~ l l a t o r yC o . i i , ~: is sj. or~ ( 7 X ? . C ) . 3 i . . i i ~ ~ ~ r la~ lr l, :. ztloiesale
e l e c t r i c r a t e s , eiren t h : ~ : ; e i.; lvoL-~ Lng i i, c. r i i k i e s -.,. v. t t i i i i : A r i z o a i i ,
a r e . set hy FERC. A l l i . i a j ~ rt ~ ? l e c o ~ : ~ ~ i l u ! l i c a t pi o:, nl~ s . cy ~ s s u e sa r e
b e i n g e? staSLis: iec! b; 7 t l l ? F e d c r n l C o i ~ i ~ ! ! u n i c a t i o nCso i : i A ; i r s s i o n .
Thus, t o a d e q u a t e l y f 1 . 1 l f i l l ii?? . t i ~ n c ; i i c e t o r e o r c s e n t t h e
r ~ s i . c ! c n t i ; * lr x t , z p ; . , y - r , T? Ui70 ncc:? s a u t l ~ c , r i t : r t o i ~ t e r v e n ea t t11e
f e 3 e r a l lc. ve? l : i. i? orl?-.: c ; rot? ct ir; i.;?~. ,:\{. c.< i n - , . ; r c ? s c s . riy ; ,
a u d j - t is in eifr3r ~. ij>. z:? j - t ,;=,:=-:< ~- 12: " s, i.,, , 1 - p a l o, r~> 4" , l-- ? ~' ~ : ; : , ~ n a
, - - . r ~ ~ p ~ ~ i ~ ? c r i r ~ r: pj: r- y z ~ tn? ~ i'i ! ?:?::, 3rai c ; i s z ; ?> ir L$ r1.,~ 3: l; i
.;;.: 3 -- i"~~ t. i; lt : .. I.: 7 gi: C o r - j o r a t i o n C o L ~ : , , i i : : ; 1 ..~ ~ ' L, Dra C: . . " - t, E ' ~ , A , u:? s : c l n y
l i t i . q a t z 3 a t t.: 1,2 E::?.:?.:::: l. LEV:?]- , L;]:: -(; c ' :. .:. i ~ er~,,~ c. ipn~ fo; n l y - . 1 I f t ' ; . . o I b L r i . # I1;, m
, .
1
A r j . z n n 3 ? o r l s i ? ; : , e r s < I-; 7^ ,.: I::':. '.,, .--' rn;. i ; : : . ? c i u z t c l y r c s r c s i : r l t = . c ' . ; is r_;:,?
31; 3i:: rei701- t !: at,-::; , ,. I2 . ..,:-.- ,-,.; .- -,. L> . c-.--- , rC,, L-, .?? u-. I . iaLL~:. 2ar c j e n c i e s c o c t n c t a d
1751 3. lI< iit,~ CS' l : . 3 x b T 7 . c; l:,:? i,+ Jzi:: 7;; :< j i2tc;: TJc: i:: ;; c 5.~ 1~ 2: : p<): .!<:?;
1 c2 -, 7 !? 1 .
RESIDENTIAL UTILITY CONSUbiER BOARD
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a l i m i t e d review o f the
Residential U t i l i t y Consumer Board i n response to a July 26, 1985,
r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance
a u d i t was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n Arizona
Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § $ 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The Board was establ ished i n conjunction with the Residentia