In Re Prison Phone Rates Nm 2000
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
PAGE
10·
1 FROM-COMEAU MALOEGEN TEM
JtPR-Oi 00 10.3
BEFORE TlIE NEW MExrCO PUBUC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN THE MAlTER OFTBE APPUCATION OF
PUBLIC COMMlJNICATION& SERVICES, INC. FOR
A CERTIFICATE OF REGISlRATION TO PROVIDE
NON-FACILITIES BASED RESOLD INTRASTATE
lNTEREXCBANGE TELECOMMlJNICATIONS
SERVICES AND INMATE OPERATOR SERVICES
WITBIN TilE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3113
)
FINAL ORDER ON pes's ,APPLICATION AND MOlICE OF
INVESTIGATION ~"TO THE RATES A..~ CHARGES OF
INSTITUtJONAL OPERATOR SERVICE PROYIDERS
THIS MATTER comes before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
("Commission") upon the Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner isSued on
February 21, 2000. The
CommiS$i~
having considered the Recommended Decision,
and the record in this ~ and otherwise being fully infonned. of the premises, adopts the
following as its Order.
Statement of the Case
We accept and adopt the Hearing Examiners Statement of the Case through the
time of issuance of the Recommended Decision on FebruaIY 21, 2000. The
Recommended Decision filed by the Hearing Examiner is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Discussion .
While the evidence that Public Communications Services, Inco's ("PCS'')
Application to provide inmate operator services ("Application") complies with the
requirements enumerated in 17 NMAC 13.4.11 is not in dispute, the Commission has
several concerns with
pes's
Application. t
The Consumer Relations Division has
I PCS applied for a Certificate ofRegistI3.tion to provide non-6u:iIities based resold intraState
intetexchange telecommunications services as well as inmate opearor services.. The discussion 3Dd
concems Rised in this Order only apply to PCS·s AppliGarion to pI'O"ide inmate operator services.
...
UZ$!£
. in (
mW£&.:t ;g;:;:;gMM_.
3/24
received numerous complaints against-
PAGE
10·
~PR-~7-00 10.32 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
pes
and other institutional oper.ttor service
providers ("()SPj~ several of which allege that the rates charged are unreasonable and
excessive, as well as complaints about the inability of users of inmate payphone systems
to use a caning card or otherwise select the canier of their choice.. We also note PCS?s
prior failure to comply with certain rules goveming payphone service providea ("PSPj
as explained in the Recommended Decisio~z and wir:h pUblic comment made at the·
hearing in opposition to PCS?s Application.
To address our concern with PCS's prior fidlure to comply with certain
Commission roles, with this Order we adopt the Hearing Examiners recommendation
that PCS?s Certificate ofOpexating Authority should be conditioned on future compliance
with applicable Ja.w and rules and regulations_
Wxtb. ~ to complaints that users of inmate telephone services are unable to
receive telephone service from the pro~der of their choice, we acknowledge that our
existiIJg rules for PSPs and OSPs exempt institntional telephone setVice providers from
open access requirem~ such as.providing access to operator assistance, imposed upon
other payphone service and operator semce providers. See
Rules Concerning Payphone Providen, § 4[a],
sec
sec Rule No. 94-01-TC.
Rule No.
94-02-T~
Rules
Concerning Operator Service Providers, § 4[b]. However? those exemptions merely left
those matters
to be determined
by operators -of coII'eCtions
facilities
and
telecommunications providers through private contract.
Most notably, the Commission is not finally convinced that pes's proposed rates
for institutional operator services are ultimaIely reasonable. Pursuant to the New Mexico
Telecommunications Act's pro-eompetitive regulatory scheme. and in order to facilitate
z ~ pages 4-5. PCS did not dispute the Hearing Examiner"s finding.
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
2
4/24
PAGE
10.
ApR-e7-00 10.32 FROM.COMEAU HALDEGEN TEM
an orderly transition from a regulated telecommunications indusny to a competiti\Te
mad<et en.vironmen~3 the rates contained in tariffS filed by non-dom;nant caniers for
competitive services have not received the degree of scnttiny or comprehensive review
that rates contained in tariffs of incumbent local exchange caniers holding dominantcanier status and residual monopoly power have received. For the most p~ rates for
.competitive services offered by non-dominaut camers have been established by the
.
.
competitive market. Howeverp in this situation where a customer does not appear to have
a choice of alternative providers. closer scrutiny ofthe rates is necessary and warranted.
Thus, to address our concerns with the proposed rates the Commission will
p·
establish a sepame docket and commence an investigation into the reasonableness ofthe
1'3leS and charges
<;>f PCS and other institutional OSPs operating in the state. PCS and
other institutional asps certified in The state will be requiJ:ed to provide .documentation
such as cost of service ~ or other appropriate raremaking methodologies justifying the
reasonableness of their current zates.
Despite our reservati~ PCS should be granted a Certificate of Operating
Authority and their proposed institutional operator services rates should be approved on
an interim basis pending the outcome of the investigation. The interim rates are subject
to amendment and refund
in the event the Commission finds as a result of our
investigation that the rates charged by PCS for' inStitutional operator services are
unreasonable.
The Commission believes that on balance, approving PCS's Application and the
rates proposed therein before concluding our investigation is reasonable and in the public
interest at this time.
See Mountain States Tel.
JNMSA 1978, § 63-9A-l~. (1985).
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
3
VO
SCC. 90 N.M. 325, 336 (1977)
5/24
PAGE
ID·
APR-e7-00 10.32 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
.
(discussing the implied authority ofregulatory commissions to fix interim rates 10 avoid
hardship when a delay in setting pennanent rates may otherwise occur). As noted in the
Recommended J;>ecisioll, PCS bas been operating as a payphone service provider ('PSp}
in the state and has already iDstalled its equipment in corrections t3cilities throughout
New Mexico.
A representative ftom the New Mexico Department of Corrections
("DOC') has testified that time is of the essence for certifying PCS as an operator service
provider because PCS was holding some of the billings until the rates were clarified and .
there were budgetaty considerations that affected the DOC. (Tr., 84.) In order to avoid
any hardship or uncertainty that further delay may cause, the Commission will approve
PCS's Application subject to the conditions set forth in this Order, which we believe
adequately safeguard the public interest.
We further wish to emphasize that an approval of the Application is not an
approval of the commission rate contained in any private contract between the DOC and
PCS. nor the tenns and conditions under which pes installs, maintains and operates its
payphone systems in corrections facilities. As explained in the Recommended. Decisio~
Mr_ J~jngs, a representative from PCS" testified that PCS currently provides payphones
in. New Mexico which are located in two private conectional facilities" and pursuant to a
4
contIacl with the State of New Mexico DOC, in another seven locatioDS. Tr.29. Mr.
Jennings further testified that PCS procured this contract" in July through an RFP with the
DOS for inmate telephone
serVice., medical telephone service, and commenmry service,
and was awarded the contract sometime in August. Tr. 40. Mr. Iennings also testified
t
that part of the cost components of providing operator services included commissions
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
4
6/24
PAGE
10.
~PR-07-00 10.33 FROH.COHEAU HAL DEGEN TEH
paid by PCS under the private contract to tlle correctional institution to offi;ec the internal
costs of supporting the equipment. Tr., 51. At the time of executing the contract, PCS
did not request that the Commission review or otherwise approve the con1I3Ct with the
s
DOC. To our.knowledge, we have received no Iequests to review or otherwise approv~
any other contra.ets between ~tutional OOPs or PSPs and corrections institutions or any
commisslOD.$ provided therein.
In conclusion, the in'Vestigation that the Commission ~ences with this order
into the rates and chatges of institutional OSPs shall be. on a going-foIWard basis. To the
extent
that
any
private . contI3cts
for prison telephone
services
between
telecoDlID.anieatioDS service providers and state or private prison oper.ttors may have
resulted in improper charges to recipients of inmate phone ~ this matter is properly
addressed by th~ courts due to the prohiOition on retroactive t3te-making. See generallv.
In the Matter of a Qmpnjssion Investigation Into the 1297 Earnings of U S WEST
Conmmnications. Inc. In New Mexico. Docket No.
25~787
(NM. M.azch 11, 1999);
Mountain States, Tel. v. StAte Corporation Commission.. 90 :N.M. 325. 341 (1977).
THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES:
1.
The foregoing statements, discussion and analysis are hereby adopted as
Findings and Conclusions of the Commission.
• Before obtainiIJg a cettifie::ue ofanthority to provide iostinnionaI opemor services, PCS was
subcontracting the oper.uor services with Evacom Systems. a certified Opcmtor Service Provider in New
Mexico. (cite)
S However. EvetCQm submitted a Verified Petition puxsuant to § 63-9A-9 with a copy oflhe contract
between PCS and the DOC attached in Deo=mbe:r. 1999. The Commission denied the Verified Petition
because it tailed to set fOtih the infoIJDation prescribed, no~ that "[t]he poniODS oCthe PriCe ~ent
(Exhibit A) deating wi1h compensation, ~. pages I and Z7. do not contain the rates. tetmS and
conditions under which the Evercom is providing the inst:iuuiooaI opentor services called for under a
component oftb: Priee Agreement...
ORDER cASE NO.31I)
5
7/24
10.
~PR-e7-00 10.33 FROM.COMEAU MALDECEN TEM
2.
PACE
Except where expressly stated otherwise or where inconsistent with this
Order, the Statem.ent of the Case, Discussio~ and all recoJnmended findings and
conclusions ~ntained in the Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner are well-
taken and should be adopted.
3.
Paragraph E of the Findings and Conclusions of the Recommended
Decision is not adopted.
4.
Except where expressly stated otherwise Or where inconsistent. with this
Order. the Statement of the Case, Discussion, and all recommended findings and
conclusions contained in the Recommended. Decision, attached hereto as Exhibit l~ are
incoq>OIated by reference as if fully set forth herein, and are ADOPTED~ APPROVED,
and ACCEPIED as Findings and Conclusions ofthe Commission.
5.
The Comrnj~onhas jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of
this case'pursuant to N.M. Const. Article XI, Section ~ NMSA 1978 Section 8-S-4
(1998) and NMSA 1978 Section 6~7-1.1 (1998).
6.
The Commission has the authority to conduct investigations as necessary
to carry oat its responsibilities and to detennine any matter of public convenience and
necessity with respect to matters subject to its regulatory authority as provided by law.
See NMSA 1978. § 63-7-1.1, § 63-9A-6 and § 8-8-4.
7.
The Commission has the authority to fix and regulate all charges and tates ..
of telephone companies within the state; ~ § 63-7-1.1(AXI), and to change, amend and
rescind rates. See § 63-7-1.1 (A)(S).
8.
Pursuant to 17 NMAC 1.2.25. an investigation into the rates and charges .
of institutional opeta1or service providers operating in. the state should be conducted to
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
6
8/24
10-
.
APR-Q7-00 10-33 FROM_COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
PAGE
deteonnine whether the rates and charges are reasonable, or excessive when compared to
similar services offered to other citizens ofthis state_
9.
~.,
Ptusuant to its authority underNMSA 1978, § 8-8-14 and 17 NMAC 1.2
Utili1J' Division Procedures, a Hearing Examiner should be appointed to preside
over the coUIse of the investigation.
The Hearing Examiner should submit a
Recommended Decision addressing the reasonableness ofthe rates to be charged by PCS
and cuaeD.t1~ charged· by other instinrtional opeutor service provides:s in the ~ and
whether amendment to the cwrent rates in the form. of tate caps or some other limitation
on the nttes charged is in the pUblic interset
10.
PCS and other institutional oper3tOr service providers certified in the state
should be required
to
provide documentation such as cost of service data or other
appropriate ratemaking methodology as deteonined by the Hearing Examiner and any
other infotmation demonStrating the reasonableness of their cunent rates.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
A.
Except where inconsistent or expressly swed oth~ the Orders found
in the Recommended Decision are approved subject to the provisions of this Order.
B.
pes's Application is approved subject to the provisions of this Order.
C.
Paragraph 3 ofthe Recommended Decision should be amended to read:
Within ten. (10) days of the issuance date of this order, PCS sball.file with
the Commission's RecoIds Office, an original and five copies of the
version of its tariff that incorporates those changes agreed upon by the
Staffand Company prior to the issuance of the Notice of Proposed Agency
Action or the evidentiary hearing, and attested to and recommended by the
Staff at the hearing in this proceeding. The Company's filing shall be
subject ro review for compliance with this Order.
OlWER CASE NO. 3113
7
8/24
IO.
APR-07-00 10.34 FROM.COHEAU HALOECEN TEM
D.
PAGE
Staff shall promptly affirm in writing that such Tariff is in compliance
with this Order.
E.
An investigation is hereby conunenced and a separate docker is established
conceming whether the tates charged by PCS and other providers ofinstitutional operator
services certificated iJl the state are reasonable. and whether amendments to the cwrent
Iates in the folDl of ~ caps or some other limitation on the rates ch.at!ed is necessaty.
The separate doclcet shall·be entitled In the Matter ofthe Investigation Into the Roles and
Charges ofInstitutional Operazor Service Providers~ Utility Case No. 3317.
F.
The Commission hereby designates and appoints :Michael Barlow as
Hearing Examiner in Utility Case No..3317, to preside over the proceedings, to t3ke an
action necessary and convenient thereto within the limits ofhis authority, and to submit a
Recommended Decision conrainipg proposed findings of tact and conclusions of law
regarding this cause to the Commission. The Hearing Examiner shall schedule a hearing
in this matter and may, for good cause shown, modify the procedural dates set out in this
Order. The Hearing Examiner sbaIl also cause appropriate notice to be issued.
G.
By no later than June 6, 2000, PCS and other certificated. instimtional
operator service pro'riders in the State shall file testimony and cost of service studies or
other appropriate ratemaking methodology as determined by the Hearing Examiner, in
oIder to justify the reasonableness of their current rates.1'he testimony and exhibits may
furnish other facts and evidence that provide the Commission with information to assist it
in determining what further action would be appropriate and in the public interest.
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
8
10/24
ID
APR-07-00 10.34 FROMaCOMEAU MALDEGEN TEH
a
PAGE
H.
By no later than June 20;, 2000;, Staff and invexvenors shaD file thCir
testiJnony~
including any recommendations concerning the reasonableness of the CUIreJ1t
rates charged within the state for institutional operator services.
L
PCS and other institutional operator service providers may file IWuttal
testimony by no 1ater than June 30,2000.
J.
A copy of the Order shall be filed in the above-captioned docket and in
Utility Case No. 3317, and mailed to all petSODS on the attached eenifieate ofsetVice and
to institutional opexator service provida's certificated within the state.
K.
If after the outcome of the investigation, the Commission needs to
reconsider the interim niles for institutional opetator services approved in this Order, a
new docket shall be opened for that puzpose.
L.
This Order is effective immediately.
M.
This docket shall close.
--.
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
9
11/24
I\PR-07-00
1 ~134
10·
FROM-COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
PAGE
\II
ISSUED under the Seal of the Commission at Sants. Fe, New Mexico, this 46
day of April, ZOOO.
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
....u.,,~SIONER
COMMISSIOi'l""ER
ORDER CASE NO. 3113
10
12/24
~PR-07-00
PAGE
10·
10.36 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULAnON CoMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPUCAnON OF
.
)
PUBUC COMMUNICATlOHS SERVICES. INC. FOR)
A CERl1ACATE OF REGISTRATION TO PROVIDE)
NON-FACIUTIESBASED RESOLD INTRASTATE )
INTEREXCHANG-= 1'B..ECOMMUNICATIONS
)
SERVICES AND INMATE OPERATOR SERVICES
WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
)
)
CASE NO. 3113
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE ~RtNG EXAMINER
Efvabeth C. Hurst, Hearing Examiner for this case. submits this Recommended
Decision
to
the
New
Mexico
Pubflc RegUlation
Commission
rNMPRC·· or
·Commission") pursuant to 17 NMAC 12.325.4 and 1.2.392_ The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the Commission adopt the following discussion, findings of fact
conclusions of law and decretal paragraphs in its Final Order in this Case.
STATEMENT OF llfE CASE
.
On July 27, 1999, Public Communications Services, Inc. \pCSj filed an
Appflcation for a Certificate of Registration to Provide Non-FaaTlties Based Resold
Intrastate Interexchange Telecommunications SeMces and Inmate Operator Services
in the State of New Mexico.
On December 30. 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Agency
Action \,NOPAAj and the Commission's Telecommunications Staff ('"Staff") served the
,
NQPAA upon aU applicants included in the NOPAA and upon the telecommunications
maRing list. The NOPAA stated that Staff had reviewed the PCS Application and was
recommending that a Certificate of Registration to provide Non-Facilities Based Resold
Intrastate Interexchange Telecommunications Services and Inmate Operator Services
r
EXHIBIT
_/
1
13/24
~PR-07-00
10.35 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
10
PAGE
I
in the State of New Mexico should be. issued to PCS. The NOPAA indicated that a
public hearing would be held beginning at 9:00 A.M. on January 31.2000.
The NOPAA was dUly published in the Albuquerque Journal on January 8. 2000,
as evidenced by the Affidavit of Publication filed January 14, 2000.
.
On January 6, 2000, the Conunission designated ErIZ8be1h C. Hurst as the
Hearing Examiner for the NOPAA proceeding.
The Hearing was held on January 31, 2000. and there was one person present to
comment in opposition to the request of PCS for authority to provide inmate operator
services.
For Staff:
Avelino A. Guf:ierrez, Esq.
Alicia Bernal, Regulatory Economist. testified for Staff.
J. Ray Martinez. Regulatory Economist, testified for Staff.
Paul Jennings, CEO of PCS, testified as a Staff Witness.
Joe Thergood, Corrections 'AdmInistrator for the New Mexico Department of
Corrections. testified as a Staff Witness.
DISCUSSION
The hearing began with the public comment of lyle Confey who opposes the
request of
pes
for authority to provide inmate- operator services_
Mr. Conley
commented that PCS had been operating in New Mexico for two years without obtaining
the required certification.
Mr. Conley further commented that
pes
Commission requirement of one access line per payphone and that
were not in good repair.
".
\-
Recommended Decision of the
Hearing Examiner
Utility Case No, 3113
2
had violated the
pes
pay phones
14/24
APR-07-00 10.38 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
10.
PACE
The Hearing Examiner made inquiry as to Why there were company witnesses
but nC? company attorney.
Mr. Gutierrez infonned the Hearing Examiner that some
questions had arisen concerning the PCS request to provide Inmate Operator Services.
Pursuant to discussions between Staff and PCS, PCS had agreed to attend the NOPAA
hearing to provide information to the Commission. Therefore. Paul Jennings, CEO of
PCS, and Joe Thergood, Corrections Administrator for the New Mexico Department of
.
.
Corrections testified ,as witnesses for staff.
Mr. Jennings testified that he was aware of the three rules that apply to
Payphone Service Providers and Operator service Providers. Tr. pp.27·28. Docket
No. 91-247-TC, In the.Matter of Polides and Rules Concerning Payphone Provide.s in
New Mexico, (Rule 94-01-TC) requires that a Payphone Service Provider register with
the Commission.
Mr. Jennings testified that he was of the opinion that PCS had
registered as a Payphone Service Provider (apsP"). Tr. p. 28. He further testified that
PCS currenUy provided payphones in New Mexico. Id.
These payphones are located
in two private correctional facilities, and the remainder are located, pursuaAt to a
contrad with the State of New Mexico Department of Conections. in another seven
locations. Tr. p. 29.
Staff witness Martinez testified·that he had recently been assigned as the
coordinator of payphone sefVice providers and that
the position entailed receiving the
registrations of payphone service providers. Tr. p. 69. As the records were in disarray.
Mr. Martinez could not testify as to whether PCS had registered as a payphone service
provider. Id.
The Hearing Examiner ordered Mr. Martinez to review the records and to
file something in writing as to the registration status of PCS. Tr. p. 70. ·On February 4,
Recommeilded Decision of the
Hearing Examiner
Utmty Case No. 3113
3
15/24
APR-07-00
10.36 FROM. COMEAU MALOECEN TEM
PACE
10·
2000, Staff filed the Affidavit of Jose R Martinez stating that upon investigation and
belief, PCS was not registered as a Payphone Services Provider. Further. Mr. Martinez
stated that on February 2, 2000, Technologies Management, fnc., on behalf of PCS,
fiied the registration documents for pes to be a Payphone Service Provider.
Mr. Jennings was questioned as to Section 12 of Rule 94-01-TC, which outfines
the requirements for institutional payphones.
Mr. Jennings testified that the
pes'
payphones were: available without coin; In good repair and would be maintained by a
focal subcontrador; complied with all state. federal. and focal Jaws regarding the
accessibility by the hearing impaired or physically disabled persons; proVided both local
J
and ton service; contained a separate access line for each payphone; and provided for
limiting the duration of calls. Tr. pp. 30-32.
Mr. Jennings was also questioned on Section 10(a) of 94-01-TC, which sets
forth, in part, that any payphone provider using payphones with automated technology
must itself be certificated by the Commission as an operator services prOVider ("OSP1
before such automated payphones are put into operation. When asked whether PCS
was currently in compliance with that section of the rule. Mr. Jennings replied that pes
presently provides service through Evercom. who is a certified
pAO.
asp in New Mexico. Tr.
He also testified that in the past PCS had subcontracted
asp services through
Evercom, and had used fLO as a biRing agent. Tr. pp. -43 and 66.
The evidence is clear that PCS was opetating as a PSP in New Mexico without
having been registered as a PSP in New Mexico. Further. from the evidence presented.
it is also clear that pes has not complied with Section 10(a) of 94-01-TC. in that it had
Recommended Decision of (he
Hearing Examiner
Utility Case No. 3113
4
16/24
10.
APR-07-00 10.36 FROM.COHEAU MALOEGEN TEM
PAGE
put payphones with automated technology into opemtion Without being certificated by
the Commission as an operator services provider.
Mr. Jennings was questioned as to the rules and policies pertaining to Operator
Service Providers found in Docket No. 91-248-TC, Rule No. 94-02-TC. He was asked
whether he ~ aware of Section 14 of Rule 94-02-TC, entitled Responsibilities of
Institutional Payphone Operator Serlice Providers: (a) requires that operator service
providers audibly identify themselves to the caned parties before the called parties Incur
any charge ("'this identification process is known as branding the call}; (b) requires that
the consumer be permitted to terminate the call at "9 charge prior to the call being
connected; (c) lequires that a quotation of rates and charges for the calf WIll be made
available to that caUed party, upon request and at no charge; (d) prohibits billing for an
unanswered telephone call in areas where equal access is avatlable and not knowingly
bill for
unanswered telephone calls where equal access is not available;
(e) prohibits
billing for calls that are not affirmatively accepted by the called party; and (f) requires an
infonnation packet (m an easy to read fonnat) describing how telephone calls are made
by inmate, and containing specific minimum information that the packet must contain.
.Mr. Jenning's testified that PCS presently adheres to these requirements and
that PCS would continue to adhere to the requirements in the Mure. Tr. pp. 35-39. He
also testified that PCS would provide its own
asp- services if the Commission grants
them a certificate. Tr. p. 40.
Mr- Jennings testified that pes had participated in an RFP process with the New
Mexico Department of Corrections in July. Tr. p. 42. The proposal was to provide
inmate telephone service, medical telephone service, and commentarY service. Tr. p.
Recommended Decision of the
Hearing Examiner
Utility
No. 3113
case
5
17/24
APR-87-88 18.37 FROH.COHEAU HALDECEN TEH
PACE
ID.
40. The services would be provided to aU seven state owned and operated faciflties and
would include approximately 350 phones~
Tr. p. 41.
PCS would then have
approximately 450 phones in New Mexico. Id. According to Mr. Jennings, PCS was
awarded the contract with the New Mexico Department of Corrections in the August
time frame. Tr. p. 42.
Mr. Jennings was questioned. as to requirements of 17 NMAC 12.13.4,
Re"gistmtioo Requirements for Resold Intrastate long Distance TelecommuniCations
5ervices and Intrastate Operator Sesvices. He testified that the rate "s1rUcture for the
OSP tariff was based upon the existing U 5 WEST Communications. Inc.
rU S WEST")
tariff. This rate structure was due to the Department of Conection's requirement, in the
RFP process, that the rates be based upon the dominant carrier. Tr. p_ 45.
He further
testified that it was his opinion that the PCS rate structure was very co~e. Id.
Mr.
Jennings te:stified that of the first 25% of every dollar billed, the cost
components of providing operator services would include: equipment; networking the
calls through an interexchange <:allier (mcludes access charges); and caD processing
costs indUCing a bad debt component Tr. pp. 4:6-50. As to the next 75% of every dollar
bifled, the next cost component would be the commissions paid to the correctional
institution.
Tr. p. 51.
The commissions offset the intemal
costs to support the
equipment. induding: monitoring officers and Staff to monnor calls: allocation of space
wittUn the faciUly; and other maintenance requirements to support the physical presence
of the equipment
(d. The final cost component would be the payment of G & At
general administrative costs. which include sales costs, back office costs, and customer
service costs. Tr. pp. 51-52.
Rec:ommended Decision of the
Hearing Examiner
UtITltY Case No. 3113
6
18/24
~PR-07-00
10.37 FROH.COHEAU HALDEGEN TEH
10:
PAGE
In tariff revision pages filed in December. PCS changed the per minute rate
charge for the
can to: $.22 per minute for day calls; and $.15 per minute for evening and
night caJls. Tr. p. 56. These per minute rates were based upon U S WESTs per minute
rates•
.kh
The $1.80 per calf station to station coUect charge in the original PCS tariff
would remain the same.
kL.
U S WEST has a $2.41 flat rate for the station to station
collect call (no per minute charge). Tr. p. 51. Further, PCS's rates are the same for
focal and intrastate ton calls. Tr. pp.57-58.
Alicia Bemal, UbUty Economist for Staff, testified that she had reviewed the PCS
proposed tariff, as amended, and that she found that the rates were reasonable. Tr. pp.
74-75. Ms. Bernal recommended that the PCS Application to be an Operator Service
Provider be approved. Tr. p. 75. Further, she recommended that PCS? Application to
provide Non-FaciJities Based Resold Intrastate lnterexchange Telecommunications
Services be approved. Tr. p. 76.
.
To condude the hearing, Staff caRed Joe Thergood, an Administrator with the
State of New Mexico Department of Corrections. Mr. Thergood verified that there was
.
an existing contract between PCS and the Department of Corrections. Tr. p. 83. Mr.
Therg~
testified that time was of the essence in the certification of PCS. Tr. pp. 83-
84. PCS was holding some of the bilfrngs until the rates were clarified, thus, there were
budgetary considerations that efffected the DepartmeAt of Corrections. Tr. p. 84. Mr.
Thergood explained that inmate calls were very labor intensive due to the monitoring
and investigative functions of the officers. Tr. pp. 84-85. He alSo testified that pes had
already installed its equipment Tr. p. 9~.
Recommended Decision of Ihe
Hearing Examiner
Utility Case No. 3113
7
19/24
~PR-07-00 10.37 FROH.COHEAU HALDEGEN TEH
PAGE
10:
Based on the evidence presented, the Hearing Examiner finds that PCS has met
the requirements to provide Non-FaClTrties Based Resold Intrastate Interexchange
Telecommunications Services and Inmate Operator Services in the State of New
Mexico pursuant to NMSA 1978, §63-7-1.1. §63-9A-1 at
seq.
and 17 NMAC 13.4.
However, the Hearing Examiner is concerned with the prior failures, (as evidenced by
this proceeding), of PCS to comply with
Commission Rules.
Therefore. the Hearing
Examiner believes that the granting of a certificate to provide Inmate Operator services
.
in the state of New Mexico should be conditional based upon PCS' future compliance
with all rules and regulations of the Commission, and the State of New Mexico.
The Hearing Examiner recommends that the CQmmission FINO and CONCLUDE
. that
A
The Statement of the Case, Discussion, and all findings and conclusions
contained therein are hereby incorporated by reference as findings and conclusions.
B.
The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the sUbject matter of
this case.
C.
Due and Proper Notice has been provided.
D.
PCS' application for a certificate of registration authorizing PCS to provide
non-facUities based resold intrastate long-distance telecommunications serviCes in the
State of New Mexico complies with NMSA 1978. §63-7-1_1, §63-9A-1 at seg_ and 17
NMAC 13.4 and should be granted_
E..
pes' application for a certificate of registration to provide Inmate Operator
Services in the State of New Mexico complies with NMSA 1978. §63-7-1.1. §63-9A-1 et
Recommended Decision of the
Hearictg Examiner
Utility
case No. 3113
8
20/24
~PR-07-00
10.38 FROM,COHEAU MALOEGEN TEM
PAGE
10·
~ and 17 NMAC 13.4 and should be granted upon the condition that henceforth, PCS .
complies with aU s1atutory and legal requirements, and Commission Rules.
The Hearing Examiner recommends that the CommIssion ORDER:
1.
A Certificate of Registration shall issue to PCS and this ORDER shan
constitute said certificate a~orizing· Pcs to provide non-faaTdies based resold
intrastate long-distance tefecomrnunications services in the State of New Mexico.
2.
A Certificate of Registration shaD issue to PCS and this ORDER shaD
constitute said CertifiCate authoriz:ing PCS to provide Inmate Operator Services in the
State of New Mexico, subject. to PCS' compliance with all statUtory and legal
reqUirements, and Commission Rules.
3.
'Nith;n ten (10) days of the issuance date of this
oroer, PCS shall file with
the Commission's Records Office, an original and five copies of the final version of its
tariff that incorporates those ~anges agreed upon by the Staff and Company prior to
the Issuance of the Notice of Proposed Agency Action or the eVidentiary hearing, and
attested to and recommended ~Y the· Staff at the hearing in this proceeding.
Company's filing shall be subject to review for compliance with this Order.
4.
Copies of the Order shan be mailed to PCS and Staff_
S.
This docket shaU close.
ISS U ED at Santa Fe, New Mexico thiS'21 st day of February. 2000.
NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULAnON COMMISSION
Recommended Decision of the
Hearing Examiner
Utility case No. 3113
9
The
21/24
PACE
10·
APR-07-00 10.54 FROM.COMEAU MALDECEN TEM
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN THE MAli ER OF THE APPUCAnON OF
)
PUBUC COMMUNICAnONS SERVICES, INC.
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION TO
PROVIDe NON-FACIUTIES BASED RESOLD
INTRASTATE INEREXCHANGE
TElECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND
INMATE OPERATOR SERVICES WITHIN ntE
)
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
).
}
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3113
..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner, issued February 21, 2000, was
mailed First Class, postage prepaid, to each of the following persons:
Monique Bymes, Consuftant
Public Communications 5etVices, Inc.
clo Technologies Management, Inc.
210 North Pari< Avenue
Winter Park, FL 32789
Paul Jennings
PCS
11859 Wilshire Blvd.• Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90025
and hand.aenvered to:
Avelino Gutierrez. Slaff Counsel
Gary G. Roybal
NM Public Regulation Commission
1120.Paseo de Peralta, PERA Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Utility Division
NM Public Regulation Commission
224 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501
OAT E 0 this 21st day of February, 2000.
NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULAnON COMMISSION
legal Assistant II
22/24
APR-0'/-00 ·10.54 FROM, COMEAU MALOEGEN
PAGE
10 '
TEM
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULATION COMMISSION
IN niE MATIER OF THE APPUCATION OF
PUBUC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
FOR A CERnACATE OF REGISTRATION TO
PROVIDE NON·FACIUTIes BASED RESOLD
INTRASTATE INEREXCHANGE
TElECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND
INMATE OPERATOR SERVICES WITHIN ntE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3113
)
)
)
)
)
CERTIRCATEOFSER~CE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rnal Order
on PCS's Application and Notice of Investigation Into the Rates and Charges of
InstitUtional Operator Ser.vice.·Providers, issued April 4. 2000. was maJled first-class.
postage prepaid. to each of the following persons on Apnl 5, 2000:
Paul Jennings
MonJque Symes, Consultant
PubRc Communications Services. Inc.
PCS
clo Technologies Managemen~ Inc.
11859 Wilshire Blvd•• Suite 600
Los Angeles. CA 90025
210 North Park Avenue
Winter Park. FL 32789
Conversant Technologies. Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
P_ O. Box 865081
Plano, TX 75075-6615
Evercom Systems, Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
8201 Tristar Drive
Irving. TX 75063
Global Tel*Unk Corp.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
2609 Cameron St.
Mobile, AL 36607
Inmate Communications Corp.
Attn: Regllfatory Affairs
7107 VanJean Avenue
Van Nys, CA 91405
Intellical Operator Services' I dba IlO
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
16200 Addison Rd. # 100
Addison. TX 75001
MCI World Com
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
201 Spear St, gth Floor
san Francisco, CA 94105
23/24
10·
APR-e7-00 10.55 FROM.COMEAU MALOEGEN TEM
Pay-tel Communications, Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
9A Oak Branch Drive
Greensborough, NC 27407
and hand-<felivered to:
Avelino Gutierrez,- Staff Counsel
Gary G. Roybal
Utility Division
NM Public Regulation Commission
224 East Palace Avenue
NM pubnc Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo de Peralta, PERA Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Santa Fe, NM 87501
D ATE 0 this 5th day of April, 2000.
NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULATION COMMISSION
cecil~
Rios, Paralegal
Certificate of Service
Utifcty Case No. 3113
2
PACE
24/24
kAY-0~-00
15:41 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
10.
PAGE
BEFORE THE NEW MExICO PUBUC REGULAnON COMMISSION
IN THE MAITER OF THE INVESllGAnON INTO
)
THE RATES AND CHARGES OF INSTITUTIONAL ).
OPERATOR SERVIce PROVIDERS.
)
CASE NO. 3317
)
--
fNmAL PROCEDURAL ORDER
.
THIS MATIER comes before Michael Barlow, Hearing Examiner, in this
.case, on the Final Order on PSC's Application and Notice of Investig~tion into the
Rates and Charges of Institutional' OperatOr Service ProViders \Final Order")
.
issued by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission rCommission") in
Utility Case No. 3113 on April 4, 2000. Being duly {nfanned in the premises. the
Hearing Examiner RNDS and CONCLUDES as follows:
1.
In its Final Order. 'the Commission determined that an investigation
into the rates and charges of Institutional operator service providers operating in
the state should be conducted to detennioe whether the
rates
and charges are
reasonable. or excessive when compared to similar services offered to other
citizens of this state.
2.
The Commission found that it has jurisdiction over the parties and
the subject matter of this case.
3.
The Commission found that 1t. --has the authority to conduct
investigations as necessary to carTy 'out its responsibilities and to determine any
matter of public convenience and necessity with respect to matters sUbject to its
regulatory authority as provided by law
3/8
HAY-02-00 15.41 PROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
4.
10.
PACE
The Commission found that it has the authority to fix and regulate
aU charges and rates of telephQne companies within the state, and to change.
amend and rescind rates
5.
The Commission appointed the undersigned as Hearing Examiner
for this case. The Hearing Examiner was directed to submit a Recommended
-
.
----Decision addressing, a) the reasonableness of the rates to be charged by Public
Communications Services, Inc. rpSCj and those currentJy charged by other
institutional operator service providers in the state, and b) whether amendment to
the current rates in the form of
rate caps
or some other limitation·on the rates
charged is in the public interest
6.
The Commission ordered
operator service providers in the
pes
and other certificated institutional
state shall file testimony and cost of service
studies or other appropriate ratemaking methodology as determined by the
Hearing Examiner, in order to jUstify the reasonableness of their current rates. It
was ordered that the testimony and exhibits. may fumish other facts and evidence
that provide the Commission with information
to
assist _ in detennining what
it
further action would be appropriate and in the public interest The Commission
further set deadlines for the filing of Staff and Intervenor testimony and rebuttal
testimony and served the Final Order on aU certificated institutional operat~r
service providers operating in the State.
7.
A procedure should be established for any of the certificated
institutional operator service providers to file any requests for authority to employ
INITIAL PROCEDURAL ORO ER
CASE NO. 3113
2
4/8
HA~-02-e0
15.42 FROM,COMEAU HALDEGEN TEM
10.
PAGE
any "appropriate ratemakIng methodology'" other than cost of service studies in
the required filings.
8.
Other procedural dates and details should be estabrashed for this
--
It is ORDERED as foflows:
A
.
On or before May 8, 2000. any certificated institutional
operator service provider desiring to employ an appropriate ratemaking
methodology other than cost of service studies shall file a motion setting
methodology proposed
out the
to be used and the grounds for requesting authority to
employ the methodology. Responses to any suCh motion shaff be filed by no
laterthan May 15, 2000.
B.
By no later than June 6. 2000, pes and other certificated
institutional operator service providers in the state shall file testimony and cost of
service studies or other appropriate ratemaking methodology as determined by
the Hearing Examiner, in order
rates.
to
justify the. reasonableness of their asrrent
The testimony and exhibits may furnish other facts and evidence that .
provide the Commission with information to assist it in detennining what further
action would be appropriate and in the public interest
C.
file
their
By no later than June 20,. 2000. Staff and invervenors shap
testimony.
including· - any
recommendations
concerning
the
reasonableness of the current rates charged within the state for institutional
operator services.
INITIAL PROCEDURAL ORDER
CASE NO. 3113
3
5/8
HAY-02-00 15.42 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
ID.
PAGE
D.
Any rebuttal testimony shaD be filed by no later than June
E.
The date. time and place of the pubnc heating in this matter
30.2000.
Will be established after the submission of the direct and rebuttal testimony
unless otherwise ordered.
.--- .
F.
Any .person fffing pleadings, documents or testim.ony in this
case shall serve a copy on all parties of record and Staff.
G.
Any person whose testimony is filed in this case shaIl attend
a heating to be scheduled later and submit to examination under oath.
H.
A Commission Order is not required for agreements between
or among any of the participants regarcflng discovery matters.
AIl other
participants shalf be notified of such agreements.
.J.
No motion regarding any discovery dispute shall be
considered unless accompanied by a statement that the participants have made
a good faith effort to resolve the dispute and were unable to do so.
ISSUED at Santa Fe, New Mexico, this 20 th day of April, 2000.
NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULAnON COMMISSION
INITIAL PROCEDURAL ORDER
CASE NO. 31 I3 .
..: .......:..-r: .....
4
6/8
ID,
HAY-82-00 15,42 FROM ' COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULAnON COMMISSION
IN THE MAITER OF THE fNVESnGAnON INTO
mE RATES AND CHARGES OF'INSTtTUTlONAL
OPERATORSER~CEPROWDERS.
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3317
)
CERTfFlCATE OF SERVICE
--
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Initial
Procedural Order, issued Apnl 20th, 2000, was Jmailed first-class, postage prepaid, to
each of the following persons:
Monique Byrnes, Consultant
Public Communications Sesvices, Inc.
cia Technologies Management, Inc.
210 North Park Avenue
\Ninter Park. FL 32789
Conversant Technologies. Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
P. O. Box 865081
Plano. TX 75075--6615
Grobal Ter-link Corp. .
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
2609 Gameron Sl
Mobile, Al36607
Intellical Operator Services I dba ILO
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
16200 Addison Rd. # 100
AdcflSon, TX 75001
Pay-tel Communications, Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
9A Oak Branch Drive
Greensborough, NC 27407
Paul Jennings
PCS
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Evercom Systems, Inc.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
. 8201 Tristar Drive .
Irving, TX 75063
Inmate Communications Corp.
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
7107 VanJean Avenue
Van Nys, CA 91405
Mel Wortd Com
Attn: Regulatory Affairs
201 Spear St. 9tf1 Roor
San Francisco, CA 94105
•
HAY-02-00
PAGE
10.
15,43 FROM.COMEAU MALDEGEN TEM
and hand-delivered to:
Gary G. Roybal
. AveJino Gutierrez, Staff Counsel
NM Pubfic Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo de Perafta, PERA Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
UbTrty DMsion
NM Pubfic Regulation Commission
224 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe. NM 87501
OAT e 0 this 2011 day of April, 2000.
---
NEW MEXICO PUBUC REGULAnON COMMISSION
l.
n
•. ~
-An-
-'
Michael Bai1Owr1i!-a-rilll:ng~E::-:xaSZ:::m:=!lin-e'-r-------:~-
Certificate of Service
Utirrty Case No. 3317
2
8/8