Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative
Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The
LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the
NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may
also be obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR |
Heaton |
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
24 |
||
SHORT
TITLE |
Mid-Size Telecommunication Carrier Regulation |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST |
Garcia |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY04 |
FY05 |
||
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Public
Regulation Commission
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
The bill mandates the Public
Regulation Commission’s (PRC) rule-making for regulation of mid-size telecommunications
carriers to be after the expiration of Valor’s current alternative form of regulation
(AFOR) on
The
bill establishes a new level of regulation for mid-size carriers including specific
criteria the PRC will consider in adopting rules for mid-sized carriers. The
bill provides for the PRC rulemaking to establish pricing flexibility for “basic services” (defined
as retail residential and business offerings that provide customers with basic
voice grade services) and “non basic services” (defined as other retail
services that are not basic services, switched access or wholesale services.) The bill also sets out the objectives
to be achieved in the regulation of mid-size carriers to include: minimizing the cost of regulation, distinguishing
regulation for mid-size carriers from rural and large carriers; continuation of
universal service goals, capital investment, and availability of affordable
basic local services; and encouragement of competition and economic development
through the efficient deployment of services.
The
bill further sets out certain operational and technical criteria to be
considered by the PRC in its rulemaking.
The criteria include: (1) number of lines served, (2) types of markets
served, (3) prices charged by other companies for comparable services, (4)
quality of service and consumer protection requirements, including historical
performance in that area, and (5) operating experience of carriers under
current or previous forms of regulation. Under the bill, the PRC is required to
adopt rules for price ceilings and changes to basic service rates, including an
objective mechanism to be utilized for periodic price adjustments. The bill also gives the PRC the
authority to increase basic service prices resulting from revenue neutral rate
rebalancing.
The PRC is required to adopt rules regarding reasonable
quality of service and consumer protection standards, reasonable pricing
flexibility for non-basic services, and an assurance that non-basic service
terms and conditions are in the public interest. Furthermore, the bill allows
mid-size carriers to introduce or withdraw non-basic services, bundle and
package non-basic services and products with other services and products upon
10 day notice and the filing of a tariff.
On the other hand, the PRC has the ability to suspend the introduction,
withdraw or adjust the introduction to ensure compliance with applicable rules
for cost considerations or a finding that the tariff filing is not consistent
with the public interest.
Lastly,
the bill requires a report to the Legislature from the affected mid-sized
carriers and a review of the adopted rules from the PRC two years after the
rules become effective.
Significant Issues
1) HB 24 was promulgated in response to SJM 98
passed during the 2003 Legislative Session. SJM 98 requested an interim
committee to study the inconsistency between federal and state regulation of
incumbent local exchange carriers with over 50 thousand access lines who are considered
a rural telecommunications company under federal law and not an incumbent rural
telecommunications carrier under
2) In 2001, the PRC implemented an alternative
form of regulation (AFOR) plan for regulating telecommunications companies.
Unlike traditional monopoly regulation that focused on
profit margins of companies (rate of return regulation), AFOR uses prices caps
in its regulation policy.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
No fiscal impact.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
No impact. The PRC already has proper staffing
and is able to absorb the changes in regulation based on the rules process.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The following graph is a depiction of
Source: Public Regulation Commission,
Utilities Bureau (
DG/yr