Betsy Wolf

Salt Lake Community Action Program

764 South 200 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Telephone: (801) 359-2444, Ext. 223

Email: bwolf@slcap.org

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH

__________________________________________________________

)

In the Matter of Rule No. R746-100 Practice	)	Docket No. 07-R100-01

and Procedure Governing Formal Hearings	)

)	Preliminary Comments

__________________________________________________________

COMMENTS OF SALT LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

Salt Lake Community Action Program (SLCAP) is submitting preliminary comments pursuant to the Notice of Public Meeting issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC or Commission) on May 2, 2007 regarding its consideration of conducting a rulemaking process to update and modify Utah Administrative Rule No. R746-100 which deals with practice and procedures for formal hearings conducted by the Commission.

First, Salt Lake Community Action Program appreciates the process proposed by the Commission in this proceeding and the opportunity to provide comments prior to the initial public hearing scheduled for June 6, 2007. In general, we have not had problems with the formal hearing process and therefore do not have any substantive recommendations for changes at this point. However, recognizing that other parties may offer suggestions or changes, we wish to encourage the PSC to continue an open rulemaking process in which all parties are able to have input into the process, particularly if the Commission decides to make changes to the Rule.

Salt Lake Community Action Program believes that the issues brought before the Public Service Commission are of great interest and concern to the general public. Therefore it is appropriate that the existing rule allows the broad based participation of individuals, organizations, businesses and other interested parties in Commission proceedings. The rule currently offers an appropriate choice of methods of participation ranging from participating solely as a public witness to participating fully as an intervening party. The variety of participants can play an important role in bringing pertinent information before the Commission as well as providing different insights and new perspectives.

Thus, we believe it is essential to preserve the rights of participants to choose the method of participation that suits their needs and interests. It is also critical to preserve the ability of an intervening person or group to participate without being represented by an attorney. The lack of financial resources to secure an attorney should not preclude individuals or organizations from fully participating in the process. The existing rule, in section R746-100-10. F, does give the Commission the opportunity to control the hearing itself by stating that it ?may exclude non-
probative, irrelevant or unduly repetitive evidence.@ We think it is appropriate to control the hearing process rather than to exclude people or organizations through overly restrictive rules.

Finally, the Commission should establish a mechanism whereby members of the public who are interested in a certain topic or proceeding could easily be notified. First, it would be helpful to have the Commission establish a service list for each proceeding which identifies intervenors (and possibly others who have expressed interest in the proceedings) and update it periodically. It would also be helpful for the Commission to expand its current process of posting major dockets on its web site to a more comprehensive listing. In this way, the public would have easy access to all Commission proceedings.