STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
OFFICE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Docket DT 99 086
Bell Atlantic Special Contract with University of New Hampshire
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) requests that the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) reconsider its Order No.23,255 dated July 7,1999, In this order, the Commission granted approval of the above mentioned special contract between Bell Atlantic New Hampshire (BA) and the University of New Hampshire (UNH), with the condition that BA file a tariff with the NHPUC within 90 days making ATM services available throughout the State upon the same terms and conditions and at the same prices as in the UNH special contract. The basis for OCA's Motion to Reconsider is twofold. First, BA failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to the incremental costs of service to UNH or the elements needed to provide that service. Second, the Commission's reliance on disputed cost analysis without an evidentiary hearing was contrary to established Commission practice and to basic due process. The Commission acknowledged in its Order that BA failed to meet its burden of proving that the UNH Special Contract was priced at or above incremental costs. The Commission observed that the BA cost data did "not provide important detail about the method BA-NH used to allocate non-direct, joint and common costs to UNH." Further, BA's cost data did not provide "supporting cost information related to copper, fiber, circuit digital or ATM investments," Order 23,255 at p. 3. The Commission also stated that because "this proposed contract is the first time the Commission has reviewed an ATM service, we cannot draw on existing applications to determine how Bell Atlantic will construct the network, and Bell Atlantic did not provide complete information on this question in the filing." Order 23,255 at p. 3-4. The Commission stated that the "sparseness of the Company's filing has made it difficult to determine in the 30 days required by statute whether the statutory standards have been met." This is not an accurate characterization of the statute. RSA 378:18-b allows a special contract to take effect 30 days after filing without Commission order, if it meets certain cost criteria. The statute by no means prevents the Commission from taking whatever time it needs to evaluate the cost data. Typically in instances where the Commission needs more time for analysis it denies the special contract without prejudice to prevent it from automatically becoming effective. In fact, that is the action that Mr. Lyle and W. Keller recommended following their review of the BA cost data. Finally, the Commission concluded that based on the filing, "it is also difficult to determine exactly which network elements will be used in the provision of this service," Order 23,255 at p.4. "Nonetheless" as the Commission notes, it approved the contract due to the "importance of the proposed service to the modernization of the state's educational system." Order 23,255 at. p. 4. The Commission then relied only upon the supplemental cost analysis, assumptions and opinion of one staff member, while ignoring other staff members who had major disagreements and had reached very different conclusions concerning BA's cost information. The Commission's reliance was misplaced. Two serious and legally unacceptable consequences resulted from an admitted lack of specific identifiable assets to which specific costs can be attributed. First, there is no way that users of unbundled "elements" can know if they are obtaining an equivalent product at the same price, contrary to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Second, it makes it impossible for the commission to analyze BA's cost data and potentially allows BA to provide service at predatory prices. When the facts surrounding the two different staff analyses are examined the Commission's refusal to subject this matter to a hearing becomes even more questionable. The Commission received two memos from Staff, one from the Economics department (Tom Lyle and Paul Keller) and one from the Engineering department (Kate Bailey). The memo from Messrs. Lyle and Keller1 recommended denying the UNH special contract without prejudice and opening an investigation. This memo states in part: "Although Economics Staff supports the development of distance learning facilities and high speed Internet access connections throughout the State by telecommunications providers, Economics Staff asserts BA-NH's argument that the proposed special contract is clearly (Bell Atlantic's words) in the public interest lacks cogency, The BA-NH cost support data filed with the petition is devoid of any verifiable documentation in support of its reported cost to provide ATM services and the cost support data does not provide ANY detail about the method BA-NH used to allocate non-direct, joint and common costs to UNH." The memo continues, "So it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the actual LRIC of a tariff service, let alone a new service like ATM, without more information than has been provided in the instant case. BA-NH has also not provided supporting cost information related to copper, fiber, circuit digital or AIM investments. As a result of all the above concerns, Economics Staff is not certain whether or not the benefits of the special contract to UNH outweigh the costs to non special contract customers. It may be true that distance learning and high speed access is a worthy goal to be promoted by the Commission but before promoting such a goal, Economics Staff believes BA-NH must prove that the benefits of the goal outweigh the costs." To summarize, the Economics Staff recommended denial of the contract because there simply was not sufficient information to permit an accurate analysis of the costs of the contract, the rates charged, and the beneficial or detrimental effects of the contract on other ratepayers - that is, whether other ratepayers would be required to subsidize any excess of costs over the rates charged by BA via the contract. 1 Attachment 1. Lyle and Keller Memorandum with underlining added for emphasis. All other items, including bold print, am as presented in the original memo.
The memo from Ms. Kate Bailey of the Engineering department2 is in startling contrast to the Economics memo. Ms. Bailey, in fact, recommended approval of the special contract. As a basis for her recommendation, she states, "I believe the public interest is higher in this special contract than others the Commission has rejected without prejudice." She then goes on to make a series of broad assumptions, states her conclusion that the contract rate exceeds the cost, but only very marginally, based on her broad assumptions (using the very same information the Economics department found was insufficient to form a reasonable decision) and recommends approval. Given the existence of a major dispute over the cost analysis for the UNH special contract between the Economics Staff members, one of whom has extensive experience in analyzing telecommunications cost data, and a member of the Engineering Staff who was able to use the same data to reach the opposite conclusion, it was inappropriate for the Commission to rely solely on Ms. Bailey's analysis for its cost evaluation. Ms. Bailey should not have participated in any analysis of this special contract as a result of the conflicting roles she finds herself in as a Staff member (Assistant Chief Engineer) of the Public Utilities Commission and as Vice Chair3 and now Chair4 of the Distance Learning Commission, an interested party. Her role, however laudable, in serving on the Distance Learning Commission ("DLC") cannot be disassociated from the special interest she is charged to pursue as a member of the DLC. What she refers to as the "higher" public interest in education relegates equitable interests of others to a lesser status. 3 Attachment 3. List of DLC members as reflected on the DLC website The DLC has been active in the development of the telecommunications network which makes distance learning possible. One of the DLC's goals is to develop collaborations with public and private enterprises. The DLC participated, with Bell Atlantic, in a pilot distance learning project which ran from October 29, 1998 through January 22, 19995 The UNH special contract developed out of the pilot. It is our belief based on statements by a member of the DLC, and minutes of the DLC meetings, that the DLC was also active in negotiating and promoting the UNH special contract via Mr. Frank Windsor, a member of the DLC and employee of NH Public Television.6 Based on the facts presented, we believe that Ms. Bailey was required to disclose her position as vice chair of the DLC as well as DLC's role in the negotiation, promotion and support of the UNH special contract. Without such disclosure and the consent of 4 parties, Ms. Bailey's participation in the analysis of the UNH special contract is contrary to the NHPUC's standards for the staff advisory role.7 Given Ms. Bailey's conflicting roles with regard to the UNH Special Contract she took a staff advisory position and it was entirely inappropriate for the Commission to rely on her cost analysis and assumptions, at least without disclosure and an opportunity for all parties to examine the opposing Staff positions in a hearing. In addition, in this case, as a result of Ms. Bailey's analysis and recommendation, BA has gained advantage by the approval of this contract, This advantage extends not only to the initial participants of the Distance Learning Network, but also to all additional, new participants over the 5 year life of the contract which, over contract life, may extend to include all school districts in New Hampshire, (Even the fact that the Commission ordered BA to submit a tariff for the ATM service does not mitigate BA's advantage, in that the terms and conditions of the tariff, as prescribed in the Commission's order, would permit the inclusion of a long term contractual commitment requirement for new customers which would, to BA's advantage, lock in those customers for lengthy periods with BA as their provider.)
5 Attachment 5, Pilot Program page from the DLC website
We also draw the Commission's attention to a copy of an e-mail sent by Frank Windsor (the follow member of the DLC with Ms. Bailey mentioned earlier) to encourage distance learning supporters to contact the PUC to support the UNH Special Contract.8 In his email, Mr. Windsor advises supporters that the contract is mandatory if the Granite State Distance Learning Network is to become operational in time for the Fall 1999 semester, and that the special pricing is the only way some schools will be able to participate. In fact, hearings may have revealed other options available to UNH and the DLC which were less costly and more efficient ways to handle the network and that ATM is not needed at all. Since the contract is a long term agreement which will lock up initial customers for a prolonged time frame and only grow in volume as more schools are added, we do not behave it is in ratepayers' interest, to see a contract like the UNH special contract enacted immediately and without thorough analysis, We believe it is more important to see that schools are provided with a quality distance learning network at the lowest fair and reasonable price in a competitive regime. Only an evidentiary hearing can be the basis for such a determination under these facts and circumstances, We are also concerned that this contract, as presently analyzed, may well be casting shortfalls between rate and cost onto other ratepayers without the Commission's informed knowledge or consent. The Commission is obligated to determine whether the special contract pricing is above incremental price, RSA 378:18-b, I, or alternatively, above the lowest cost form of access available to competitors plus incremental cost when essential facilities are involved, RSA 378:18-b, II. That determination must be based upon the utility's cost analysis and a description of the elements used to provide service. It was improper for the Commission to shift the burden of proving what elements would be used for service and the incremental costs of service from the utility to Commission Staff and then to rely on one version of contradicted staff testimony to support the Commission's findings relative to appropriate costs. 8Attachment 8, Frank Winsor e-mail The Commission appears to have departed from "ordinary circumstances" in order to allow students to obtain access to ATM services during the 1999-2000 school year. Opinion 23,255 at. P. 6 The opportunities in education offered by distance learning art numerous and significant, and we are certainly in favor of early implementation of such network - not, however, at any cost and not, most assuredly, without hearings which clearly called for in the circumstances present in this case. Even a purpose as lofty as educating our children should not be used to deny normal evidentiary procedures. There is no "higher" interest for this Commission other than just and reasonable rates and the protection of ratepayers consistent with statutory and constitutional standards. For the foregoing reasons, this Order also denies equal protection and due process of law to ratepayers effected by this decision under both the State and United States Constitutions. As a result of the above facts, we file this motion for reconsideration and request the Commission to take the following action:
Respectfully submitted, F. Anne Ross
| |||||||||
Attachment 1 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DATE: June 30, 1999
NOTE: EFFECTIVE DATE OF SPECIAL CONTRACT IS JULY 4. 1999 Attached for your review is a draft order denying without prejudice Bell Atlantic's request for approval of a special contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH). On June 4,1999, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic (Bell Atlantic or the Company) filed with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (Commission), pursuant to RSA 378:18, a petition for approval of Special Contract No. 99-6 (Special Contract) with the University of New Hampshire (UNH). The proposed special contract, executed on March 16, 1998, provides Asynchronous Transfer Mode(ATM) Cell Relay Services within the State of New Hampshire at a uniform statewide Tax over high speed access lines. Along with the special contract, Bell Atlantic filed a contract overview and cost study details in support of the filing. According to BA-NH the proposed ATM special contract will provide the opportunity for all K 12 schools, the University System of New Hampshire, libraries and other non-educational organizations throughout the State to obtain access to multi site distance learning facilities as well as high speed Internet access. The proposed special contract will provide the opportunity for students to access advanced placement courses and other educational resources that are not offered at facilities in their region. In addition, the proposed contract will provide increased professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators. On June 28, 1999, Destek filed an objection to BA-NH's petition and requested to intervene as a full party in this proceeding. Destek asserts, inter alia, that BA-NH special contracts benefiting one organization are discriminatory and minimize or eliminate the ability of other companies to compete. According to Destek, the proposed special contract will negatively impact the development of telecommunications in New Hampshire. Moreover, Destek asserts that BA-NH failed to prove the existence of special circumstances and that competition has not yet materialized. Therefore, BA-NH is prohibited from entering into a special contract under RSA 378:18. Destek notes that UNH is currently not a certified telecommunications carrier or a CLEC. (Apparently, Destek is implying but not actually stating that UNH is reselling ATM services or bandwidth without authority.) Bell Atlantic's cost study avers that the special contract's proposed rate exceeds the incremental cost of the service being provided, pursuant to the requirements of RSA 378:18-b. However, Economics staff s review of the proposed Special Contract raises questions as to whether BA-NH's filing is in the public interest under RSA 378:18 and whether the proposed rate meets the requirement of RSA 378:18-b. RSA 378:18 provides public utilities the authority to make a contract for service at rates other than those fixed by its tariff, if special circumstances exist which render such departure from tariffed rates just and consistent with the public interest. If the petition is determined to be consistent with the public interest, the Commission shall by order allow such contract to take effect, RSA 378:18-b allows special contracts to become effective 30 days after filing, without Commission order, provided the proposed rates exceed: (1) the "incremental cost of the relevant service"; or (11) the lowest cost of an essential facility, plus the marginal cost to convert the essential facffity into a retail service end user customers can use [note: this is not the actual language of the statute, just paraphrasing]. Although Economics Staff supports the development of distance learning facilities and high speed Internet access connections throughout the State by telecommunication providers, Economics Staff asserts BA-NH's argument that the proposed special contract is clearly (Bell Atlantic's words) in the public interest lacks cogency. The BA-NH cost support data filed with the petition is devoid of any verifiable documentation in support of its reported cost to provide ATM services and the cost support data does not provide ANY detail about the method BA-NH used to allocate non direct, joint and common costs to UNH. Rather than allocate these types of costs through an allocation factor, BA-NH has argued in prior dockets that non direct, joint and common costs are recovered to the extent there is a reported margin between proposed rates and the long tun incremental cost of providing the service. However, as the Commission and Economics Staff discovered in DT 99-018, a multitude of factors are considered by BA-NH cost analysts. So it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the actual LRIC of a tariff service, let alone a new service like ATM, without more information than has been provided in the instant case. BA-NH has also not provided supporting cost information related to copper, fiber, circuit digital or ATM investments, As a result of all the above concerns, Economics Staff is not certain whether or not the benefits of the special contract to UNH outweigh the costs to non special contract customers. It may be true that distance learning and high speed access is a worthy goal to be promoted by the Commission, but before promoting such a goal, Economics Staff believes BANH must prove that the benefits of the goal outweigh the costs. At this point time, the Commission does not have a clear understanding of such costs, especially in light of the fact that the issues raised in DT 99-018 have not been fully resolved. In addition to the above concerns, Economics Staff is not certain whether the proposed rate exceeds the TELRIC rates of analogous elements. Because the proposed contract is the first time the Commission has reviewed an ATM service, it is unclear how Bell Atlantic has constructed the network. Based on the filing, there is no definitive means of determining which network elements are used in the provision of this service (i.e. outside plant facilities, MDF, buildings, IOF, software, POT Bays, collocation arrangements, etc). As a result, Economics Staff is not able to compare, with certainty, the proposed rate to the cost of analogous unbundled network elements which CLECs would have to purchase from BA-NH in order to compete. As a result of these concerns, Economics Staff recommends the Commission deny the petition, without prejudice, and open an investigation. | |||||||||
Attachment 2 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DATE: July 12, 1999
Recommendation After completing a cost analysis and comparing the resultant cost to the price proposed by Bell Atlantic in the LTNH special contract filing, it is the Engineering Department's recommendation that this special contract be approved. This contract will benefit schools and delay in its approval may prohibit implementation for the start of the 1999 2000 school year. The Engineering Department is confident that the costs calculated pursuant to RSA 378:18b are Public Interest Because this special contract provides schools the opportunity to have TI access to the Internet and videoconferencing between schools on the network for a flat price (which is easier to budget than a price with usage or distance sensitive charges), and is not prohibitively expensive for schools in more remote area, school children in all areas of the state can benefit from advanced placement courses and the Internet. I believe the public interest is higher in this special contract than others the Commission has rejected without prejudice. As a result, I performed an independent cost analysis to determine if the price exceeds the cost using both prongs of RSA 378:18b so the Commission would not have to unnecessarily delay approval of this special contract. Cost Analysis As you know, RS A 378:18 b says that a special contract shall become effective 30 days after filing provided the rates are set not less than:
In this case, some of the proposed locations require a competitor to purchase access from Bell Atlantic and some of the proposed locations do not require complete dependence on Bell Atlantic's network, There are basically three components required to develop this type of network. They are: local loops, interoffice transport at either DS-1 or DS-3 speed and ATM switching, Throughout the state, a competitor would be required to colocate in the serving Bell Atlantic central office and lease unbundled 4 wire digital loops. I am aware that there is at least one CLEC and probably more that offer ATM switching service in the state. Interoffice transport is available from competitors in the southern part of the state but I am not aware of a competitive offering for these services north of Concord. The attached cost analyses account for the price a competitor would pay Bell Atlantic plus incremental overhead if required to use Bell Atlantic's facilities (in the absence of an alternative) and use Bell's incremental costs supplied with the filing for interoffice trunking in the southern part of the state and switching. The contract filed identifies 90 possible customer locations. The contract requires 30 customers initially but the price will apply to any future customer location as long as the average distance from the end office CO to the hub is below 19.8 miles. The filing does not identify which of the locations is among the initial 30. As a result, I made assumptions about where the initial 30 customers would be located that I believe reasonably assure a calculated cost that is conservative and will most likely decrease as customers are added. Assumptions I assumed that half of the initial customers would be located in the northern part of the state served by the Concord, Hanover, Laconia or Littleton hubs. In these cases, a competitor would be required to buy loops and interoffice transport from Bell Atlantic so the costs were computed assuming a competitor would be required to buy them from Bell Atlantic pursuant to 378:18bII. I assumed the other half of the customers would be located in the southern part of the state where at least Vitts and Covad provide interoffice transport. In these cases a competitor would still be required to colocate in a Bell Atlantic CO and buy 4 wire digital loops from Bell Atlantic. The costs included for interoffice transport for these 15 customers were Bell Atlantic's incremental costs provided with the filing pursu4ntto 378:18bI. The costs for loops and central office colocation were calculated assuming a competitor would be required to buy them from Bell Atlantic pursuant to 378:18bIl for these 15 locations. In all cases, multiplexers are required for interoffice transport and ATM switching is necessary but do not have to be purchased from Bell Atlantic so I used Bell Atlantic's incremental costs pursuant to 378:18bII account for these costs. According to Mark Evans from Destek, it is economically efficient to purchase DS-3 interoffice transport if there are 6 or more DS-1s being transported, As a result, I calculated the costs using two different scenarios for interoffice transport. In the first case (CASE 1) 1 assumed traffic would be routed from the 15 northern locations as evenly as possible through the Concord, Hanover, Laconia and Littleton hubs resulting in 3 DS-1s through Concord (because it was the closest and therefore least costly to route to the ATM switch) and 4 DS-1s from each of the Hanover, Laconia and Littleton hubs. Since, in this assumption the number of DS-1's was less than 6 from each hub, I calculated the cost from the hub to the ATM switch using DS-1s. In the second case, (CASE 2) 1 assumed 12 of the 15 originating locations were being transported &om the Littleton and Laconia hubs (because the price was more expensive due to distance), and used DS-3 interoffice pricing from Littleton and Laconia, and DS-1 pricing for 2 DS-1's routed through Hanover and I DS-1 routed through Concord. In both cases I calculated the price a competitor would pay Bell Atlantic Using prices stipulated in 97-171 and the proposed colocation tariff. I then added Bell Atlantic's incremental cost for interoffice facilities as a proxy for the incremental cost of related overhead. Next I computed the percentage of the total interoffice costs attributed to overhead and used it as the incremental add on for loops and colocation Finally I added the costs for 15 locations using Ben Atlantic interoffice facilities, (tariffed price plus incremental overhead) and 15 locations at Bell Atlantic's stated incremental cost, plus colocation and loops for 30 locations using the tariffed price plus incremental overhead, plus Bell Atlantic's stated incremental cost for switching. The results show the cost to be $613.35 per connection assuming DS-1 interoffice trun3dng and $627.86 per connection assuming DS 3 interoffice trunking where economically justified. The proposed rate is $655 which exceeds both costs. Destek Objection As a result of this cost analysis, I believe Destek's objection has no merit. Destek could put a similar network together using a CLEC or by becoming a CLEC (in order to purchase unbundled network elements) for a cost similar to that calculated. In addition, Bell Atlantic has publicly stated, to a group which included Destek, that it would make the same special contract price available to anyone who had at least 30 customers for this type of application or a CLEC could resell this contract to Destek. In the discussion, the $655 price and the 30 minimum customers required was revealed, so Destek has the information it needs to receive the same contract. Further, the contract is not discriminatory based on the cost analysis, and will provide a product to schools throughout the state that no other competitor is currently willing or able to provide. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Engineering Department recommends the special contract be approved or allowed to go into effect.
Attachment 3 Distance Learning Commission 1998-1999 Enabling Legislation: House Bill 473 AN ACT establishing the distance learning commission. This bill establishes the distance learning commission which shall examine issues relating to the transmission of educational information and Interaction of geographically dispersed individuals or groups through a single medium or combination of audio, video, and data. Approved: May 13,1996 MEMBERS: Art Hammon (chairman) practicing elementary school teacher appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives. Kate Bailey (Vice Chairwoman) Person from a regulatory agency With knowledge and experience in telecommunications appointed by the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission. Cathy Higgins Department of Education Liaison to the Distance Learning Commission Art Berlin Representing the NH Educational Media community appointed by the Governor. Robert Ciandella Business representative with experience in specifications of technology appointed by the Governor Gary Crosby Business representative with experience in applications of technology appointed by the Senate President Thomas Foulkes Faculty member of a regional community technical college appointed by the Commissioner of Regional Community Technical Colleges. Peter Monether Practicing school teacher representing state teachers appointed by the Governor. Jerry Olson Member of the administration of a postsecondary instituton, appointed by the Governor. Gail Paine Representative from the State Board of Education appointed by the chairperson of the State Board of Education. Tony Paradis Practicing school administrator appointed by the Governor. Michael Russell Member of the faculty of the postsecondary institution. appointed by the Governor. Mark Samber Recognized consumer, appointed by the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission Vicki Tinsley Public member of the State Office of Telecommunications appointed by the Governor. Frank Windsor Business representative with experience in applicaton of technology appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives. GOALS:
OBJECTIVE: I. Define and inventory distance learning current and
best practices within and outside of the state.
2. Increase awareness of importance of distance learning.
3. Increase access to affordable distance learning
resources.
4. Seek support (e.g., financial and philosophical) 4.1 Restate to legislature the commitment to Distance Learning and seek funded position. 4.2 Seek financial support
4.3 Introduce DL on agendas (i.e. school districts, legislature, business, rotary clubs, etc,) 4.4 Encourage volunteer efforts that support DL goals 5. Develop collaborations
Attachment 4 DISTANCE LEARNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 15, 1999 Present: Kate Bailey, Tom Foulkes. Cathy Higgins, Tony Paradis, Gary Crosby, Frank Windsor, Jerry Olson, Tom Towle Election of new chair The resignation of Art Hammon as member and chair of the commission was accepted. Members present unanimously elected Kate Bailey as new chair and Tom Foulkes as vice chair. Also accepted was the resignation of Jerry Olson, as he is retiring from his position at UNH. Meeting times Members agreed to change our regular meeting time to 3-5 PM on the third Tuesday of each month. Accordingly, our next meeting will be July 20 at 3 p.m. at the Department of Education in Room 15. Full Time DLC Position There was considerable. discussion about requesting the legislature to fund a full time position for the DLC. Reasons for such a request were discussed at length. The commission is comprised of volunteers with a zero budget allotted to our activities. While the commission has managed to refine its goals and objectives, we have not managed to have any significant affect on the distance learning landscape in NH, nor do we anticipate negligible affect without a full time person to dedicate their time and effort to the 5 DLC goals: 1. Define and inventory distance learning current and best practices within and outside of the
state.
We noted, in particular, that goal 5 must be attended to in a much more strategic way, in order to make the proper linkages with all state agencies who have a stake in DL, as well as municipalities and businesses. It was also noted that, while the DLC legislation makes specific reference to only one state agency (the Department of Education), the mission of the DLC, as stated in the legislation (promote and advance state of the art distance learning for all NH citizens), includes the direct work of the Department, but also goes beyond it. Therefore, we considered several possible state agencies to attach the position to and considered whether it should be attached only "administratively" or integral to the rest of that agency's work. The DLC was leaning toward the former, with the position reporting directly to the commission. The agencies considered were:
|