July 2, 2008 Michael R. Peevey California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 Dear Mr. Peevey, We, the undersigned elected representatives of San Diego County, urgently and collectively request that you act now to postpone the implementation of your April 24, 2008 decision designating a significant portion of San Diego County to the new 442 area code. We ask that the decision be revisited in light of the facts stated below. We have received more than 3000 emails and letters from our constituents, stating that they were not aware of the decision until after it was made. Many municipalities tell us they were caught off guard by the decision, and several Chambers of Commerce are currently being inundated by calls from business owners who will be financially impacted by the area code change. When you consider that the total number of comments received during the entire public comment period by the CPUC prior to this decision was only 1300, this indicates that the public notification process was clearly inadequate. If this new area code split occurs, it will create unnecessary hardships amounting to millions of dollars lost among residents and businesses at a time when many are fighting for their financial future. The emails and letters we have received also represent a clear consensus supporting the National American Numbering Plan Association's original recommendation to implement an overlay to address the impending shortage of telephone numbers in the 760 area code. We are aware that the official deadline to appeal the decision has passed, but this is an extraordinary situation calling for extraordinary action. Based on the response of our constituents and the evidence that the public was not properly informed, we ask your help in postponing and subsequently revisiting the decision after adequate public input. Respectfully, Dennis Hollingsworth, State Senator 36th District Mark Wyland, State Senator 38th District Kevin Jeffries, State Assemblyman 66th District Mimi Walters, State Assemblymember 73rd District Martin Garrick, State Assemblyman 74th District George Plescia, State Assemblyman 75th District Joel Anderson, State Assemblyman 77th District Pam Slater-Price, San Diego County Supervisor District 3 Bill Horn, San Diego County Supervisor District 5 cc: Commissioner Dian Grueneich Commissioner John Bohn Commissioner Rachelle Chong Commissioner Timothy Simon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Susan Kennedy

On July 14, CPUC President Michael R. Peevey and Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong responded:

July 14, 2008 The Honorable Martin Garrick California State Assembly State Capitol PO Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0047 Re: 760 Area Code Split Decision Dear Assemblymember Garrick: This letter is in response to your letter to California PUC President Peevey, dated July 3, 2008, regarding the April 24, 2008 area code split decision that the Commission adopted for the 760 area code. You have asked the Commission to postpone implementation of this decision. Unfortunately, area code relief is never a popular or easy decision to make, but it is one that we must do to ensure that consumers have enough telephone numbers. Due to the many advances in technologies, particularly wireless and Internet protocol phones and pagers, phone numbers are simply running out, despite many conservation measures we have put in. If we were to postpone implementation of our decision, we may not be able to implement area code relief in a timely manner to prevent exhaust of numbers in the 760 are code. Currently, the 760 area code is projected to run out of numbers by the Fourth Quarter of 2009. As a procedural matter, moreover, there are numerous timeframes that we would have to meet before we could even modify the decision - which would further delay implementing area code relief and jeopardize the availability of numbers in the region. Your letter also questions whether the public notification process was adequate. In January 2007, the Commission scheduled four public meetings in the 760 area code. The Commission sent letters notifying government officials and chambers of commerce within the area code of the pending action and of the time, date, location, and agenda of the public meetings. In February 2007, the Commission held those public meetings in Carlsbad, Apple Valley, El Centro, and Palm Springs, explaining the options for area code relief. In these public meetings, the Commission explained that, if a geographic split is adopted, it is unclear which region will retain the 760 area code. In response to those public meetings, we received numerous public comments. Overwhelmingly, the comments supported Split Alternate #1, which is what the Commission voted to adopt. Split Alternative #1 allows consumers in the northeastern and southeastern portion of the region to retain the 760 area code, and grants the new 442 area code to consumers in the north San Diego County area. The following factors also supported our decision to adopt Split Alternate # 1, all of which pertain to minimizing impacts on consumers: • The large geographic region of the 760 code: Unlike smaller regions in which we have implemented overlays, the region underlying the 760 area code is over 46,000 square miles - the largest in the state. It is about the size of the state of Pennsylvania. Even after the 760 area code is split into the 442 area code, the area retaining the 760 Area Code will be 43,000 square miles or larger than the state of Indiana, which currently supports 6 distinct area codes. We believed that it was important for consumers who live, work, and play in one area code (particularly those in the northeastern and southeastern part of the 760 area code) not to have to experience a new area code (overlay) on top of their existing area code. • Minimizing confusion for consumers: One of the key criteria that the Commission considers in determining area code relief is the impact and confusion that is created for consumers. In response to the public meetings, the Commission received more than 1,300 comments from the public on this issue. The vast majority of comments supported a split as opposed to an overlay; and most of the comments specifically supported Split Alternative #1. In addition, there are more working telephone numbers in the northeastern and southeastern portion of the 760 area code. Thus, allowing these consumers to keep their area code is consistent with reducing consumer inconvenience and confusion. • Maximizing area code lives: The southwestern region near San Diego has experienced high growth and high demand for numbers, which has contributed to the projected exhaust of the 760 area code. This region is also expected to grow significantly in the future, which means that it will continue to require more numbers - another reason to provide it with the new area code. Consumers in this region are already exposed to various area codes (760, 619, and 858) and may be able to transition to a new area code more easily than consumers in the more rural part of the 760 Area Code. We hope that this letter helps to explain the reasons for our decision on this issue. We understand that a new area code causes disruption in the citizens' lives and incurs many costs for them as they obtain new stationery, change signs, etc. We sincerely regret the inconveniences of a new area code. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Michael R. Peevey, President Rachelle B. Chong, Commissioner Cc: Commissioner Dian Grueneich Commissioner John Bohn Commissioner Timothy Simon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Susan Kennedy, Office of the Governor