Case Title: American Assoc. of Retired Persons v. Bell Atlanti

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 29th day of 
September, 1995. 
 
 
American Association of Retired Persons 
  and Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel,  
Appellants, 
 
 against        Record No. 950270 
                S.C.C. Case No. PUC930036 
 
Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc., 
 United Telephone-Southeast, Inc., 
 Central Telephone Company of Virginia 
 and State Corporation Commission, 
Appellees. 
 
 
 
 
Upon an appeal of right from an order entered by the State 
Corporation Commission on the 18th day of October, 1994. 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the argument 
of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the 
judgment of the State Corporation Commission.   
 
The Court concludes that the appellants' failure to object 
before the Commission to the adequacy of notice of the proceedings 
prevents consideration of this issue on appeal. 
 
The Court also concludes that evidence supports the decision of 
the Commission, which was acting in its legislative capacity.   
 
Under Code § 56-235.5(B), the Commission must find that four 
requirements are met prior to replacing the ratemaking methodology 
set forth in Code § 56-235.2 with any alternative form of 
regulation.  The Commission must find that the alternative form of 
regulation (1) protects the affordability of local service, (2) 
assures 
the 
continuation 
of 
quality 
service, 
(3) 
will 
not 
unreasonably prejudice any class of customers, and (4) is in the 
public interest. 
 
The testimony of Charles S. Parrott and Robert W. Woltz, Jr. 
supports the Commission's findings that the affordability of rates 
is protected and that quality service will continue under the 
alternative form of regulation.  The testimony of Richard D. 
Emmerson, William Irby, and Larry J. Cody supports the finding that 
the alternative form of regulation will not prejudice any class of 
customers.  The testimony of Robert G. Harris, Robert Woltz, Jr., 
and Charles S. Parrott supports the finding that the alternative 
form of regulation is in the public interest. 
 
The testimony of Robert G. Harris and Richard D. Emmerson 
supports the Commission's finding that safeguards against cross-
subsidization between competitive services and monopoly services 
exist under the alternative form of regulation.  The testimony of 
Robert D. Willig supports the finding that the yellow pages are a 
competitive service.  The testimony of Robert W. Woltz, Jr. and 
Larry 
J. 
Cody 
supports 
the 
determination 
that 
inside-wire 
maintenance services are competitive.  The Court concludes that the 
evidence in the record establishes that the Commission was 
authorized under Code § 56-235.5(B) to use the alternative form of 
regulation in lieu of the ratemaking methodology set forth in Code 
§ 56-235.2. 
 
Because there is evidence to support the Commission's findings, 
we affirm its judgment.  See Hopewell Cogeneration, et al. v. State 
Corp. Comm'n, 249 Va. 107, 115, 453 S.E.2d 277, 281-82 (1995), Old 
Dominion Power Co., Inc. of Virginia v. State Corp. Comm'n, 228 Va. 
528, 532, 323 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1984).  The appellants shall pay to 
the appellees thirty dollars damages. 
 
This order shall be certified to the State Corporation 
Commission and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 
                                       A Copy, 
 
                                          Teste: 
 
 
                                             David B. Beach,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Clerk