Case Title: US West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Com'n

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-7

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
US West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Com'n1995 WY 189907 P.2d 343Case Number: 95-7Decided: 11/16/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
US 
WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

The WYOMING PUBLIC 
SERVICE COMMISSION; Bil Tucker, John R. Smyth, and Stephen N. Ellenbecker, in 
their official capacities as Commissioners of the Wyoming Public Service 
Commission; and Union Telephone Company, Inc., 

Appellees 
(Respondents).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Uinta County, John P. Troughton, J.

Paul J. Hickey 
and Richard D. Bush of Hickey, Mackay, Evans, Walker & Stewart, Cheyenne; 
and William P. Heaston (argued) of US West Communications, Inc., Denver, CO, 
for Appellant.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; and Kristin H. 
Lee, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee Public Service 
Commission.

Bruce S. Asay 
(argued) of Murane & Bostwick, Cheyenne, WY, for Appellee Union Telephone 
Company, Inc.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, Justice.

[¶1.]     US West Communications, 
Inc. (US West) appeals from an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) 
ordering it to pay for terminating access services provided by Union Telephone 
Company, Inc.'s (Union) cellular telecommunications service. US West claims 
Union has failed to file the appropriate tariffs and rates as required by 
law.

[¶2.]     We reverse and 
remand.

[¶3.]     US West presents a 
single issue for review:

Whether the Public 
Service Commission erred in ordering US West to pay terminating access for 
cellular calls terminating within Union Cellular's Rural Service Area in the 
absence of any cellular terminating access tariffs on file with the 
PSC?

The PSC responds 
with two issues:

I.          
Is appellant US West out of time to challenge the PSC's ruling that it 
must pay Union Cellular terminating access charges based on Union Telephone's 
terminating access charges?

II.          
Did the Wyoming Public Service Commission err when it ordered US West to 
pay terminating access charges to Union Cellular?

Union did not 
file a statement of the issues.

BACKGROUND AND 
FACTS

[¶4.]     The background to this 
dispute can be found in this court's opinion in Union Tel. Co., Inc. v. Pub. 
Serv. Comm'n, 833 P.2d 473, 482 (Wyo. 1992). In that decision, this court held 
that Union was entitled to mutual compensation for terminating cellular calls 
(terminating access payments) made within its Rural Service Area (RSA)1 by US West subscribers. We remanded 
the case to the PSC for further proceedings.

[¶5.]     After the parties 
failed to reach an agreement on mutual compensation, the PSC held a hearing to 
determine the issue. On August 6, 1993, the PSC issued its Findings, Conclusions 
and Order on Remanded Issue. The PSC concluded that terminating access payments 
for cellular calls should be equal to that charged for terminating access in 
Union's landline service area:

There is no evidentiary 
basis of record to support setting a different charge for providing terminating 
access to Union Cellular customers within Union Telephone's landline service 
area and the remaining RSA.

On September 7, 
1993, US West filed a Petition for Rehearing asserting, in part, that Union had 
not filed the appropriate cellular tariffs. The PSC, by Order dated December 9, 
1993, denied the Petition for Rehearing on the basis that US West agreed, by 
stipulation, to the terminating access charges for service provided within 
Union's landline area.

[¶6.]     US West sought judicial 
review of the August 6 and the December 9 orders, while also filing a Petition 
for Rehearing on the December 9 order with the PSC. The district court certified 
the case to this court on March 2, 1994. On June 14, 1994, this court granted 
the parties' request to voluntarily dismiss the court case in favor of further 
proceedings in front of the PSC.

[¶7.]     A hearing was held by 
the PSC on August 11, 1994, on US West's Petition for Rehearing on the December 
9, 1993 order. Again, US West argued that Union did not have the proper tariffs 
filed for terminating access payments for cellular calls within the RSA. The PSC 
denied the Petition, concluding that Union was "duly authorized to charge its 
cellular service rates by the Commission's bench order of July 11, 1990." The 
PSC then ordered US West to "commence payment of Union's filed cellular tariff 
rates for cellular terminating access service throughout Union's certificated 
cellular service area." US West then filed a Petition for Review in the district 
court, which certified the case to this court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶8.]     When a case is 
certified pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply the appellate standards 
applicable to the court of the first instance. Union Tel. Co., Inc. v. Pub. 
Serv. Comm'n, 907 P.2d 340, 341-42 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Hepp v. State ex rel. 
Worker's Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Wyo. 1994)).

[¶9.]     The scope of our review 
of agency decisions is set out by W.S. 16-3-114(c) (1990 Rpl.):

(c)        To the 
extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court 
shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and 
statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of 
an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review 
the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be 
taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i)         
Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; 
and

(ii)        Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

(B) Contrary to 
constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of 
statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

(D) Without observance of 
procedure required by law; or

(E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.

See Wyoming 
Consumer Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 882 P.2d 858, 860 (Wyo. 1994) (citing 
Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 662 P.2d 878, 881-82 (Wyo. 
1983)).

[¶10.]  This court cannot usurp the legislative 
function delegated to the PSC, Mountain Fuel, 662 P.2d  at 883; however, during 
our review of the PSC's exercise of its statutory powers, we will keep in mind 
that, as a regulatory agency, the PSC

has no inherent or 
common-law powers. Stated in another manner, an administrative body has only the 
power and authority granted by the constitution or statutes creating the same. 
Such statutes must be strictly construed or "any reasonable doubt of existence 
of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof. A doubtful power 
does not exist."

Montana Dakota 
Util. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 847 P.2d 978, 983 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting 
Tri-County Elec. Ass'n v. City of Gillette, 525 P.2d 3, 8-9 (Wyo. 1974)). The 
PSC, in the exercise of its regulatory powers over public utilities, is required 
to give paramount consideration to the public interest. Montana Dakota, at id. 

DISCUSSION

[¶11.]  Prior to discussing the issue raised by 
US West, we must first address several arguments raised by Union and the PSC 
relating to the propriety of this appeal. The PSC claims that US West never 
appealed the August 6, 1993 order in which the landline terminating access 
charges were adopted as the terminating access charges for the cellular 
operation. The PSC argues that US West's failure to do so prohibits raising the 
issue on appeal now, since it is the September 19, 1994 order from which appeal 
was taken. Similarly, Union asserts that US West never raised this issue before 
the PSC and cannot do so for the first time on appeal. Union also claims that US 
West is barred by res judicata2 from raising the issue because it 
was decided by the PSC and not appealed at that time. Additionally, Union argues 
that US West is barred by the doctrine of invited error.

[¶12.]  First, the record clearly demonstrates 
that US West did, in fact, raise this issue before the PSC. In its September 19, 
1994 Final Order on Oral Argument and Briefs and Denying Additional Rehearing 
Request, the PSC determined the following issues:

1.         
Whether the Commission has authorized Union's rates for terminating calls 
to cellular customers in Union Cellular's Rural Service Area insofar as it 
extends outside of Union's wireline service area;

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

3.         
Whether (as US West asserts) Union must file and support, and the 
Commission approve, the specific rate for the cellular terminating service 
provided by it outside its certificated local exchange or "wireline service" 
area pursuant to Wyoming statutory and Commission rule requirements, prior to, 
and as the basis for, any such terminating access charges to be paid by U.S. 
West to Union.

Thus, whether 
Union must file tariffs for the terminating access charges for cellular calls 
was raised before the PSC and not for the first time in this court.

[¶13.]  Secondly, the PSC is mistaken in its 
contention that US West had to appeal the August 6, 1993 order to preserve this 
issue for this appeal. While that order may have determined that the proposed 
rate for access termination was appropriate, it did not determine whether the 
rate had been properly filed. The filing procedure for tariffs is distinct from 
the determination of the pertinent rate for a particular tariff. See W.S. 
37-3-101 (1995 Cum.Supp.) (rates shall be just and reasonable) and W.S. 37-3-110 
(1977 Rpl.) (schedules of rates must be filed with the PSC and available for 
public inspection).

[¶14.]  Finally, neither the doctrines of 
collateral estoppel nor invited error act to bar this issue from consideration. 
For a party to be collaterally estopped from raising an issue in a subsequent 
proceeding, four factors are considered: (1) whether the issue decided by the 
prior proceeding is identical to the present issue; (2) whether the prior 
proceeding resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against 
whom collateral estoppel is being asserted was a party or in privity with a 
party to the prior proceeding; and (4) whether the party against whom collateral 
estoppel is being asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue 
in the prior proceeding. Slavens v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 854 P.2d 683, 686 
(Wyo. 1993).

[¶15.]  Union relies on a July 12, 1990 
Finalization of Interim Order issued by the PSC wherein the Commission found 
that "[b]y amendments submitted July 11, 1990, Union completed the filing of its 
rates and tariffs" and the December 18, 1990 order which reiterated that Union 
had filed its rates and tariffs. After a review of the record and the applicable 
statutory and regulatory authorities, we conclude that the issue was not fully 
resolved on the merits and that US West did not have a full opportunity to 
litigate the issue. The rationale for our decision is that an order setting 
rates or tariffs is not the final act. After the PSC approves a rate or tariff, 
that rate must then be filed with the agency. PSC Procedural Rules and Special 
Regulations § 217; W.S. 37-3-110. Until such occurs, the filing process is not 
yet complete. Therefore, the findings in the PSC order cannot be collaterally 
estopped since there are events occurring after the order which are necessarily 
determinative of the issue. Likewise, there is no invited error.

[¶16.]  All rate charges by a public utility must 
be filed with the PSC. Wyoming Statute 37-3-110 provides, in pertinent 
part:

Within a time to be fixed 
by the commission, every public utility shall file with the commission, and keep 
open to public inspection as this commission may direct, schedules showing all 
rates for every service rendered or to be rendered by it.

See also PSC 
Procedural Rules and Special Regulations §§ 210-212, 217. This statute 
unambiguously makes it mandatory for a public utility to file a schedule showing 
rates for every service offered. As the PSC noted, Union's cellular operations 
are distinct and separate from its landline operations. Under the law, Union is 
required to file rates for its cellular operations. There is no evidence in the 
record that Union has ever filed the appropriate rates. This is contrary to law 
and, accordingly, the PSC's decision must be reversed.

[¶17.]  Union and the PSC attempt to justify the 
failure to file rates for the cellular services by pointing to those parts of 
the record where testimony and evidence established that the terminating access 
costs for the cellular service are identical with the terminating access costs 
for the landline service. While this may be so, it is irrelevant to the filing 
issue. The question on appeal is whether the rates were properly filed. As we 
noted, a rate for each and every service must be filed. The cellular operations 
are distinct from the landline, both in terms of technology and geographic 
scope. By law, rates for those services in the cellular RSA must be filed once 
the PSC has established the appropriate rate. W.S. 37-3-110.

[¶18.]  We note that the PSC's paramount 
consideration must be public interest. Part of the stated purpose of W.S. 
37-3-110 is to allow the public to inspect a public utility's filed service 
rates. By simply adopting the landline terminating access charges without a 
filing under the cellular service, the public would be unable to determine the 
charges. This is anathema to the language and spirit of the law of this state. 
The rates, whether adopted from another service or not, must be filed under the 
pertinent service once they have been set.

[¶19.]  Finally, a public utility is precluded 
from receiving compensation different from that prescribed "in the schedules of 
such public utility then filed and published in a manner provided in [the 
Wyoming Public Utility Act]." W.S. 37-3-102 (1977 Rpl.). Union failed to comply 
with the act. No tariff was filed establishing any rate terminating access 
charges for cellular calls as required by the PSC Procedural Rules and Special 
Regulations § 217. Union is, therefore, precluded from receiving terminating 
access charges for cellular calls until such tariffs are properly 
filed.

CONCLUSION

[¶20.]  The PSC erred by failing to require Union 
to file its rates and tariffs on its cellular terminating access costs. Reversed 
and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1           
The RSA is an exclusive cellular telecommunications area operated by 
Union under license from the FCC. The RSA encompasses its much smaller landline 
local telephone exchange. Union Tel., 833 P.2d  at 474.

2           
Actually, res judicata is not the appropriate doctrine to invoke in this 
instance; collateral estoppel is. Res judicata is the doctrine of claim 
preclusion rather than issue preclusion which is the product of collateral 
estoppel. Slavens v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 854 P.2d 683, 686 (Wyo. 1993). 
Union's claim is that the issue of the filing of the tariffs was resolved 
in earlier proceedings.