Title: QWEST CORPORATION V. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING, STEVE FURTNEY, CHAIRMAN, and SILVER STAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

QWEST CORPORATION V. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING, STEVE FURTNEY, CHAIRMAN, and SILVER STAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.2007 WY 97161 P.3d 495Case Number: 06-102Decided: 06/19/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
QWEST 
CORPORATION,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF 
WYOMING, STEVE FURTNEY, CHAIRMAN, KATHLEEN LEWIS, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, and MARY 
BYRNES, COMMISSIONER,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent),

 
 
and

 
 
SILVER STAR COMMUNICATIONS, 
INC.,

 
 
Appellee

(Intervenor).

 
 
W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) 
Certification from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 
Representing Appellant:

 
 
Paul J. 
Hickey and Roger C. Fransen, Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Barbara 
J. Brohl, Qwest Corporation, Denver, Colorado.  Argument by Mr. 
Hickey.

 
 
Representing Appellee Public Service Commission of 
Wyoming:

 
 
Patrick J. 
Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan 
Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie Anesi, Assistant 
Attorney General;  Argument by Ms. 
Anesi.

 
 
Representing Appellee Silver Star Communications, 
Inc.:

 
 
James K. 
Sanderson, Sanderson Law Office, Afton, Wyoming; Bruce Asay, Associated Legal 
Group, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument 
by Mr. Sanderson.

 
 
Counsel for 
Amicus Curiae:

 
 
Christopher 
Petrie, Wyoming Office of Consumer 
Advocate.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this appeal, 
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") questions the authority of the Wyoming Public 
Service Commission ("PSC") under the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995, 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 37-15-101 through 37-15-502 (LexisNexis 2005) (the 
"Act").  In an administrative 
proceeding, the PSC rejected Qwest's 2004 Total Service Long-Run Incremental 
Cost Study ("TSLRIC Study") and ordered Qwest to submit an exchange-specific 
TSLRIC Study for the Afton, Wyoming, Exchange.  Qwest contends that the PSC lacks 
statutory authority to order a TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange.  We disagree, and affirm the PSC 
decision.   

 
 
I.  Issue

 
 
[¶2]      All of the 
parties present the same issue in different language.  We state the issue as 
follows:

 
 
Did the PSC exceed its 
statutory authority when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an 
exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange?

 
 
II.  Standard of 
Review

            

[¶3]      The sole issue in 
this case is the extent of the PSC's statutory authority.  As set forth in the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Court will interpret the statutory provisions, 
and set aside the agency's action if it exceeds the agency's statutory 
authority.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005).  
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, so our review is de novo.  Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. 
Department of Revenue, 2007 WY 43, ¶ 9, 154 P.3d 331, 334 (Wyo. 
2007).

 
 
III.  Background and 
Facts

 
 
[¶4]      The express 
intent of the Wyoming Telecommunications Act is to promote transition from a 
monopolistic, noncompetitive telecommunications industry to competitive 
markets.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-102.  One tool the PSC 
uses to promote competition is a Total Service Long-Run Incremental Cost Study, 
referred to in the industry by the awkward acronym "TSLRIC."  In simplified terms, a TSLRIC Study 
estimates the theoretical cost of replacing an existing telecommunications 
network.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-103(a)(xiii).  In other 
words, it provides an estimate of what it would cost a potential competitor to 
establish a new, competing network.

 
 
[¶5]      The Act requires 
companies to charge prices high enough to recover TSLRIC costs.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a).  Thus, an established company may not set 
prices so low as to discourage a potential competitor from establishing a new, 
competing network.  Because they set 
a floor price for telecommunications services, TSLRIC Studies help to promote 
competition.  See US West Communications, Inc. v. Public 
Service Comm'n, 992 P.2d 1092 (Wyo. 1999).

 
 
[¶6]      
Telecommunications providers must submit TSLRIC Studies to the PSC for 
review and approval at least once every three years.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a).  On November 1, 2004, Qwest submitted its 
2004 TSLRIC Study to the PSC for review and approval. The Wyoming Office of 
Consumer Advocate1 and Silver Star 
Communications, Inc.2 ("Silver Star") intervened 
in the administrative proceeding.

 
 
[¶7]      Following the 
hearing, the PSC rejected Qwest's 2004 TSLRIC Study, and ordered Qwest to 
prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton 
Exchange.  After its request for 
rehearing was denied, Qwest filed a petition for judicial review with the 
district court.  The district court 
certified the case to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b).

 
 
IV.  Discussion

 
 
            
A.        
Jurisdiction

 
 
[¶8]      As a threshold 
question, we must consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.  The parties did not raise the issue, but 
subject matter jurisdiction may be considered on the Court's own motion.  Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Campbell 
County, 2006 WY 44, ¶ 36, 132 P.3d 801, 813 (Wyo. 2006).  Indeed, we have a duty to satisfy 
ourselves that we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 1022, 1023 (Wyo. 2006).

 
 
[¶9]      In the 
administrative proceeding below, the PSC entered a "Final Order" on 
April 29, 2005.  In general, 
petitions for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after the final 
agency decision.  W.R.A.P. 
12.04(a).  Qwest did not file a 
petition for judicial review within that period, but instead filed a petition 
for rehearing on May 26, 2005.  The 
PSC denied the petition on December 12, 2005, and Qwest filed its petition for 
judicial review on January 11, 2006.

 
 
[¶10]   If Qwest's petition for rehearing 
tolled the thirty-day appeal deadline, then its appeal was timely, and the Court 
has jurisdiction.  If Qwest's 
petition for rehearing did not toll the appeal deadline, its appeal was 
untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction.  This issue has troubled the Court 
before.  See Hupp v. Employment Security Comm'n, 715 P.2d 223 (Wyo. 1986); Rosenberger v. City of Casper Bd. of Adj., 765 P.2d 367 (Wyo. 1988). 

 

[¶11]   In Jackson Paint and Glass v. Jackson Bd. of 
Adjustment, 811 P.2d 293, 294 (Wyo. 1991), the town's Zoning Board denied a 
variance on March 7, 1990.  A 
request for rehearing was made on July 12, 1990.  The Zoning Board denied the request for 
rehearing on July 18, 1990.  A 
petition for judicial review was filed on August 2, 1990.  The Court determined that the appeal was 
untimely, and warned that a request for rehearing must be made "in time to allow 
for a petition for review within 30 days after final action by the agency 
denying the variance.  Failure to 
grant a rehearing does not toll the 30 day limit."  Id. 
at 295.

 
 
[¶12]   There are two plausible 
interpretations of the Jackson 
decision.  The first interpretation 
focuses on the fact that the request for rehearing was untimely.  The Zoning Board's decision to deny a 
variance became final before the request for rehearing was made.  The deadline for appealing that final 
decision had passed.  Under this 
first interpretation, an untimely request for rehearing did not toll the appeal 
deadline, but a timely request for rehearing would have done so.  This first interpretation was urged in 
the concurring opinion in Jackson, 811 P.2d  
at 295, but was not embraced by the majority.

 
 
[¶13]   The second interpretation focuses 
on the statement in Jackson that 
"[f]ailure to grant a rehearing does not toll the 30 day limit."  This language suggests that even a 
timely and valid request for rehearing does not toll the appeal deadline.  That deadline would expire thirty days 
after the Zoning Board denied the variance, even though a timely and valid 
request for rehearing remained pending before the Zoning 
Board.

 
 
[¶14]   The first interpretation is 
correct.  The Wyoming Rules of 
Appellate Procedure clearly provide that a timely petition for rehearing extends 
the deadline for seeking judicial review of an agency 
decision.

 
 
[T]he petition for review 
shall be filed within 30 days after service upon all parties of the final 
decision of the agency or denial of the 
petition for a rehearing, or, if a rehearing is held, within 30 days after 
service upon all parties of the decision.

 
 
W.R.A.P. 12.04(a) 
(emphasis added).  The statute 
governing the PSC 's consideration of petitions for rehearing also indicates 
that a petition for rehearing tolls the appeal deadline.

 
 
. . . Applications for 
rehearing shall stay the effect of any order or decision of the commission only 
as to the portion of the order addressed in the rehearing application until the 
commission denies the application or enters an order following rehearing, 
whichever last occurs. . . .

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-2-214 (LexisNexis 2005).3  One "effect of any order or decision" is 
to trigger the appeal deadline.  
That effect is stayed by a petition for rehearing, and the appeal 
deadline is tolled while the PSC considers the petition for rehearing.  Both the appellate rule and the PSC 
statute support the first interpretation of Jackson.

 
 

[¶15]   Applying this first interpretation 
to the case at bar, Qwest's petition for rehearing did toll the appeal deadline, 
despite language in Jackson that 
could be read to the contrary.  
Qwest's petition for judicial review was timely, and we have jurisdiction 
to consider this appeal.

 
 
B.        
Qwest's arguments

 
 
[¶16]   Qwest presents three arguments in 
support of its basic contention that the PSC exceeded its statutory authority 
when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study 
for the Afton Exchange.  First, it 
argues that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a), which limits the PSC's 
authority to regulate prices in competitive markets, also limits the PSC's 
authority to require TSLRIC studies for competitive markets.  Second, it argues that the PSC exceeded 
its statutory authority because the TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange was not 
necessary or relevant, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-401(a)(iv).  Third, 
Qwest argues that the PSC's order requiring Qwest to prepare and submit a TSLRIC 
Study for the Afton Exchange is unreasonably discriminatory, in violation of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-404(b).   
To put the arguments in context, we review in more detail the PSC's 
decision in the underlying administrative proceeding.  Then each of Qwest's three arguments 
will be considered in turn.

 
 
1.         
The PSC's decision in the underlying administrative 
proceeding

 
 
[¶17]   When Qwest submitted its 2004 
TSLRIC Study to the PSC for review and approval, a key issue was whether or not 
the Study complied with the following provision of the PSC 
regulations:

 
 
Telecommunications 
companies which prepare and file TSLRIC studies in accordance with these rules 
shall design the studies to reflect the differences in costs associated with 
providing local exchange service to geographically distinct groups of 
customers.  Telecommunications 
companies shall provide cost information for groups of customers disaggregated 
to the smallest practical size, which shall consider factors as defined in 
Section 519(a) to (d), inclusive.  
TSLRIC numbers for local exchange services shall not be expressed as 
company wide or state wide average costs unless the telecommunications company 
can demonstrate that there are no significant differences in the cost of 
providing telecommunications services to geographically disparate groups of 
customers.

 
 
PSC Rules and 
Regulations, ch.V, § 541.

 
 
[¶18]   Qwest asserted that its TSLRIC 
Study appropriately reflected differences in costs for local exchange services 
in geographically distinct groups.  
Qwest explained that it had disaggregated cost information for four 
different groups of customers, based on density and distance from a central 
office.  The first group was located 
in the "Base Rate Area," with the highest density of customers and the shortest 
distance from the central office.  
The remaining three groups were located in "Zone 1," "Zone 2," or "Zone 
3," with progressively lower densities of customers and progressively longer 
distances from the central office.  
Qwest's TSLRIC Study keeps the four groups separate, or 
disaggregated.  However, within each 
group, TSLRIC costs were averaged on a statewide basis.  Thus, costs for customers in the Base 
Rate Area of the Afton Exchange were averaged with customers in the Base Rate 
Area of, for example, the Cheyenne Exchange.  Similarly, costs for customers in 
Afton's Zone 3 were averaged with costs for customers in, for example, Cheyenne's Zone 3.  Contending that its method of 
disaggregation presented information for groups of customers of "the smallest 
practical size," Qwest emphasized that the PSC had approved this method of 
disaggregation on previous occasions.

 
 
[¶19]   Silver Star, on the other hand, 
asserted that Qwest's 2004 TSLRIC Study expressed information "as company wide 
or state wide average costs," and therefore, Qwest had the burden of 
demonstrating that "there are no significant differences in the cost of 
providing telecommunications services to geographically disparate groups of 
customers," as required by PSC Rules and Regulations, ch.V, § 541.  Silver Star pointed out that Qwest, in 
other, earlier proceedings, had shown that the Afton Exchange was one of the 
most expensive to serve.  Thus, 
Silver Star urged, Qwest's method of averaging costs in the Afton Exchange with 
costs in other parts of the state effectively masked significant cost 
differences.  Silver Star asserted 
that Qwest should disaggregate TSLRIC costs separately for each of its Wyoming 
Exchanges.

 
 
[¶20]   The PSC found a middle course.  As for the Afton Exchange, it found 
evidence that costs in the Afton Exchange varied materially from statewide 
averages.  It also found that the 
Afton Exchange was unusual, in that it had been a competitive market for several 
years. Thus, the PSC concluded, Qwest had not met its burden of demonstrating no 
significant differences in the cost of services as between the Afton Exchange 
and other parts of the state.  
However, the PSC concluded that Qwest did not have to disaggregate TSLRIC 
costs separately for each of its Wyoming Exchanges.  Following this middle course, the PSC 
made a finding of fact in its Final Order that the Afton Exchange was 
a

 
 
suitable place for a test 
of the continuing validity of Qwest's approach to pricing and 
disaggregation.  Thus, while we have 
approved of Qwest's modeling approach in the past, that does not relieve us of 
the ongoing duty to make certain that it continues to serve the intent of the 
Act into the future.  This is the 
first time we have been presented with this fundamental challenge to Qwest's 
TSLRIC compliance and so we must make this examination for the first time.  A further examination of the costs in 
the Afton exchange would help us to better 
understand whether the retail service prices and the level of disaggregation 
presented by Qwest comply with the Act.

 
 
The PSC's corresponding 
conclusion of law was as follows:

 
 
We conclude that a TSLRIC 
study by Qwest of the Afton exchange, modeled individually and stating 
exchange-specific TSLRIC results for the Afton base rate area and each of the 
three Afton rural zones should be required to help demonstrate the degree to 
which the level of disaggregation offered by Qwest in this case fairly complies 
with the disaggregation requirements of Section 541 of our Rules and serves the 
public interest as expressed in the Act.  
A proper demonstration would clearly show the Commission whether or not 
the base rate area and zone prices were in fact above the TSLRIC levels offered 
by Qwest in this case and would be a useful test to assist the Commission in 
discerning whether or not the instant study could be approved under Wyoming law 
as legally supportive of Qwest's Wyoming prices.

 
 

On this basis, the PSC 
ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the 
Afton Exchange.

 
 
2.         
Regulation of prices in competitive markets

            

[¶21]   Under the Act, the PSC may 
designate certain telecommunications services as competitive. "Any service found 
to be effectively competitive shall not be subject to regulation of 
prices."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-202(a).4  Qwest points out that the PSC has 
designated services in the Afton Exchange as competitive, and so prices in the 
Afton Exchange are not subject to regulation.  Qwest contends that, because the PSC 
lacks authority to regulate prices in the Afton Exchange, it also lacks 
authority to require a TSLRIC Study for the Afton 
Exchange.

 
 
[¶22]   Qwest's contention rests on the 
faulty premise that TSLRIC Studies can be used only to regulate prices.  In fact, as discussed in more detail 
below, other provisions of the Act authorize other uses for TSLRIC Studies.  When interpreting statutes, we construe 
them in pari materia, and avoid interpretations 
that would render some portions meaningless.  Kunkle v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
& Comp. Div., 2005 WY 49, ¶ 11, 109 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005).  We cannot ignore other provisions of the 
Act in evaluating Qwest's proposed interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-202(a).  

 
 
[¶23]   We begin our evaluation with Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) because it deals explicitly with TSLRIC.  It states, in pertinent 
part:

 
 

Services provided by a 
telecommunications company that provides noncompetitive services shall be priced to ensure that the 
service's revenues from sale of the service recover the total service long-run incremental 
cost of providing that service, except as provided in this 
section.

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-402(a)5 (emphasis added).  To interpret this provision, we look 
first to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the statute and decide, 
as a matter of law, whether the statute is clear or ambiguous.  Powder River Coal Co. v. State Bd. of 
Equalization, 2002 WY 5, ¶ 6, 38 P.3d 423, 426 (Wyo. 2002). A statute is 
clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to 
agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability.  Id.  A statute is ambiguous if it is found to 
be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations.  RME Petroleum Co. v. Wyoming Dep't of 
Revenue, 2007 WY 16, ¶ 25, 150 P.3d 673, 683 (Wyo. 
2007).

 
 
[¶24]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) 
is clear and unambiguous.  The 
emphasized language  services shall be 
priced to recover TSLRIC costs  is susceptible to only one reasonable 
interpretation.  The pricing 
requirement applies to services, with no distinction between competitive and 
noncompetitive services.  Having 
determined that the statutory language is clear, we simply give effect to that 
language.  RME Petroleum Co., ¶ 25, 150 P.3d  at 
683.  The effect is that both 
competitive and noncompetitive services must be priced to recover TSLRIC 
costs.

 
 
[¶25]   The contrary interpretation would 
require inserting an extra word into the statute, to wit:  
noncompetitive services shall be priced to recover TSLRIC 
costs.  The legislature can, and did, distinguish between competitive 
and noncompetitive markets for some purposes.  In this same statute, for 
example, the legislature applied the TSLRIC Study requirement only to companies 
that provide "noncompetitive services."  
The legislature did not make that distinction when it said services 
shall be priced to recover TSLRIC costs.   When the legislature 
specifically uses a word in one place, we will not interpret that word into 
other places where it was not used.  In re Adoption of Voss, 
Wyo., 550 P.2d 481, 485 (1976).  

 
 
[¶26]   Qwest contends that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-202(a) prohibits the PSC from requiring TSLRIC Studies for 
competitive markets.  However, 
acceptance of that interpretation would render meaningless the pricing 
requirement of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a).  If the PSC cannot require TSLRIC Studies 
for competitive markets, it cannot determine if competitive services are priced 
to recover TSLRIC costs.  We decline 
such an interpretation, and interpret Wyo. Stat. Ann § 37-15-202(a) as 
prohibiting the PSC from regulating prices in competitive markets, but not 
prohibiting the PSC from requiring TSLRIC Studies for competitive markets for 
purposes other than regulating prices.6  

 
 
[¶27]   This interpretation also harmonizes 
with other provisions of the Act.  
For example, as stated in another provision of the Act, "Revenues 
obtained from noncompetitive telecommunications services may not be used to 
subsidize competitive services.  
Revenues from competitive telecommunications services may not be used to 
subsidize noncompetitive telecommunications services."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-403(a).7  TSLRIC Studies would allow the PSC to 
determine if prices in a competitive market are too low, and subsidized by high 
prices in a noncompetitive market.  
It seems obvious that, if the PSC could not require TSLRIC Studies for 
competitive services, it would get only half the information it needs to enforce 
the statutory prohibition against cross-subsidization.  Again, the more harmonious 
interpretation of the various sections of the Act is that the PSC has authority 
to require TSLRIC Studies for competitive markets, and to use them for purposes 
other than direct regulation of prices. 

            

[¶28]   Qwest relies on US West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming 
Public Service Comm'n, 15 P.3d 722 (Wyo. 2000), for the proposition that 
allowing the PSC to regulate competitive services is contrary to the Act's 
purpose of promoting competitive services.  
While the US West case does 
contain broad language to that effect, the ruling viewed in context is much 
narrower.  The Court ruled that the 
PSC lacked authority to regulate competitive services under the specific 
provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-404(a).  It did not rule that the PSC lacks 
authority to regulate competitive services for any and every 
purpose.

 
 
[¶29]   In sum, we read the various 
sections of the Act in harmony, and interpret them as providing the PSC 
authority to require TSLRIC Studies for both competitive and noncompetitive 
markets.  Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-202(a), the PSC may not regulate prices in competitive 
markets.  That does not mean the PSC 
may not require TSLRIC Studies for competitive markets, because the Act 
authorizes the PSC to use TSLRIC Studies for purposes other than regulating 
prices.  The PSC did not exceed its 
statutory authority when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an 
exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange.

 
 

3.         
General powers of the 
PSC

 
 
[¶30]   Qwest's next argument relies on the 
statute that establishes the PSC's general powers in regulating communications 
services.  In particular, Qwest 
relies on language providing that the PSC has authority to "[r]equire reports 
and studies as to prices and terms and conditions of service, necessary and 
relevant for the [PSC's] exercise of its authority."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-401(a)(iv).8  Qwest observes that an agency's 
authority is strictly limited to that expressly set out in the statute.  Montana Dakota Utilities Co. v. Public 
Service Comm'n of Wyoming, 847 P.2d 978, 
983 (Wyo. 
1993).  Thus, Qwest says, the PSC 
may require reports and studies, but only to the extent they are "necessary and 
relevant."

 
 
[¶31]   Qwest asserts that an 
exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange is neither necessary nor 
relevant.  The PSC has no use for 
such a study, Qwest says, because the Afton Exchange is a competitive market, 
and the PSC cannot regulate prices in a competitive market.  As previously discussed,9 the PSC has other uses for 
TSLRIC Studies, and TSLRIC Studies may be necessary and relevant for those 
uses.

 
 
[¶32]   Moreover, Qwest relies on a statute 
granting the PSC general powers, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-401(a)(iv).  We have already concluded that the PSC 
has authority under a more specific statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-402(a), to require TSLRIC Studies for competitive and 
noncompetitive markets.  Specific 
statutes control over general statues involving the same subject.   Amoco Prod. Co. v. Dep't of 
Revenue, 2004 WY 89, ¶ 18, 94 P.3d 430, 439 (Wyo. 2004), citing Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & Inv. Co. 
v. Laramie County, 5 P.3d 774, 782 (Wyo. 2000).  But reading the two together, we find 
that the more specific statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a), indicates 
that the legislature deemed TSLRIC Studies necessary and relevant to the extent 
required under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-401(a)(iv).

 
 

4.         
Unreasonable 
discrimination

 
 
[¶33]   In its final argument, Qwest cites 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-404(b)10, which prohibits the PSC 
from "unreasonably discriminatory or preferential treatment in its regulation of 
any telecommunications company."  
Qwest asserts that, in an earlier administrative case involving Silver 
Star, the PSC ruled that Silver Star did not have to file a TSLRIC Study for the 
Afton Exchange because it was a competitive market.  Now, in the current case involving 
Qwest, the PSC has used contrary reasoning and reached the opposite ruling.  Qwest complains that this is 
unreasonable discrimination.

 
 
[¶34]   We concluded above that the PSC has 
statutory authority under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) to require a TSLRIC 
Study for the Afton Exchange.  It is 
not unreasonably discriminatory for the PSC to require Qwest to comply with the 
law.  See Amoco Production Co. v. Wyoming State Bd. of 
Equalization, 797 P.2d 552, 555 (Wyo. 1990) ("If, in fact, the statute was not 
being enforced as the legislature intended, the [agency] acted properly when it 
corrected that oversight.").

 
 
[¶35]   The earlier Silver Star case is not 
before us for consideration.  See Amoco, 797 P.2d  at 555.  ("We find little merit in Amoco's 
pointing to other instances where the [agency] may or may not have applied the 
statute as written.  Our ruling 
today only addresses the issue of whether the statute applies to . . . 
Amoco.").  Our interpretation 
of  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-402(a) as authorizing the PSC to require TSLRIC Studies for 
competitive and noncompetitive markets suggests that Silver Star, like Qwest, is 
subject to this statute.11   If the PSC has not applied the 
statute as written to Silver Star, it has the authority to correct that 
oversight.

 
 
V.  Conclusion

 
 
[¶36]   The plain language of the Act 
provides statutory authority for the PSC to require TSLRIC Studies for 
competitive markets.  The PSC did 
not exceed its statutory authority when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit 
an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange.  

 
 
[¶37]   We affirm.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The 
Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate is an 
independent division of the PSC whose statutory duty is to represent the 
interests of Wyoming citizens and utility customers in 
matters involving public utilities.  
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 37-2-401 (LexisNexis 2005).  It filed an amicus brief in this 
appeal.

 
 

2Silver Star 
is a competitor with Qwest, particularly in the area in and around Afton, Wyoming.

 

3Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 37-2-214 was amended effective July 1, 2005, while Qwest's petition 
for rehearing was pending before the PSC, 2005 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 101, § 1, but 
the change has no significance in this case.

 
 

4In its 
entirety, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a) reads as 
follows:

 
 
(a)  Upon petition by any telecommunications 
company, the commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, find and 
conclude that a telecommunications service is subject to competition.  Any service found to be effectively 
competitive shall not be subject to regulation of prices by the commission.  The commission shall consider only the 
following factors in determining whether a telecommunications service is subject 
to effective competition:  

(i)     The extent to which the 
same or equivalent telecommunications services are available from alternative 
providers in the relevant market; 

(ii)    The extent to which 
telecommunications services of alternative providers are functionally equivalent 
or may be substituted at comparable prices, terms and 
conditions;

(iii)   Existing economic regulatory or 
technological barriers to entry.

 
 

5Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-402(a), in its entirety, reads as 
follows:

 
 
Services 
provided by a telecommunications company that provides noncompetitive services 
shall be priced to ensure that the service's revenues from sale of the service 
recover the total service long-run incremental cost of providing that service, 
except as provided in this section. Total service long-run incremental cost 
studies used by a telecommunications company shall be filed with the commission 
every three (3) years unless required by the commission more frequently. All 
total service long-run incremental cost studies required pursuant to this 
section shall be filed in the form required by commission rule and under 
protective order as a trade secret and shall be subject to commission review and 
approval. Telecommunications companies having fewer than thirty thousand 
(30,000) access lines in the state are exempt from the requirement to file cost 
studies every three (3) years, but do remain subject to the commission powers in 
W.S. 37-15-401(a)(iv). A telecommunications company having fewer than thirty 
thousand (30,000) access lines in the state may utilize a reasonable total 
service long-run incremental cost study surrogate, in lieu of conducting its own 
study, based on cost studies as are available for comparable, including 
nonregulated, telecommunications companies in this state or other 
states.

 
 

6Competitive 
services "shall not be subject to regulation of prices."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a).  However, the PSC is authorized and 
obligated to enforce other statutory requirements relating to competitive 
services.  Under Wyo. Stat. 
§ 37-15-401(a)(ii), the PSC has the power to "[r]equire any 
telecommunications company to conform to the laws of this state and to all 
rules, regulations and orders of the commission not contrary to law."  This statute provides the PSC authority 
to enforce, for example, the requirement of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) 
that services in both competitive and noncompetitive markets must recover TSLRIC 
costs.  Thus, while the PSC may not 
use TSLRIC Studies to regulate prices for competitive services, it clearly has 
the authority to use TSLRIC Studies for other 
purposes.

 
 

7Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-403(a) provides: 

 
 
No 
telecommunications company shall use revenues earned from or allocate expenses 
to noncompetitive services to subsidize services determined by the commission to 
be subject to competition.  The 
commission shall not require revenues or expenses from competitive services to 
be attributed to noncompetitive services.  
Revenues obtained from noncompetitive telecommunications services may not 
be used to subsidize competitive services.  
Revenues from competitive telecommunications services may not be used to 
subsidize noncompetitive telecommunications services.  Nothing in this subsection shall affect 
the assignment of any revenues received from the universal service fund for the 
exclusive support of high cost, local exchange services.  

 
 
With regard 
to the PSC's authority to enforce this prohibition in competitive markets, we 
note that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-403(b) provides that, "[n]otwithstanding 
the provisions of W.S. 37-15-104 (Services not regulated by this title) the 
commission may review financial information of a telecommunications company 
relating to the provision of any services for the purposes of enforcing this 
section."  As noted in the previous 
footnote, although the PSC lacks authority to regulate prices in competitive 
markets, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a), it does have authority to enforce 
the prohibition against cross-subsidization in both competitive and 
noncompetitive markets.

 
 

8Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-15-401(a) provides as follows:

 
 
(a)  In addition to the powers exercised 
pursuant to the provisions of W.S. 37-15-408, the commission has the power 
to:  

(i)     Investigate the methods 
and practices of any telecommunications company; 

(ii)    Require any 
telecommunications company to conform to the laws of this state and to all 
rules, regulations and orders of the commission not contrary to law; 

(iii)   Make any rules and regulations, in 
accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, necessary for the 
commission to carry out its powers in this chapter, including rules objectively 
established and consistent with commonly accepted industry standards, where 
applicable standards exist; 

(iv)   Require reports and studies as to 
prices and terms and conditions of service, necessary and relevant for the 
commission's exercise of its authority, including those protected as trade 
secret or confidential based on legitimate competitive or other operational 
concerns; 

(v)    Hold hearings on complaints, 
or for good cause, upon notice and subject to the provisions of the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act; and 

(vi)   Regulate telecommunications 
companies only as provided for in this chapter.

 
 

9See supra notes 6 & 
7.

 
 

10Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
37-15-404(b) provides that "[t]he commission shall not give unreasonably 
discriminatory or preferential treatment in its regulation of any 
telecommunications company."

 
 

11Under Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a), small telecommunications companies may not be 
required to submit TSLRIC Studies every three years, and may use "surrogate" 
TSLRIC Studies.  The PSC still has 
authority to require small telecommunications companies to submit TSLRIC Studies 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-401(a)(iv).  In the current case, we have no basis 
even to speculate about Silver Star's qualifications for this exemption, or 
about what an appropriate surrogate might be.  We merely note that there might be ways 
for Silver Star to comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) other than by 
filing its own TSLRIC Study for the Afton 
Exchange.