Opinion ID: 1168260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: articulated positions of the parties

Text: Appellant Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission argued that the Superior Court erred in declaring the deposit rule invalid because the rule constitutes a legitimate, reasonable regulation of the operations of intrastate companies which are expressly subject to Commission regulation. Appellant Commission also argued that the rule imposes no indirect burden on interstate commerce that would involve the commerce clause; and even if such a burden is shown, the balancing of interests favors the regulation. Appellant Commission additionally argued that the classification of interexchange telecommunications companies is a valid classification for the purpose of a deposit rule. The Commission asserted that all interexchange telecommunications companies are treated equally and that a rational relationship exists between the classification and valid regulatory purposes, thus meeting this court's test for equal protection of the laws under both federal and state constitutions. Respondent AmNet argued that the deposit rule is completely antithetical to the proclaimed policy of the Legislature to encourage competitive telecommunications services in this state in that the rule imposes a new cost associated with providing services, thus making it more expensive for all long distance service ratepayers. Respondent AmNet further argued that the deposit rule effectively imposes a regulation which grants preferences to some and unduly prejudices others. AmNet concluded that the Commission's interference with the objectives of the statute is beyond the scope of its authority. Intervenor-Respondent Comnet argued that the absence of specific factual determinations by the Commission precludes any assertion that the deposit rule, or any classification within the rule or deriving in any way from the terms of the rule or its criteria, is reasonable, rational or can be presumed to be so.