Opinion ID: 2324296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: PSC's Arguments

Text: PSC makes many of the arguments asserted by Verizon, and it advances several other points. Although the case presents the settlement of six cases in, or originating in, the PSC, and represents a resolution by which competing interests gave in on some issues and benefitted from others, the Commission did not simply compare the second proposal to the previously rejected proposal. Rather, PSC analyzed the [second] Proposal as a whole against the statutory AFOR standard and decide[d] independently that it qualifie[d] on its own merits. In addition to the record made when the Commission specifically addressed the second proposal, PSC points out that, when approving the second settlement offer, the Commission reviewed the record on the first settlement proposal, consisting of hundreds of pages of prefiled testimony and exhibits, including both fact and expert witnesses, addressing the state of competition for telecommunications services in Maryland, pricing, and other issues bearing on the appropriate structure for an AFOR for Verizon. Further, the Commission reviewed the transcripts of the hearings and the records developed in the cases resolved by Order 83137. The Commission also notes that if the settlement offer is rejected, Verizon and the PSC would still have to litigate the six cases resolved by the settlement offer. This is risky, according to PSC, because the ultimate disposition of [those] cases in the courts could limit the Commission to incenting Verizon solely through the threat of civil fines and resulting in Maryland consumers receiving no bill credits for poor service. [9]