Opinion ID: 2604610
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United's microwave system

Text: United contends that the APUC's finding that United's ability... to extend satisfactory service to Wiseman simply has not been demonstrated in the record of this proceeding is not supported by substantial evidence. The APUC based this finding on United's significant modification of its proposal less than a week before the hearing, its failure to establish how the power and space requirements for the modified proposal would be met, and its lack of explanation for how it would interconnect with the long-distance provider. It also noted that the proposed path was obstructed and that [t]here is some dispute whether the newly proposed microwave path is adequate. In its decision denying United's petition for reconsideration, the APUC further stated that the engineers for both Summit and United testified that they did not know of other instances in which an obstructed microwave path like that proposed by United had been used for commercial telephone service. We hold, in light of the above, that the APUC's findings regarding the potential problems with United's proposed microwave system were based on substantial evidence in the record. Our role in reviewing the APUC's decision is not to reweigh the evidence, but only to determine whether substantial evidence for the APUC's decision exists. Municipality of Anchorage, Police & Fire Retirement Bd. v. Coffey, 893 P.2d 722, 726 (Alaska 1995). As the APUC stated, United might have eventually been able to perfect its application and demonstrate that its proposal would provide adequate service. However, the APUC, which has the duty and expertise to evaluate such proposals, found that United failed to make this demonstration when it had the opportunity.