Opinion ID: 1560388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the PSC exceeded its regulatory authority by regulating retail rates.

Text: ¶ 25. AT & T argues in its brief that it was seeking to increase its retail rates which are separate and distinct from rates. AT & T concedes the PSC has the authority to regulate rates. The PSC responds there is no difference between retail rates and rates. AT & T appears to be arguing that retail rates are a subset of rates already approved by the PSC as set out in the company's filed tariff, not a rate request for a new service offering requiring approval. ¶ 26. The applicable statute defines rate as: (e) The term rate means and includes every compensation, charge, fare, toll, rental and classification, or the formula or method by which such may be determined, or any of them, demanded, observed, charged or collected by any public utility for any service, product or commodity described in this section, offered by it to the public, and any rules, regulations, practices or contracts relating to any such compensation, charge, fare, toll, rental or classification; however, the term rate shall not include charges for electrical current furnished, delivered or sold by one public utility to another for resale. Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-3(e)(Rev.2000). ¶ 27. The statute does not distinguish between retail rates and other rates. It specifically includes every compensation, charge, fare, toll, rental and classification... If, as AT & T suggests, a retail rate is somehow different from a tariff rate, it is a distinction without a difference, since the encompassing language of the statute includes all forms of rates within its definition. ¶ 28. Further, AT & T's argument is logically untenable. Whether or not the terms of Mississippi Code Section 77-3-35(4) apply to a rate request for a new service offering, is not before us as AT & T did not seek to establish a rate for a new service offering, but to increase the rate charged for an existing service offering. AT & T appears to be suggesting that a rate increase request is somehow equivalent to a new service offering. Even if logic did not dictate against such a position, AT & T has not cited any authority for this apparent argument and it need not be addressed. Graves v. Dudley Maples, L.P., 950 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.2007).