Opinion ID: 2599819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unreasonable discrimination

Text: [¶ 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.