Opinion ID: 2324296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Verizon's Arguments

Text: Verizon contends that CWA's argument, based on the term ensuring, in PUC § 4-301(b)(1)(ii), is unsupported by case law and would create an unworkable requirement. If PSC must guarantee and prove a definitive and specific future outcome, Verizon submits, any decision by PSC would be legally insufficient, since by its very nature, PSC must make predictive judgments. More broadly, Verizon avers that no agency or administrative or judicial body can ever guarantee in advance what will happen in the future. Verizon cites In re Inquiry into Alternative Forms of Regulating Telephone Cos., Case No. 8715, 174 P.U.R.4th 120, at , Order No. 73011 (Md. PSC Nov. 8, 1996), which approved the original AFOR proposed by Verizon. There, PSC said that [w]e expect this plan to protect consumers, improve efficiency, encourage modernization of services and equipment, and enable [Verizon] to respond to the emergence of competition and rapid technological advancement in the telecommunications industry. (Emphasis added). Responding to CWA's argument about balancing, Verizon denies that considering the interests of all the parties when reaching a decision is creating a new standard for approval of an AFOR. The standard applied, Verizon states, was the public interest based on substantial evidence.