Opinion ID: 2324296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CWA's Arguments

Text: CWA's attack on the AFOR is directed primarily at the service quality aspects of Order 83137. CWA's principal contention is that the language of PUC § 4-301(b)(1)(ii), allowing the Commission to adopt an AFOR if it finds that the AFOR protects consumers by ... ensuring the quality, availability, and reliability of telecommunications services throughout the State, requires literal interpretation. (Emphasis added). Because the Commission recognized in its discussion of the second settlement offer that the end result after implementation of the AFOR for service quality was not assured, CWA submits that PSC did not meet the statutory requirement of ensuring success, and thus the Order is affected by an error of law. Casting the same argument in factual terms, CWA contends that there is no evidence in the record that the Proposed Settlement will meet the § 4-301(b)(1)(ii) standard, as CWA construes it. Appellant says that the assertions by Verizon's lone witness that Verizon's proposal will work are unsubstantiated. The Union particularly criticizes Order 83137 because the methods by which Verizon is to achieve the performance metrics are left to Verizon to develop and are not dictated by PSC. Rather, in addition to the reports on OOS clearances, the Commission required Verizon to file an annual report setting forth Verizon's operational plan. The Union avers that Verizon did not undertake[] any assessments of the problems with the existing copper network, the amount of funds that would be required to repair and maintain [it], nor the number of personnel that would be required ... to provid[e] adequate service. CWA asserts that § 4-301 requires Verizon to outline a specific plan before the AFOR may be adopted. Thus, the Union concludes, PSC has put the cart before the horse. It has approved the AFOR and then asked for a plan rather than asking for the plan in order to determine if it can approve the AFOR. CWA next argues that the Commission erroneously employed a different standard than that required by law when it approved the second settlement offer. The assertion is that PSC was not permitted to balance the interests of Verizon with the interests of the consumers in deciding the case. CWA's third argument is that the Order consistently misstate[d] the position of the CWA set forth in [its] testimony and briefing. CWA states that, contrary to the notions PSC expressed in the Order, CWA's witness recommended rejection of the second offer for settlement. This mischaracterization, in CWA's view, constitutes grounds for reversal because the Commission use[d] as one of [its] key building blocks ... [the fact] that no party contended that the Commission should reject the proposal.