Opinion ID: 2639331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Colorado Telecommunications Rate Cap Statute

Text: The task of the court in interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 898 P.2d 1049, 1053 (Colo.1995). If the plain language of the statute clearly expresses the legislative intent, then the court must give effect to the ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Likewise, the court should avoid interpreting a statute in a way that defeats the obvious intent of the legislature. Id. Further, a statute must be read and considered as a whole. Each part of the statute must be given consistent and harmonious effect. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Bill Boom Inc., 961 P.2d 465, 470 (Colo.1998). The rate cap statute itself expresses the unambiguous intent of the legislature: Consistent with the public interest goal of maintaining affordable and just and reasonably priced basic local telecommunications service for all citizens of the state . . . . § 40-15-502(3)(b)(I). These words demonstrate that the legislature intended for each citizen of Colorado to be offered basic local telephone exchange service at just, reasonable, and affordable rates. In addition, the rate cap statute specifies the method by which the PUC is to achieve the goal of telephone service for all Colorado residents: [T]he commission shall structure telecommunications regulation . . . with the policy that prices for residential basic local exchange service . . . do not rise above the levels in effect on May 24, 1995. . . . [4] Id. (emphasis added). Further, the statute provides three exceptions to the rate cap. Subparagraph (I) permits the PUC to adjust rates according to changes in the gross domestic product. Subparagraph (III) allows an increase in rates if necessary to recover costs associated with upgrading a provider's network and if the upgrades are approved or required by the PUC. Finally, under subparagraph (V), if the PUC expands the definition of residential basic local exchange service, providers may recover costs associated with the additional features. § 40-15-502(3)(b)(I), (III), (V). The enumeration of three specific exceptions to the rate cap precludes the court or the PUC from reading implied exceptions into the statute. People v. In re A.W., 982 P.2d 842, 850 (Colo.1999). The language of section 40-15-502(3)(b)(I) lends itself to one interpretation: a command that the PUC must apply the rate cap to all residential basic local telecommunications exchange service unless one of the exceptions apply. Furthermore, rates that meet the rate cap satisfy the policy goals of justness, reasonableness, and affordability. However, this interpretation does not provide a complete answer to the question of whether bundled service that contains residential basic local telecommunications exchange service is subject to the rate cap. We therefore turn to definitions of residential basic local telecommunications exchange service and bundled service with the command of the rate cap statute in mind.