Opinion ID: 2604610
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Were the APUC's Findings with Regard to United's Microwave System, Summit's Cable System, and Summit's Financial Capabilities Supported by Substantial Evidence?

Text: United contends that the APUC's finding that United's ability... to extend satisfactory service to Wiseman simply has not been demonstrated in the record of this proceeding is not supported by substantial evidence. The APUC based this finding on United's significant modification of its proposal less than a week before the hearing, its failure to establish how the power and space requirements for the modified proposal would be met, and its lack of explanation for how it would interconnect with the long-distance provider. It also noted that the proposed path was obstructed and that [t]here is some dispute whether the newly proposed microwave path is adequate. In its decision denying United's petition for reconsideration, the APUC further stated that the engineers for both Summit and United testified that they did not know of other instances in which an obstructed microwave path like that proposed by United had been used for commercial telephone service. We hold, in light of the above, that the APUC's findings regarding the potential problems with United's proposed microwave system were based on substantial evidence in the record. Our role in reviewing the APUC's decision is not to reweigh the evidence, but only to determine whether substantial evidence for the APUC's decision exists. Municipality of Anchorage, Police & Fire Retirement Bd. v. Coffey, 893 P.2d 722, 726 (Alaska 1995). As the APUC stated, United might have eventually been able to perfect its application and demonstrate that its proposal would provide adequate service. However, the APUC, which has the duty and expertise to evaluate such proposals, found that United failed to make this demonstration when it had the opportunity.
United also challenges the APUC's finding that Summit's proposal to link Coldfoot and Wiseman by cable is the best way to ensure adequate and satisfactory service in Wiseman. It argues that Summit did not even present an elementary plan for serving Coldfoot and Wiseman by cable. Summit, however, did estimate the cost of installing buried cable, and a Summit employee testified that he had studied the cable route and visited the area. Furthermore, Summit has experience with installing buried cable. Finally, the APUC appears to have based its decision partly on its familiarity with cable as a proven technology compared to microwave systems. These considerations provide substantial support for the APUC's finding that Summit's plan to install buried cable between Wiseman and Coldfoot will better serve the needs of Wiseman than a microwave system over an obstructed path.
United finally argues that the record does not support the APUC's finding that Summit has adequate financial resources, and has made satisfactory arrangements for financing, to provide the service for which it applied. Summit proposed to finance its service partially with a loan from the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative (RTFC). Summit had twice before received loans from RTFC and presented testimony and evidence that further requests for financing would be successful. It also presented testimony that it could use a savings account and funds from a previous loan to finance its proposal. The APUC noted that the RTFC had not given final approval to a loan for the project, but stated that this was not significant because [f]inal commitments typically come after legal authorization to provide service. We hold that this evidence is sufficient to support the APUC's finding that Summit was capable of financing its proposal.