Opinion ID: 839160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the propriety of the court of appeals remand order

Text: In its first opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the remedy provision of the PSC's February 25, 2002, order was ambiguous and remanded for clarification. The Court was unsure whether the PSC required SBC to enter each customer's home to verify that the problem stemmed from wiring inside the customer's home. On remand, the PSC ruled: The Commission should clarify the discussion section of its February 25, 2002 order to indicate that SBC need not enter a customer's premises every time that SBC is called upon to make a service trip, but that it may not impose charges to recover the cost of services it provides to inspect, diagnose, and repair malfunctions covered by its tariff obligation, including the cost of conducting routine physical checks of its own facilities, in response to complaints or inquiries, if those services are reasonably necessary to diagnose problems attributable to its own facilities or exclude those facilities as a possible cause of service disruptions.[ [72] ] In its second opinion, the Court of Appeals cited federal authority [73] for the proposition that states were generally precluded from regulating services provided by telephone companies for inside wiring. However, states are free to regulate the telephone companies' networks or outside wiring. On the basis of these principles, the panel took issue with the portion of the order directing SBC not to impose charges for services that `exclude [SBC's] facilities as a possible cause of service disruptions.' [74] The Court held that this sentence violated the federal regulations because a correct determination by SBC excluding its facilities as the cause of service disruption inherently constitutes a correct determination that the disruption was caused by the customer's inside wiring. [75] The panel remanded to the PSC to remove any regulation of inside wiring, including fees attributable to correct determinations that the problem originated with the customer's inside wiring. The parties agree that SBC cannot charge for services performed for outside wires and that the PSC cannot regulate services on inside wiring. The issue is whether the PSC's August 1, 2005, order is a permissible regulation of outside wires or an impermissible regulation of inside wires. We agree with the Court of Appeals that, to the extent the order prohibits SBC from charging for services associated with a problem caused by inside wiring, it is improper. While SBC may have to inspect its outside wires to confirm that a problem is with the customer's inside wiring, the fact remains that if the problem is with the inside wiring, then SBC had to make a service call for an inside wiring problem. The PSC cannot regulate that service and must amend its order to eliminate that improper regulation.