Court Opinion

ID: 9884931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:25:05.269859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:42.604208
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
1.MPUC has neither express nor implicit authority to do indirectly what it cannot do directly — impose record-keeping and reporting requirements on an unregulated affiliate of Northwestern Bell. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company (NWB) is a subsidiary of Northwestern Bell Corp., which is a subsidiary of U.S. West, Inc. U.S. West Direct is a subsidiary of Landmark Publishing Company, which is a subsidiary of U.S. West, Inc.
Direct is not a telephone company and not subject to regulation by MPUC. In re Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 367 N.W.2d 655, 660 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Further, the MPUC has no jurisdiction over transactions between telephone companies and their affiliates. Id. at 661. Thus, MPUC cannot directly impose record-keeping and reporting requirements on Direct.
MPUC has no express authority to indirectly impose reporting requirements on Direct by requiring NWB to prepare ac-countings which include information contained in its records. The majority, in effect, acknowledges this fact by resorting to implied authority. In doing so, they overreach. The MPUC does have power fairly implied by and incident to those expressly delegated. However, if there is “any reasonable doubt of the existence of any particular power,” it should not be exercised, and this court should not sanction its exercise. Great Northern Railway Company v. Public Service Commission, 284 Minn. 217, 221, 169 N.W.2d 732, 735 (1969) (quoting Backus-Brooks Co. v. N.P. Ry. Co., 21 F.2d 4 (8th Cir.1927)).
2. The majority rests its finding of implicit authority upon the MPUC’s express responsibility to determine that rates are just and reasonable. Their reasoning is faulty for two reasons. First, any powers the MPUC has to investigate commence when a proposed rate change is requested. See Minn.Stat. § 237.075, subds. 1, 2 (1984). Second, if NWB proposes a rate increase, the burden is upon it, not MPUC, to show that the change is just and reasonable. Minn.Stat. § 237.075, subd. 4 (1984). If NWB does not meet its burden, MPUC cannot approve the change. Therefore, not only is there no basis for implying authority based on MPUC’s responsibility to determine that rates are just and reasonable, there is no need to do so. NWB must meet its burden if it wants a rate change.
3. Granting authority to the MPUC is the responsibility of the legislature. See Minn.Stat. § 216A.05, subd. 1 (1984). If the MPUC is to be given additional authority, it should come from the legislature, not from an overly broad reading of the statutes. The MPUC does not have the same explicit authority given by the State of *569Washington Legislature to its commission to approve transactions between a telephone company and its affiliates and maintain continuing jurisdiction over such transactions. Compare Wash.Rev.Code § 80.-16.02080.16-050. This court should not interpret our statutes as granting implicit authority which would allow the MPUC to approve a transaction between NWB and Direct.
4. We should not find implicit authority to impose record-keeping requirements on NWB of an unregulated affiliate owned completely by another entity. The profitability of Direct is immaterial. The majority apparently is unhappy with the valid spinoff of directory publishing by NWB to Direct and indirectly wants to do what cannot be done directly. I would reverse the MPUC for wrongfully asserting jurisdiction.