American Assoc. of Retired Persons v. Bell Atlanti

• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
• Decided: November 3, 1995
• Docket: 950270
• Status: Published

Opinion

VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 29th day of September, 1995.

American Association of Retired Persons and Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel, Appellants,

against Record No. 950270 S.C.C. Case No. PUC930036

Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc., United Telephone-Southeast, Inc., Central Telephone Company of Virginia and State Corporation Commission, Appellees.

Upon an appeal of right from an order entered by the State Corporation Commission on the 18th day of October, 1994.

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the argument

of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the

judgment of the State Corporation Commission.

The Court concludes that the appellants' failure to object

before the Commission to the adequacy of notice of the proceedings

prevents consideration of this issue on appeal.

The Court also concludes that evidence supports the decision of

the Commission, which was acting in its legislative capacity.

Under Code § 56-235.5(B), the Commission must find that four

requirements are met prior to replacing the ratemaking methodology

set forth in Code § 56-235.2 with any alternative form of

regulation. The Commission must find that the alternative form of

regulation (1) protects the affordability of local service, (2)

assures the continuation of quality service, (3) will not

unreasonably prejudice any class of customers, and (4) is in the public interest.

The testimony of Charles S. Parrott and Robert W. Woltz, Jr.

supports the Commission's findings that the affordability of rates

is protected and that quality service will continue under the

alternative form of regulation. The testimony of Richard D.

Emmerson, William Irby, and Larry J. Cody supports the finding that

the alternative form of regulation will not prejudice any class of

customers. The testimony of Robert G. Harris, Robert Woltz, Jr.,

and Charles S. Parrott supports the finding that the alternative

form of regulation is in the public interest. The testimony of Robert G. Harris and Richard D. Emmerson

supports the Commission's finding that safeguards against cross-

subsidization between competitive services and monopoly services

exist under the alternative form of regulation. The testimony of

Robert D. Willig supports the finding that the yellow pages are a

competitive service. The testimony of Robert W. Woltz, Jr. and

Larry J. Cody supports the determination that inside-wire

maintenance services are competitive. The Court concludes that the

evidence in the record establishes that the Commission was

authorized under Code § 56-235.5(B) to use the alternative form of

regulation in lieu of the ratemaking methodology set forth in Code

§ 56-235.2.

Because there is evidence to support the Commission's findings,

we affirm its judgment. See Hopewell Cogeneration, et al. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 249 Va. 107, 115, 453 S.E.2d 277, 281-82 (1995), Old

Dominion Power Co., Inc. of Virginia v. State Corp. Comm'n, 228 Va.

528, 532, 323 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1984). The appellants shall pay to the appellees thirty dollars damages.

This order shall be certified to the State Corporation

Commission and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. A Copy,

Teste:

David B. Beach, Clerk