# Amicus Curiae Brief — Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Communications Commission

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0161%3A20

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1985
- **Citation:** 474 U.S. 809

## Text

ris: if Supreme Court, U.S.

OY Y@

Nos. 84-871, 84-889, 84-1

In the Supreme Court of th
October Term, 1984

Louisiana Public Service Commission, Appellan
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Appellees

California and Public Utilities Commission
of California, et al., Petitioners
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Respondents

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,
et al., Petitioners
V.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Respondents

Florida Public Service Commission, Petitioner
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Respondents

,

On Appeal And On Petitions For A Writ Of
Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND
PETITIONERS

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Nos. 84-871, 84-889, 84-1054, and 84-1069

In the Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1984

Louisiana Public Service Commission, Appellant
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Appellees

California and Public Utilities Commission
of California, et al., Petitioners
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Respondents

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,
et al., Petitioners
Vv.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America, Respondents

Florida Public Service Commission, Petitioner
Vv.

Federal Communications Commission and

United. States of America, Respondents

On Appeal And On Petitions For A Writ Of
Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND
PETITIONERS

4

ra)
~
4
te
A
‘
‘

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR.
Attorney General

State of Louisiana

RICHARD M. TROY

Assistant Attorney General
7th Floor, 234 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
J. DAVID MCNEILL III

COUNSEL OF RECORD

Assistant Attorney General
7434 Perkins Road

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
Telephone: (504) 922-0187

JOHN L. GUBBINS

JEFFREY C. PAULSON

John Gubbins, Ltd.

20 North Clark Street, Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60602

Illinois Citizens Utility Board
108 North State Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

JOEL BLAU

PHILIP S. SHAPIRO

New York State Consumer Protection
Board, Utility Intervention Unit
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1020
Albany, New York 12210

BARRY ZITSER

Consumer Counsel of the
Connecticut Division of

Consumer Counsel

One Central Park Plaza, Room 105
New Britian, Connecticut 06051

~
-
+
“>
-
* / - aes | oe
J 4 2G UGC

‘ole i¢gigG tu5
iano

sas![@ #268 fe%

THD 2

sScrannol , 261

wt 2 " ee
attr watt
ate a ft

Sh cae cx
i ? ,
. E - .
» > . ‘ 2
“) oe a
es ee Sp 2%
‘1 ie ‘ ;
eOe@9.
. '
.
‘ = . & e:
“ ‘ ’ ) ’ 2
¢ ir] ~ c% i> oo * ’ .
Sue Se SG 2 ,
$- ~~) we E* YY tn os | .
“a . | > u # ’ .
res sf ‘ s
e & os
ae * ~~ ®
~w od . . »
> oe: - ° ;
i | , ‘
i 4 ihaad * ¢ r
. O 34 @ Ff a 2
~— €£ Se
47 & '
te] ad ,
a . ~
— a
Fe wh + .
? |
7 7
Hy * ’
- *
. ’
- f r 4 '
* -
* fies. — = 4 «
a td
i> S40
oF . ki é 7 ot iJ
it 5 S Q ' \
rote +) “ i
{ 4 ® .
id ° ——. & -
‘ ‘ he *tA
= ? 7 , a : = + -™ ie
shay “ 7 — > ni *
ap * ' > bad ad
. > : * = “« .
= ~ > .
J “ ~~. « hw ”
‘ = - =
_ ‘ =
‘ me
al . a «
_ e os °
ie kJ “4
ta? re " A «*® :
e: > Ls wa
.
.
‘ :
: 4
iets oe ; -f [
ve y. AS »
¥ f -* —- fea it > i a . & _ . re 4 » & . ~ J * " a &. 4 —" ’
. * cal “=, (70
o . 7
» ", ' " ” a]
i» : b> of PY oe
’ . ‘ zg :
* “ - a.
- . o — > ~~ -,
. 1 :
- - ane ‘ _ -
. - nu
R . w . @ i
. - ~
° ® “a a
. ; e ~ 4 - . :
. ~ .
\ “s ao é
* > so . -
: .
. a f
re $
‘ 7 PI . ¢ ‘ x .
, ot
« 6) 1 .
. vo . . ’
s *»
A . 7
‘ ,
~ 3 $
c . :
mas “ 2 . :
’
-
. - >
ie
rer ;
s 3 ~4.
.
G
r :
i . P, rf > bh “ ¥
& ob * “— ‘ ' f a i = a oe ba
4 5 —— ae "ay io) 7 : TT as - = én wr 4 c ee eres a Ti tie ee ee lr A eee r
foe : lana? So” iar Pi oe vib al ae he 5 > we NS Ea MR jai (a tee YC ; ER, Wigan a :
os +8 _ _ + ~

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v.
Arkansas Public Service Commission,
584 F. Supp. 1087, (E.D. Ark.),
rev'd on other grounds, 738

F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1984)........ 42

State Public Utilities Comm'n v.
Springfield Gas and Electric Co.,
191 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891
CABO dccceddccd ode cboeWecébeosoce 16

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965).. 62

United States v. Missouri Pacific R.R.
Ce. e408. UceB. BED. (AGS9i cactoces Sf

United States v. Southwestern Cable
COee Bee Gabe BSF CARS ccecccee Ba

Zemel Ve Rusk, 381 U.S. Beoeeeseeeses 64

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Accounting Rules For Telephone
Companies, 203 I.C.C. 13
CREPE dee ceecesesecoceeceeseeeres 47

Re Colchester Farmer's Telephone Co.,
192356 P.G.R. 23 (E1.CeCedeccccces 2

Depreciation Charges Of Telephone
Companies, 118 I.C.C. 295, 332
CAPES peecceeccecoeeeeseseees 46, 54

Depreciation Charges of Telephone
Companies, 177 I.C.C. 351
CAGES. covdessececesoocoececes 47, 54
Re Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 57
P.U.R. 4th 225 CaFSS dcccccocecce 21

@-Yy=

a
t .
| Pe P
’ .
4
: ; ~ +
, 4
_
/ q ,
‘ -
> . Lal 4 = :
f, J a ‘ . —~ n “
a, «= wa fo ~ m | >
. w = , 3 - ’ = > .
| ~ ba
« 5 - , : _ . ;
a ws & ‘ > i 1 ; *
s , ‘ . .
4 » a } tv « . “yi = 9 » 9 a : ~~
. . o , ‘ . ‘d ye
a T= “ee ' ‘ ; ‘ . |
; 4 . oe)
— FF 4i3 =: | | a
b= tw ‘is ee * ? — “e ¥+
¢ et Sf

wt “ *
ZG |
«* - » “ ; ¥ 4 ; .
7 Cc ’ oot wal a a : ‘ id 2 _ a
: : ’ - : f . e rr >
- - - 4 ¥
: : : ;
© <> > ‘ 7) & . dae > : : 4
. -
* A a . en ‘ - ; .
S wm a . « ey . . ;
g . _ -
- €& i? > '
she * a xs e | ' ,
a S
rv = - A
* + .
,

Oise.

‘AP
4
Le
s
;
4
}
¢
4

ch
f
4s
¢
4
s

S04 « iw)

Re Illinois Bell Telephone Co.,
Proposed Increase In Service
Charges, I1.C.C. Dkt. 81-0115,
(slip op., January 24, 1982).... 24

In the Matter of Amendment of Part 31,
Uniform System of Accounts for
Class A and Class B Telephone
Companies, 89 F.C.C.2d 1094
(1982) rev'd. C.C. Dkt. 79-105
(F.C.C. January 6, 1983)........ 61

Re Ross, 1915D P.U.R. 646 (11.C.C.).. 20
Unrepeated Message Case, 44 I.C.C.

670 (1917), modified 61 I.C.C.
541 Pi ihe oon 6 60666006668 6 44

Re Webster Telephone Company, 1915E
PUR 526 (RB. BDORe )cccccccceceecese 53

4 ‘ “
Ps ° wel pa -
> ‘
ja yy fs
© ee 4:
° i?
. .
ee ;
Py oY
~~
n
ozs
iw *
:
+ ea *
- os. ¢ *
. > 4, ~
. >
>
A .
i .
e é
c
;
)
? g
7
: /
’
.
F 6
‘ - = cd = npn Ade 9 Sin
SE ele ee eed Pe SS MO Pe es —

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE
STATUTES

United States Constitution
Uscws Geees GEG. Se Glo 2 ecocccococe 30

Citizens Utility Board Act

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§ 905(a) eeeeeeeeee: 1

Communications Act of 1934

47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et SCG. ceeeeee Sy 34
Gy Cis dacdovcccoce Ste. 62
Oe Ses Se EE bacesécccicccsscs
7 Si cece cecessseoewe OO
ig A = ht @ * i i

Federal Power Act

16 0.8.6. §§ 824a et seq. eeee@*ee#*ee#*ee#ee#es 57
86 SB 6 O GUE ctv recccvrccveeced BS
16 U.S.C. 7 ne 66 oeeeeeeeeeees 58

Illinois’ Public Utilities Act

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
& 1 et BOG. «ce 13, 26
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. Iil- Yee
Till. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §8 ... 14
Tll. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
BPUGs ecovcesece 29
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §9 ... 15
Til. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§10.3(b) ..---- 14

-vii-

ped ee rere

0 BIiAaa

~~ te ew ® . «

| ad
A
~.

Le hey
‘ - P=
* ’
\
*
«
- *
' Ay)
.
. «
in ‘ ‘
2 ‘
y

é c
« °
‘nx © .
-
© —- #2 , *
— -

om #8
‘

4
on
‘ “~

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
BRE cocccce AFeg 42

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§11-19 .....--- 15

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§20-29, 31 ... 15

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§32, 36 weooee 16

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§32-40, 41-43 eeeeeee 15

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§48, 49, 50 ...---14, 15

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§64-71 eeeeveeeeeeeece@ 15

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,
§§72-75 eeeeeeeeeeeeee 15

Interstate Commerce Act
36 Stat. 539, 545 eeee7eseese@e@#ee*e#se7e#se#e#e? 43, 49

Louisiana Constitution, art. 4 §8 ... 2

Mann-Elkins Act
36 Stat. 544 (1910) @eeeeee7n8ee7uee#ee#ee#e#e#e# 43

Moore Universal Telephone Service Act,
Cal. Rev.&Tax Code, §44000, et seq. .28

New York Exec. Law. §§552, 553 «eeeeee 3

Regulatory Agency Sunset Act
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127,
§§1901 et seg. ....-.-- 26
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §1904.3 .. 27

Regulatory Reform Act of 1979
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127,
§§1951 et seq. ......-. 26

-Wiii-

:
¥ 7 :
‘ !
*~
- a
‘ i ’
: a —! -
r :
Py . P
’ - >. . ow .
ol :
« “es .
; : - > ; -
4 ty ¢ ~~ na? o tet :
’
. : af
. 7 .
j ]
~~
4 tw
* , * ‘ ‘ ~ :
‘ —_ ea '
. aad 4
: " . ) |
- -' , :
'
: ym
a i , - :
. f
= '
7 *
’ ‘ ‘ ¢ . ;
‘ ’ :
- -
. .
24 §
°
; F
, °
‘
.
,
a i > 4k
Se ee —_ = ata a a ee es = — a = | = " ae ?

Transportation Act of 1920
41 Stat. 456, 493 e@eeeeesee#eessteeeeee 45

Miscellaneous:
78 Cong. Rec. 8823 (1934) .eeeeeee 55

Hearings on S.6 before the Senate
Committee on Interstate Commerce,

7ist Cong., lst and 2d Sess.

(1929-30) eeeeeeeeeeeeeveseeeeeeeeeee 55

Preliminary Report on Communications
Companies, H.R. Rep, No. 1273,
73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) w.cceeeee 44

Report of the Special Joint Committee
to Investigate Public Utilities, 48th
Gen. Ass., 1913 Sen. J. 830..13, 16, 20

S. Rep. No. 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1934) e@*eeee#e7e#e7s#e#es 56

Universal Telephone Service Protection
Law of 1985, H.B. 1814, 84th Gen.

Ass. (Appendix) @eeeeevneeoeaeeenee e282 28, 29
1921 Ill. Laws 702, §10.3(a) ....... 14

(1984 Int. Supp.) eesreeeereeeeee 28

Va. Code §§56-481.1, 56-482.1,
56-484.2, 56-484.2 (2985 Supp.) .. 28

ARTICLES

Gabel, The Early Competitive Era in
Telephone Communication, 1893-1920,
34 Law Contemp. Prob. 340 (1969).. 44

-ix-

Goddard, The Interest of Public Utility
Ratepayers in Depreciation,
48 Harv.L.Rev. 721 (1935) eeeeeee 52, 53

Roberts, Depreciation As An Element
In Public Utility Valuation,
1 Mo. Le Rev. 145 (1936) eeeeeeeee8ees 52

Stephan, Federal Regulation of
Communications, 1934 Fed.B.A.J. 87 . 55

Wheat, The Regulation of

Interstate Telephone Rates,
51 Harv.L.Rev. 846 (1938)... ll, 45, 52

-xX=

: —_ — = -_ = J. al : i eM A, +:
ee

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The Illinois Citizens Utility
Board (CUB) is a non-profit public
membership organization created to
"represent and protect the interests of
the residential utility consumers of the
State" before the Illinois Commerce
Commission, Federal Communications
Commission, and other appropriate
judicial and administrative bodies.
Tll. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 905(a)
(1983). CUB's activities are intended
to promote the health, welfare, and
prosperity of all the citizens of
Illinois, and this purpose is considered
to be a statewide public interest, not a
private or special concern. CUB has
over 120,000 contributing members and
has participated in regulatory and

legislative proceedings on behalf of

4:
P
¢
“
. c
’
°
ae
:
H
es .
«
-
“4 ‘
*
.
+
: gn e
= =

exercised their police powers,
preemption will not be presumed lightly;
it will be sustained only where the
Congressional intent to preclude state
action is "unambiguous" and

"unmistakably ordained." Florida Lime

and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373

U.Se 132, 142, 146-7 (1963). In such a
case, analysis must begin with the
assumption that federal law was not
intended to supersede the historic
police powers of the State unless that
was the “clear and manifest purpose of

Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator

Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). This
assumption serves to assure that the
balance between federal and state powers
will not be disturbed unintentionally by
Congress or unnecessarily by the courts.

Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519,

¥

#, Bene’

prsao nt A248»

ra

ree eet

“%

°

.

525 (1977). Unless Congress has openly
forsaken the critical balance of federal
and state authority in favor of
exclusive federal power, attempts to
preempt the legitimate operation of
state law must therefore be proscribed.
The Fourth Circuit's opinion
ignores this test for measuring the
propriety of preemptive action by the
federal government. In fact, the Court
does not discuss in any significant
fashion the intent of Congress with
respect to the preemptive limitations of
the Act. The Court, instead, skips
immediatély to determine whether state
law or policy “might” frustrate federal
objectives. By so doing, the Court
eliminates any burden on the federal
agency to justify its infringement unon

State authority, and thereby makes it

ae 6 Sy

ee

———

a

‘
~

esa vtagyi

€

@

fe

re

easy to find any speculative impediment
attributable to state law sufficient to

warrant preemption, irrespective of

Congressional intent. Such an analysis
effectively circumvents any restrictions
on the federal power to preempt; any
preemptive action could be justified by
"possible" frustration despite
Congressional intent to the contrary, or
in the face of serious doubt as to
whether Congress authorized such action.
This approach exalts deference to
federal agencies and courts at the
expense of Congress and the States,
upsetting the balance of state and
federal powers. Such federal
overreaching is neither compelled nor
justified by the Supremacy Clause or

this Court's decisions. See U.S. Const.

art. 6, cl. 2. The starting point for

-10-

oS

¢ : 7 r *, ~ * -
* ti Z aS ~~ = r
¢ f i ¢ w ~ as)
7 a 5 a a vy @ *
, a > -! teal “~?;

4 rod { “? 7 4 ¢ oy
> . “> ~ " wy ~
- ¢ : wy
ei “
te ~~. in ~
2 7} Ve
7 .)
~ -”
a A od ss
" ’ a
- a “ee
" a
c a) ,
o C
f ss
.
¢
4
“
“ a a
: —¥% a an us SS
2 — _ ae —— oa ee er
sed . - pe - = ee ee ee ee — Me _ am
— alla acim Pm amy, ——— in 8 — ag a . ot ——— ~e an aa as 3 Rc late. Pe

analysis must instead be, as this Court
has consistently held, whether Congress
has evidenced an intent to explicitly
authorize or proscribe the particular
preemptive action at issue, for in the
absence of such authority, preemption
cannot be sustained regardless of
potential "frustration."

B. States Have Traditionally

Exercised Their Police Powers

To Regulate The Intrastate

Rates, Charges, Services and

Operations Of Telephone

Companies.

Modern regulation of electric,
gas and telephone utilities began at the
state level in Wisconsin in 1907. By
1930, all but three states had initiated
fairly extensive regulation of

intrastate telephone rates and services,

Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate

Telephone Rates, 5l Harv. L. Rev. 846,

847 (1938), and all states currently

-ll-

da

$790)

Pa ae

; .v3e8 Jc .ge7eh anocgelet

,etel: be

bits

so easitet@ itis

have such regulation. Most states did
not distinguish between types of public
utilities in establishing the scope and
nature of their regulatory objectives
and legislation and, as a result,
intrastate state telephone service has
been accorded state regulation to the
same extent as electricity and natural
gas. This Court has recently recognized
the critical importance of state public
utility regulation in the context of
electricity, recognition which should
similarly be extended to state telephone

regulation. Pacific Gas and Electric

Co. v. State Energy Resources

Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461

U.S. 190, 205-6 (1983) and cases cited
therein.
The experience of Illinois is

typical of most states, and may be used

=] 2=

~*~,
~~
+ {
N o ; = os
: . - ya
2 ‘
os , Te
_ -e
rhs ta, a 4
o - 7
s r ‘ .
» - AP 4 é \ .
_ & i ~
é ‘
“ “i ’ go« ~ es
, re |
P 4 > cS ? ea
Pp
> hw J &
: P
*, a.
e ° Poe |
. © — ; =) w
- * t ii *
a * ¢y
‘ ' ‘7
> i e +
4

‘a 4.893828 seam to sesoligy?

ooh +. -
,
bee.
. ©
-
* ? >
“2s
#4 ;
= ‘ - &
i re) ‘
' 4 a
4 .
: —_ -»
*
‘
é = >
ic ’ :
P _"
> ’ ‘
A aa =
fl
a
>
+
ay
—
* ee]
oF
. 7
~@
a
+9
- = = ——— es
- ~ So Se Se ee
= = —- a = ce en — —_ = a hl ee LOA AES Se a)
- _ = : a og: 5 ———— pA a a a a = a a ee -
—_ —= , — * = = = > ee — = 4 _ poe

as an example of the nature and
importance of state telephone
regulation. The Illinois Public
Utilities Act (PUA) was first enacted in
1913 and reenacted without significant
change in 1921. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.

111-2/3, §§ 1 et seq. In short, the

purpose of the PUA is to assure the
availability of efficient utility
service at reasonable and equitable
rates to as many citizens as possible.

Report of the Special Joint Committee to

Investigate Public Utilities, 48th Gen.

Ass., 1913 Sen. Jl. 830, 862. At the
same time, utilities are to receive a
fair return on their property, including
sufficient income to ensure ongoing
reinvestment in the business. Id. at
955. The means of balancing these

objectives is codified in the PUA and

-13-

eal = SiS
‘ « 1 al of 72 oe 2a
.

’ ‘ oes toga
: i - SISSIES s
R rag

"¢ (>
2 eI 4) efi 7,
= 4
4 4 - >
*
¢. a. & i eee
‘ dl
ih

a

Be? P
iM
Mi

4

,:

a

i), ;ose c ba tj 3
a

at ; ‘ a ¢ ‘ *
i :

mit

he :
h, a [ *) 2 f
mi, ; ‘ 5 + he ~ = -
an

4

Hh o- a » =~ 7 f 7. od
a

ih

i, (io iSvVO S3e8ewoOd ev (anata 3gks eer
Hi? ) F

my" 4 yawog eft ctritulon? .,ssiaaqnat
Ape

i i} :

f PS .¢remecanen seivieq¢a yiiei9nsep
{| . :

i

i

2 veel tit 8 2

3 fe

‘1 20. sélissedlse 20 nolym& anos aehia oF

Be. Ob GP 22° ABBY weigitioa® gitiae yew
ra pe 8

+ i se
Pad .
ny >
Pag . ll | a
; "Th 1
a = y A
t H be . ‘ ‘ 3
Ma See PE ec
ree. 7 ; an ie ©
; re

49, 50; to require accounting and

reporting, Id. §§ 9, 11-19, Ill. Rev.
Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 9, 11-19; to
control financing and intercorporate
relations, Id. §§ 8a, 20-29, 31, Ill.
Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 8a, 20-29,

31; and to examine and determine utility
rates and services, Id., §§ 32-40,

41-43, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,

§§ 32-40, 41-43. The ILCC's
determinations are generally subject to
notice and hearing, PUC, §§ 3, 60-67,
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 3,

64-71, and to full judicial review, Id.,
§§ 68-71, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3,

§§ 72-75.
Of these various powers, the
most important is the ability to

evaluate and establish utility rates.

-15-

Se

{
|
|
iA
N

i

!
;

d s f :
a « 2 ‘
: — o ~« ss
. 29 ic Or
a : .
” a |
+,
- 1
4 a o 3
of ot i Fa
—
. " ny . .
¢ a
. bs 4 -
’ Ri 3
* 4 ai¢ ,
& i s 7h
© ~ « Ff
s § 4 rs
~
. = J
ad 4 , 7
o oJ = a te bs

veivs y Latoaltbut tivd.ot. bos. ait
1E\ SLL a> ,36g8 syeR ALE ofS HBO OB
3 -eT-S¥ 22

ait ,exeeodg sucoliayv eenns 30
od. yoitide edd ai teedacqel seor

,en3e1, y3ilizu detidetae Bes edayisve

*
. m4
-
; ; :
* ’ -— ‘ i A y : Leoae Cea
. ‘ , 2 stim): al" : | ies Rey: ke
Soar, a a ee, oe yaar te Pe
. . Q % ss
: eer : noe ae es hs ie

Report of the Special Joint Committee,

supra, at 955. Rates must be just and
reasonable to both the public and the

utility, Id.; State Public Utilities

Comm'n v. Springfield Gas and Electric

Co., 191 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891 (1920).
In this respect they must not be
excessive, so that citizens are able to
obtain and afford utility service,

Report of the Special Joint Committee,

supra, at 934, and at the same time must
be sufficient to ensure reinvestment
through depreciation and other means in
order to provide high-quality and
efficient service. Id. at 862, 933-36,

955; PUA §§ 32, 36, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.

111-2/3, §§ 32, 36. In setting rates
for utility services, including
intrastate telephone services, the ILCC

must constantly wrestle with the

-16-

inherent tension between the objectives
of affordable and reasonable prices, so
as to promote wide availability of
service to the public, and efficient
utility service which can only be
obtained through a sufficient level of
reinvestment.

The intersection of these
ratemaking objectives is the
determination of an appropriate level of
depreciation. The ILCC is specifically
empowered to "require any or all public
utilities to keep such accounts as will
adequately reflect depreciation,
obsolescence and the progress of the
arts" and to fix the proper and adequate
rate of depreciation for utility
property. PUA, § 14, Ill. Rev. Stat.

ch. 111-2/3, § 14. Every public utility

must conform its accounts to the

-17-

a

ae

at ee

:
2 4
- = d
a =

[te ee

"39 f
* +
re» > w
4 2
-
‘
\
; 4
? P|
e383
&.
igs
> 5
ad te.

4632 ,on8 4 Lid ,bf ® sKeS

,¥23 929g07q

vi (itju sildeq yreva. .84-¢% vE\ Er EES, stp

add of sinvonoe edt. mickiacS Jaue

a

eas
La

Pee ©

‘ r
i

depreciation rates determined by the
ILcc. Id. Illinois courts have
sustained the ILCC's authority to
consider evidence of depreciation and

obsolescence, Peoples Gas Light and Coke

Co. v. Slattery, 373 Ill. 31, 25 N.E. 2d

482, appeal dismissed 309 U.S. 634

(1940), and this Court has upheld the
ILCC's authority to establish an
appropriate amount of depreciation
expense for intrastate telephone
ratemaking and the propriety of
including depreciation as an expense
underlying the determination of

reasonable rates. Lindheimer v.

Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 292 U.S.

151 (1934): Smith v. Illinois Bell

Telephone Co., 282 U.S. 133 (1930).

Moreover, courts have interpreted

Illinois law to require the inclusion of

-18-

aa. a a
S. .

-~
i

—

i
is
i,

j
if
P,
i
iy
i

ML

> ¢ ‘ i] *
‘
;
» ~
- - -
o
% ?
= 4
al ~
.
& '‘e
‘
1 ‘
: ®
‘
;
J ~ 4 we
..s
i * ~ ? t eoua
i». asin’ Of / cits. > Ff

to noltentmiatel add poiylsebny

» yemtsttaidl «2esat sldercese:

hete3o799N1 evaed ass , Jevos TON

Yo wotawlpal end sztupes cs wel stoaliit

depreciation expense in setting rates
which are as low as possible for the

public. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v.

Commerce Commission, 414 Ill. 275, 286,

111 N.E.2d 329, 335 (1953).

Consistent with this
authority, for seventy years the ILCC
has required Illinois telephone
utilities to account for depreciation
and has included an appropriate amount
for annual depreciation expense in the
expenses of such companies for

intrastate ratemaking purposes.1/ See,

1/ Aside from the plain language of
Section 14 of the PUA, there are
other indications that the concept
of depreciation in Illinois utility
law includes the phenomenon of
obsolescence; the retirement,
earlier than originally
anticipated, of property or
equipment replaced by
technologically superior or more
economical machinery. As
emphasized by the General Assembly,
one key goal of the PUA is to

(Footnote Continued On Next Page)

a;
Bi
te : f rcs # 3*120
an
h } é pl
i 1o2 Ss @16 i¢w
tf
me E:
P é .
f
mit *

{ wee sa
Ae Re Pa Ks th ~> 4 Osi ty
i
i

iW .. “ ‘ if
“a
AN) i x
* ,
at
iH |
i 51300 Fve
iy a
.*
a i - . é ». = &, “a
se
a oe
Lg ‘ % a Si 3 j
at),
yi
: , | '
= _ ‘ -
% .
UE
y é a - =
~ 4 * a . Bl oe 303
at —_

| ¢ » rr afi
at ; Sc ~~ > qe * t Ls ws oe
a

ay wi on
oa . ? > a -| ry
a
»
; 4
-_
-

vs

>
*

annual depreciation expense comprised
roughly 13 to 17 percent of Illinois
Bell Telephone's operating expenses.

Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone

Co., 292 U.S. 151, 174 (1934),
(comparison of note 25 with text). More
recently, annual depreciation expense
for ratemaking purposes exceeded $350
million, approximately 27.6 percent of
Illinois Bell's total expenses,
exclusive of taxes, and is the largest

. Single expense item. Re Illinois Bell

Telephone Co., 57 P.U.R. 4th 225, 261

(1983). Significant increases in annual
depreciation expense also necessarily
result in significant increases in a
telephone utility's revenue requirement
and ultimately its rates for

customers. 2/ Consequently, substantial

2/ Rates are established to recover a
"revenue requirement" which, in

(Footnote Continued On Next Page)

> ewe 8

%

i eke RE 2S emer 6

—_;7;*
Leaduilidesee 816 2e7an

t

eunever”

"Inomer lupe?

-

,d92 tw

ad

agoot)
; re a >

or

jxsu nO Bbeuntsaod safe

re pet

i
\

2.

increases in depreciation expense can
have dramatic impacts upon the
affordability of telephone service and
threaten the achievement of the State
objective to make telephone service as

widely available as possible.

(Footnote Continued)

turn, equals the sum of all
allowable expenses (including
annual depreciation expense) and
the product of the allowed rate of
return and rate base. Rate base,
in its simplest form, is the value
of the company's property minus
accrued depreciation for such
property. An increase in annual
depreciation expense increases
total expenses dollar-for-dollar.
However, the resulting increase in
revenue requirement is partially
offset by the increased addition to
accrued depreciation which
diminishes rate base. Thus,
depending on the precise rate of
return, among other things, a $100
increase in annua: depreciation
expense may result in only an $80
to $90 increase in rates, still a
significant correlation.

@22e

“~ @ ~l
- - = OF ae b
. ie | q 2 =
ew a
. “wae S&S ;

an °
— ae ie
- i, . we 24 ad
. 2
ab . @ tJ
.
— . » ‘ _
t > P « = ®)
- : 7 rea
‘
; ~— « ore 3
- . a = A.
r ~
“—
4 t ws :
fied L
‘ 7 .
.
. 3 ;
ad "
a 4 -
- 4.
4 _ tiny vo
_ ‘
~% a i)
f . ~~
ot a
-
.
‘
:
*
-
‘
.
-4 - i CI ee --
‘ _ > - >. ane a —¢, -_ a ge A an
4 - Se i
4 = "2 al 5 ahs * nee se am a = ~
| ; : r ~y a a rel 7 es oo
——— ” . — = “ =
ee ee
E se ne ae ne Se ee re = E ir a $ owen ~— Cc = 2 i — ng eg * 2 , ——

a»: ‘ ~ ~~
s .
- r. om
4 -
*
=f ?
ue

&

1 oO : c
€ ox
a - a
m * ¢

call ’ 7% “¢
Pr.
~ he >
“
Cc é
ee @)
A ti
4 *
a
in) ~.
?
+ wed
nt 5
—_
- ~
~ q
e ~y
, w A
’
.
+ +
¢ +
ty ar} ¢
7 t
r :
.

_ ame e
a a

The dramatic transformation of
the telecommunications industry,
therefore, has enhanced, not diminished,
the importance of intrastate telephone
regulation to the States and their
citizens. Certainly, this
transformation was largely occasioned by
factors outside of State control:
improvements in technology opening
certain markets to competition, changes
in FCC policy in pursuit of
deregulation, and the restructuring of
American Telephone and Telegraph Co.
(AT&T). State legislators and
regulators, in acknowledging these
changes and their effects, have chosen
to revamp but not eliminate their
regulation of intrastate telephone
service, in order to ensure the

continued attainment of important state

=23
~ » | «
-
: *
‘ ~ -
= a
_ =
‘
a
i
4 °
. -
4 i‘. - **
> foG 2%

freind APs 6

\tatsS ;
~ 7] . i
via
* ¢ > > ry
.
:
-RPSI PIA
~ “
of *
.
: i? ‘, 7
aYc:
.
e
on ¢
7 gti
* *s
,
. :
al ST. e ¢
Oo 7G w : os
;
* * ‘” “
KYOe586.10 ;

heuarsitoaS

policy objectives. Far from being
irrelevant, State telephone regulation
is more critical than ever to the
achievement of efficient and universally
available service, since the balance
between such conflicting goals has been
made more precarious by the introduction
of competition.

Again, the Illinois response
serves as an instructive example of
State reaffirmation of traditional
regulatory objectives in the context of
adapting to a transformed environment.
Pursuant to provisions in Illinois's

"Sunset" laws3/ a special bipartisan

-

3/ Regulatory Agency Sunset Act, §§ l,

et seq., Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127,
150i et seq; Regulatory Reform

Act of 1 §§ 1 et seg., Ill.
Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §§ 5l et # seq.
The first of these Acts provide
for automatic repeal of the
Illinois PUA on December 31, 1985,
unless the General Assembly

(Footnote Continued On Next Page)

-26-

= ’ o |
— R
. :
4 e * : ; e ; -
> 4 . f ad a
7. , ’ »’ fri
~ ‘ 4
- ed : , A
. , ot ~-9 :
o i . - 7 |
- : 3
: o*® On “ wal
P. 7 * » + ' é
2 bd .
a . ve :
}? d ¢ . | a 7 7.
“a . , ne | «2
4 ? . - '

° p ‘mo »
os - a” - ov
> ~ ; a’
- q ‘*

*
.
v A
©.
.
.
- >
. *
P A ee od
, - o- - - ~_ ee ee ee
_——— - ~ . 7
= - eel - - —_ ~ - vs —
rs me Fee ee ee
AP age

committee of legislators and public
members conducted a comprehensive two
year evaluation of public utility .
regulation in Illinois, with a special
emphasis on the nature of future state
telecommunications regulation. The
culmination of the effort, involving
input from companies, government, large
consumers, regulators and the public,
was House Bill 1814 which was passed by
the General Assembly in June, 1985.
A-l. Many other states have undertaken,
Or will be undertaking, similar efforts
and a large number have enacted
legislation with roughly the same

*

Purposes as HB 1814. See e.g., Moore

(Footnote Continued)

reenacted it or adopted a new
regulatory scheme. Sunset Act,
§ 4.3, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127,
§ 1904.3 (1983).

= et0at007)

wan 6 Dbesqods 10°31 beypense2
.smedce reds loys?

aero oH «t ot 2
> be ORL ?

,foA seenee
TSE sto 529288

Universal Telephone Service Act, Cal.

Rev. & Tax Code § 44000 et seq. (West

Supp. 1985); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 62-3,

62-110 (1984 Int. Supp.) Va. Code

§§ 56-481.1, 56-482.1, 56-484.2 (1985
Supp.).

HB 1814, The Universal
Telephone Service Protection Law of 1985
(Universal Service Law), has several
major objectives. The bill recognizes
the importance of universal telephone
service, the need to revise regulatory
practice to respond to changes in the
industry, the potential for competition
as a means of providing service and the
need to continue regulation of
intrastate telephone service to protect
and promote the well-being of all
Illinois citizens. Universal Service

Law, § 1 para. 13-101, A-l. HB 1814

-28-

~ : me
“ i " C2 t “4 Cc ~ ~
ad ‘> ~e,
- ms | 4 4s . x y i ’ c a 4 i. c a
r € > LA + R ~ Vs rs c me i - " = oh ' La “ ~ 4 ¢
; .
‘ “ try G : f > 2 wi & «
ry
E : ) > ‘ = ; : , a ‘ 7 - Ps . ‘ . a
| ; j : : >
5
: . . . by ’ + - . Q ry =
; , ‘ ws ‘ | und
7 - ~ ‘ . . ~
- o-8 “*
7 le ~ . @
al i — sad a
. 4 * 4a
e P rr id
\. @ a , n
> oom wn nati

o
.

-

‘ peel 7 ye a aS si =o POR a

establishes as state policy that
telecommunications services should be
"available to all Illinois citizens at
just, reasonable and affordable rates"
and that any modifications to State
regulation should be implemented in a
way which minimizes the possible
disruptions to the system or customers.
Id. § 1, paras. 13-103(a),(c): A-l, 2-3.
To the extent consistent with other
public policy objectives, such as
universal service, competition is to be
utilized as a means of providing
telephone service, where it is also a
more viable and economic mechanism than
regulated monopoly. Id., § l, para.
13-103(b), A-2. Finally, HB 1814
mandates that rates and charges for
noncompetitive telecommunications

services shall not in any way subsidize

-29-

—
—_ ~

ath ei Sea eae ent lll. eps a Aone,

Se

| | f
i
k
|
;
?

\
{

ae

é ‘
> ihe = > ‘
re
~ s
>
i*
J “—
fe *4
a 3 S
~ a
> =~ ~@ ce wel
=
pe
ud
7
:
~

[iL Vviee

=

nots

5 190%

—

eer

4

SSOP RAIS = 2

Gh eal ele Oe rye ola ten a *
’ -

inconsistent with the protection and
pursuit of other legitimate state policy
objectives.

HB 1814 recreates an old
balancing act for the ILCC by forcing it
to address, in the context of a changing
industry, the conflicts between
preserving universal service and
reasonable rates and the recovery of
costs incurred in a transition to
competitive service. This task is
inherently complex and controversial,
with serious consequences for all
parties. It cannot be cavalierly
dismissed as irrelevant or adequately
resolved by a presumptous blindness
which typically accompanies rigid
adherence to ideological purity or

textbook economic theory. Instead, the

State of Illinois, as most states, has

-32-

=4
7 é *»
. mt
: 4
—
i "A -
my
#
° a -
.
4
i “ ~
2 — -
9
é 7 :
.
pe *
Dw 9
+
v =
- ‘ ‘ :
~
. af ‘
. -
“
;
o -
“a ;
x g
r,
¥
‘
& .
.
™
ry
(
: -
‘
i
oe a
fx ‘ .
.
“a
7 .
=)
“ay
- a) genet ope owe pies $0 me
. . Ey an ae SS ?—e eo S eer cat
+4 “a> ate 8 = ABIES 4 Be Se —= — —>
~— ge De —, OF ae ee net Re ee - eS «

chosen to responsibly reaffirm its
commitment to fundamental public policy
goals and has dedicated its powers to
the accomplishment of those goals to the
fullest extent possible. State
authority to regulate intrastate rates
is essential to the State's ability to
establish and implement its goals in
this area of critical importance to
citizens. It is vital that this Court
recognize the significance and
legitimacy of State power and activities
in this regard and consequently place a
heavy burden on Respondents to justify
their attempt to displace the States
from their traditional role as
protectors of the public interest in
reasonable and affordable intrastate

telephone rates and services.

x)=

co 4 | aed 7
. - ‘ rad
; - r* * '
ad ! ; '
ad ‘ - ~ 5 a 7
.
w by ~« id .
> ‘ > . 2 at

. - t ‘ « =~ a
- =
’ : - “ 5 « 5 f
oe > - .
tar 7 - ~ 7
4 . a
; - +42 o »
¥
’ ‘ " a)
~ . J
" a i * Ws
~
% ? f e’ “3
’ 5 ~~ .
>
= \ + a
wy . ' ~
. + »*
. r a
. é “9
° a ww
oT ‘ * ,
e é ° ° « vo
o@ :
“ ‘ . : i >
~ ’ . :
be ‘ -
‘
} . J
° ‘ ; .
‘
“*
: x
? *
- ’
*
&
.
.
- -
*
.
at g — ee ee Se
a ep TS ee Pe eet tie ty ar OE FOSS vid aa ee So a a
7 — ~ ae > _ 7 a ae i — : =
ee ge es een as ==" SS ee ee
-- ARS 9a See ee ae I TTS es Sa ——- .

Cc. The Terms And History Of The
Communications Act
Conclusively Demonstrate A
Congressional Purpose To
Prevent The FCC From
Displacing Traditional State
Ratemaking Authority For
Intrastate Telephone Service.
When enacted, the Federal

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
§§ 151 et seq. (Act) was clearly
designed to strengthen and consolidate
federal jurisdiction over the provision
of interstate communications services,
including telephone service. The Act
establishes broad authority on the part
of the FCC to regulate interstate
communications services in pursuit of
statutory Objectives. See Act, § 1, 47
U.S.C. § 151. This Court has also held,
with respect to the broadcasting area,
that the Act confers sufficient
authority and flexibility upon the FCC

to permit adjustment to new and dynamic

-34-

a
3

nota
oo |, >

Se

,

}
-&
4)

baa)

3

“ arn
A 27%cA, Gis
i360 f fuse.
*
d »
> i L 2° i lente sy
¢ a a -
t. » ow mh
3 J
-_
oz aro S J

288139950

‘3 aint

Kel

rr
9 “ae
42 ¢
¥ 0
é +=
~™“
+ *
i. ’
Crit Ot
@¢
'? is
3 os
Siw & 1

pita oat F4 | ae

4 e049 of toeases tte

«

8A

f Be 2

- {
aah

°
{ -
-
A ‘
~. *
as 3
.
* *
7
~ ‘
,
+2 bs

¢ exetnos TOA ent 2803

qititdiael® bas ystaonivs

sovh Boe wee of vaseseuvgds gimieg of

changes in the interstate communications

industry. United States v. Southwestern

Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1958).

Perhaps in recognition of the
expansive powers which it was creating
in the FCC and the dangers inherent
therein, Congress expressly and
emphatically enacted limitations upon
such powers beyond which it did not wish
the agency to act. As a general matter,
the Act throughout its entirety operates
only to create jurisdiction over
interstate communications. "Interstate
communications," in turn, is defined to
mean only transmissions or
communications between states or, to
some extent outside the United States,
but does not, with respect to telephone
messages, include communications

"between points in the same State... or

-35-

1
;
]

a a

aT
Tt

are S

ee

|

320

” ve) = ai ot, " ete ”
(AUMMOD BIAISISIC
1s beterc Df
kA ED ES ES EF SM
Li B8e@l}) Vel... st.
4 . a a oe f
. - * eh |
is ; ¢
tx
* ‘ & : i ial >
8 besianv,.gsaz 4st
siad foeces 3

tt.oe

~2363¢

“

emnee ens

L231 UAC S

nt

g

i? { +
“Itc , : [> 3
9 vilasizt : ,
> es “4 ; e
= ; :' z |
ad . J rr
i> bb? ae? 7 '
Oy S362? Fes :
IO LI38o3 O°

isai ,8eysseaoe

3nloqg aeeetec

the District of Columbia, through any
place outside thereof, if such
communication is regulated by a State
commission." Act, § 3(e), 47 U.S.C.
153(e). “State Commission" means any
commission or organization which has
regulatory jurisdiction with respect to

the intrastate operations of carriers.

:
:
f
:
1
:

Id., § 3(t), 47 U.S.C. § 153(t). These
provisions, taken together, manifest the
intention of Congress to restrict the
scope of the FCC's expansive powers to
interstate communications and to
proscribe the exercise of such powers
over intrastate telephone service
regulated by States.

As if its intent were not

sufficiently apparent Congress also

included Section 2(b) which more

explicitly reserves to the States their

@36-

wf
~
. . ‘
y * r . ’ ‘he * *
, ; > L. *
+, “ :
' ey ; . ; Ys
: > ie 5 ;
“ ; " - . vi tenn
al -
‘ ’
5 i ‘ >
; ; - - os 4 t
‘
‘

re ’
/ ‘ +, i
as i 7 ;
; ‘ ; + i 7 i. : . _ &
+ d » 4
” - * . wy Phd
4 ‘ @ . : -
: : -
N ; ;
’ 2 Ps
‘> é ? ws Fe |
é
e . - nS
¥ ag &
ov —
.
; . > .
i . :
5 +
' ~
o i 1
sd te a)
ay
°
a
= ; 4 ° be
‘ P *. .
; G
@
4 ‘ “ ws ‘i
‘J ; .
7 e
4 . of
.
°
» - T+
*
a ee od
Pees i ee oe a permatie SS.
i a Se : Se ee ee +~ =a - ot Sn = et Se ee Sd ~ es = ii a
Rolig Me 2 Sat 8 2S yl ar Sad —— Tal , = 2 tee me Fe ei : : z = p

ability to regulate intrastate telephone
services. Act, § 2(b), 47 U.SsC.
§ 152(b). Section 2(b) provides, in
pertinent part, that:
[N]othing in this chapter shall be
construed to apply or to give the
Commission jurisdiction with
respect to (1) charges,
classifications, practices,
services, facilities, or
regulations for or in connection
with intrastate communications
service by wire or radio of any
carrier ...
47 U.S.C. § 152(b). On its face, then,
the Act is unambiguous as to the intent
of Congress to deprive the FCC of
jurisdiction over intrastate matters
traditionally regulated by the States,
including the determination of "charges"
for intrastate services, of which
depreciation expense is a part.
This Court has repeatedly held
that where, as here, the language of a

statute is clear and the construction

a3 30

2

nodaeles ssaseertns |

“pe ae

s tssqeds sida
Jip oF 3eo vf
| dotzoite
sep sno ay
I7 HIG yp:

esisilis
at 10 3034
. fopaoS Pepin a
— ae
s5at edi AG
28 200%

ont ov 3g

osstesiaob 3

to COL sem,
inive 320 12008

-218G_8 18 an

by es

yvitetssae?. esd | 1u 09

wisp 2! Ss

S +0 Spey pees. ean. Be

,o1507s60e

thereof does not lead to absurd
consequences, the statutory terms are to
be considered to mean what they say.

United States v. Missouri Pacific R.R.

Co., 278 U.S. 269, 278 (1929). Although
the Court has recently taken exception
to this rule even where statutory
language has appeared plain, the
circumstances justifying such
exceptional investigations are not

present in this case. See Philbrook v.

Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 714 (1975). And

the Court has indicated that it will not
cast aside common sense in statutory
interpretation to reach a convoluted
result at cross-purposes with

Congressional intent. See Philko

Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket, 462 U.S. 406

(1983). In this case, the FCC's

interpretation of the Act defies common

-38-

*
T>¢ ~
>
, —* —
a. A ;
+ 7 ‘ '
d °
7. ¥ |
3 ‘ 7 e >
. a pe " "
é
' “4 “24 “~
; ? e f o-4
* ' -
el
o” . :
‘3 - @ >
vi p , . i
’ -
a : at el,

sense and is openly inconsistent with
Congress's evident intent to preserve
State ratemaking authority. The
application of the “plain meaning” of
Section 2(b) is unambiguous and the
consequences are sensible and consistent
with the entirety of the Act.

Section 20(b) of the Act,
47 U.S:C. § 220(b), relied upon by
Respondents, does not detract from
amici's interpretation. That section
grants the FCC the power to prescribe
the accounts and records which must be
maintained “by carriers subject to this
chapter" and requires, in particular,
that the FCC prescribe for “such
carriers” appropriate depreciation
expenses. In addition, such carriers
are prohibited from including in any

form a depreciation schedule or expense

-39-

4 : |
"
| “4
ta
| 7 r
we
.
«
+
“)
%
5
‘
*
ny
;: |
'
\. |
eo
.
‘
| .
°
| -
4 :- \
.
a -
-
*
.
.
.

“6
=
~
q
if
}
i

—
feet
a* 3
ww
s *
5
e

* *
e
*
-
so 4!
- si

i.
‘ae
‘?
* §
- +
.
-—

ia

|

at preemption in this case.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v.

Arkansas Public Service Commission, 584

F. Supp. 1087, 1089 (E.D. Ark.), rev'd
on other grounds, 738 F.2d 901 (8th Cir.

1984): Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v.

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 12

Ohio St. 3d 280, 283-4 (1984).4/

While the statute on its face,
therefore, provides sufficient evidence
to conclude that Congress never intended

to preempt state regulatory authority

4/ As noted above, the Illinois PUA
includes similar language with
respect to the ILCC’s authority to
establish accounts for depreciation
and prohibits inconsistent
reporting by Illinois public
utilities. The provisions have
never been interpreted as
precluding different accounting or
reporting treatment for tax or
regulatory purposes outside the
scope of the PUA. PUA, § 14, Ill.
Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 14.

$
:
:
:
f
’
k
|
|
:
.
;
4
:
;

~42-

over intrastate telephone companies, the
legislative history corroborates the
fact that Congress intended, in fact, to
Clarify, preserve and expand then
existing state jurisdiction. As
outlined in detail, supra, states had
been very active in regulating
intrastate telephone companies from the
inception of modern public utility
regulation. The federal government
first initiated its regulatory efforts
over interstate telephone service with
the passage of the Mann-Elkins Act,
amending the Interstate Commerce Act.
Mann-Elkins Act, ch. 309, § 7, 36 Stat.
544 (1910). There is little legislative
history behind the amendment, but the
effect was to subject telephone
companies to the jurisdiction of the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and

-43-

+
q

—-ve

, 7 =
+
ry -
ri”
“+
.

terms of the Interstate Commerce Act
with respect to their interstate

operations. Gabel, The Early

Competitive Era in Telephone

Communication, 1893-1920, 34 Law &

Contemp. Prob. 340, 357 (1969).

Between 1910 and 1934 the ICC
made little or no effort to regulate
even interstate telephone services, let
alone intrastate activities. The ICC
only handled four rate cases, each of
little significance, each initiated by
complaint. Id. Further, the ICC felt
initially that it lacked jurisdiction
over the filing of interstate telephone

rates. Unrepeated Message Case, 44

I.C.C. 670, 673-4 (1 17), modified 61

I.C.C. 541 (1921). See Preliminary
Report on Communication Companies, H.R.

Rep. No. 1272, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934)

-44-

oo nest Bait ps

at xvi. Necessarily, the ICC initially
felt incapable of establishing
depreciation expenses even for
interstate ratemaking purposes as well,
and the responsibility for intrastate
ratemaking, including the establishment
of appropriate depreciation expenses,
remained with the States.

The ICC did, however, consider
its jurisdiction sufficient to establish
accounting and reporting requirements.

See Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate

Telephone Rates, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 846,

847 n.5 (1938). In particular, the
Transportation Act of 1920 amended the
Interstate Commerce Act and provided the
ICC with the authority and duty to
prescribe appropriate depreciation
charges “for carriers subject to this

Act."2/ 41 Stat. 456, 493 ‘/1920).

5/ Section 20(5) of the Interstate
Commerce Act was the immediate

(Footnote Continued On Next Page)

-45-

=)

r ;
A

—" »

i ee
“sod

€

ri
ws

tw Ly ee

*
-

tet!

« 1

. 7

ah.

:
a
ae

—— we

+0 oP ae

Relying on this provision the ICC
initiated proceedings to ascertain
appropriate depreciation policies for
telephone companies. Over the
objections of State commissions, the ICC
concluded that Section 20(5) empowered
it to prescribe depreciation policy and
expenses for property used "almost
exclusively” in intrastate service.

Depreciation Charges Of Telephone

Companies, 118 I.C.C. 295, 332 (1926).

The ICC, however, did not seek to act
upon such asserted jurisdiction and
emphasized that it intended to continue
to rely upon state commissions for
intrastate depreciation determinations.

Id. at 374.6/ The ICC continued to

(Footnote Continued) P

predecessor of Section 20(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 220(b).

6/ The rationale for permitting
continued State jurisdiction

(Footnote Continued On Next Page)

paw

assert, while never exercising,

jurisdiction over intrastate

depreciation practices and related

matters until the creation of the FCC.

See Depreciation Charges of Telephone

Companies, 177 I.C.C. 351 (1931);

Accounting Rules For Telephone

Companies, 203 I.C.C. 13 (1934).2/

(Footnote Continued)

included a recognition that States
were better informed and equipped
than the ICC to determine
appropriate depreciation policies
for intrastate service. This
reasoning reflects both an
awareness of extensive State
experience and expertise and a lack
of reSources on the part of the ICC
to adequately perform such
activities. Id. at 374-5. See,
Preliminary Report on

Communications Companies, supra, at

xvi.

Issued July 9, 1934, after the
effective date of the
Communications Act, Id., 203 I.C.C.
at 14,

-47-

* s ———
——S= aw : “e
’ a4 - 8 om —e . ns —* — :
oT jaa eS Fi nee ee Se Ne t= ee ee
= oe ~~ ¥ iw = and i ee 4
) A service shall be classified as competitive only if,
and only to the extent that, for some identifiable class or group
of customers in an exchange, group of exchanges, or some
other clearly defined geographical area, such service, or its
functional equivalent, or a substitute service, is reasonably
available from more than one provider, whether or not any
such provider is a telecommunications carrier subject to reg-
ulation under this Act. All telecommunications services not
properly classified as competitive shall be classified as non-

A-16

competitive. The Commission shall have the power to investi-
gate the classification of telecommunication service, on its
own motion or upon complaint, and to modify such classifica-
tion or reclassify any service, in whole or in part, after notice
and hearing. If, upon such motion or complaint, the Commis-
sion enters into a hearing or investigation upon the propriety
of any service classification pursuant to this Section, the
Commission shall make its determination and issue its final
order no later than 120 days from the date such hearing or
investigation is initiated.

(c) No tariff classifying a new telecommunications service
as competitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive
telecommunications service as competitive, which is filed by
a telecommunications carrier which also offers or provides
noncompetitive telecommunications service, shall be effective
unless and until such telecommunications carrier offering or
providing, or seeking to offer or provide, such proposed com-
petitive service prepares and files a study of the long-run
marginal cost underlying such service. Such study shall be
given proprietary treatment by the Commission at the request
of such carrier if any other provider of the competitive ser-
vice, its functional equivalent, or a substitute service in the
geographical area described by the proposed tariff has not
filed, or has not been required to file, such a study.

(d) Inthe event any telecommunications service has been
classified and filed as competitive by the telecommunications
carrier, and has been offered or provided on such basis, and
the Commission subsequently determines after investigation
that such classification improperly included services which
were in fact noncompetitive, the Commission shall have the
power to determine and order refunds to customers for any
overcharges which may have resulted from the improper

A-17

classification, or to order such other remedies provided to
it under this Act, or to seek an appropriate remedy or relief
in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(e) Any telecommunications carrier which seeks to file a
tariff classifying a new telecommunications service as com-
petitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive telecom-
munications service as competitive may, instead of filing such
new tariff and offering and providing such service as com-
petitive subject to refund, apply to the Commission, prior to
offering or providing such service as competitive, for an
order finding that the proposed tariff is proper and consistent
with law. Provided, however, that prior to August 1, 1987
any telecommunications carrier which seeks to file a tariff
classifying a new interexchange telecommunications service
as competitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive
intererchange telecommunications service as competitive shall
apply for prior Commission approval of such tariff pursuant
to the procedures of this paragraph (e). Any telecommunica-
tions carrier applying for Commission approval pursuant to
this paragraph (e) shail provide timely and effective notice
of its application and proposed tariff to potentially affected
providers and customers in a manner to be determined by the
Commission. <

Upon such application and notice, the Commission may
make its findings without hearing within 21 days of the filing
of the application and may allow such tariff to take immediate
effect thereafter if there is no request for hearing by poten-
tially affected providers or customers. The Commission shall,
however, enter into hearings to determine the propriety and
legality of the proposed tariffs upon such request or if the
Commission, in its discretion, believes such hearings are
necessary.

A-18

If the Commission enters into hearings upon the applica-
tion, it shall issue a final order within 120 days of such appli-
cation, and, if the Commission fails to issue an order within
such period, the application shall be deemed granted, unless,
however, the Commission, the applicant and all parties to the
hearing agree to extend such time period. The Commission
shall have the power to issue an interim order allowing the
proposed tariff to take effect during the 120 day period sub-
ject to refund and such other conditions as the Commission
may provide. ,

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-503)

Sec. 13-508. With respect to rates or other charges made,
demanded or received for any telecommunications service of-
fered, provided or to be provided, whether such service is
competitive or noncompetitive, telecommunications carriers
shall comply with the publication and filing provisions of Sec-
tions 9-101, 9-102, and 9-103.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-504)

Sec. 13-504. Except where the contert clearly renders such
provisions inapplicable, the ratemaking provisions of Article
1X of this Act relating to public utilities are fully and equally
applicable to the rates, charges, tariffs and classifications for
the offer or provision of noncompetitive telecommunications
services. Provided, however, that such ratemaking provisions
do not apply to any proposed change in rates or charges, or
proposed change in any classification or tariff resulting in a
change in rates or charges, for a noncompetitive local ez-
change telecommunications service offered or provided by a
local exchange telecommunications carrier with no more than
15,000 subscriber access lines, where such carrier is also not
a subsidiary of a holding company incorporated outside [ll-
nois. Proposed changes in rates, charges, classifications, or

A-19

tariffs meeting these criteria shall be permitted upon the
filing of the proposed tariff and 30 days notice to the Com-
mission and all potentially affected customers; such proposed
changes shall not be subject to suspension, but the Commis-
sion may, upon its own motion or upon complaint, investigate
whether such proposed change is just and reasonable and if
it finds, after notice and hearing, that such changes are un-
just or unreasonable, in whole or in part, the Commission
shall have the power and duty to establish the rates, charges,
classifications, or tariffs it finds to be just and reasonable.
The Commission shall investigate whether any such proposed
change is just and reasonable if 5 percent or more of the
potentially affected access line subscribers of the telecom-
munications carrier file a petition or complaint requesting
such investigation.

(Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-505)

Sec. 13-505. Proposed changes in rates or charges, or any
classification or tariff provision affecting rates or charges,
for any competitive telecommunications service, shall be
treated pursuant to this Section as follows;

(a) any proposed decrease in rates or charges, or pro-
posed change in any classification or tariff resulting in «4
decrease in rates or charges, for competitive local exchange
or interexchange telecommunications service shall be per-
mitted upon the filing of the proposed rate, charge, classifica-
tion or tariff;

(b) any proposed increase in rates or charges, or proposed
change in any classification or tariff resulting in an increase
in rates or charges, for a competitive interexchange tele-
communications service shall be permitted only upon the filing
of the proposed rate, charge, classification or tariff and upon
notice to all potentially affected customers through a notice

A-20

in each such customer’s bill prior to the date for implementa-
tion of such increase or change, or, where such customers are
not billed, by an equivalent means of prior notice;

(ce) any proposed increase in rates or charges, or pro-
posed change in any classification or tariff resulting in an
increase in rates or charges, for a competitive local exchange
telecommunications service shall be treated as though such
service were noncompetitive, pursuant to the applicable pro-
visions of Section 13-504.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-506)

Sec. 18-506. (a) Telecommunications carriers may file
proposed tariffs for any competitive local exchange telecom-
munications service, which includes and specifically describes
a range, band, formula, or standard within or by which a
change in rates or charges for such telecommunications service
could be made without prior notice or prior Commission ap-
proval. The Commission shall approve such a proposed tariff
only if the telecommunications carrier demonstrates, and the
Commission finds, that any and all rates or charges within
the band or range, or determinable by the operation of the
formula or standard, are consistent with the public interest
and the purposes and policies of this Article and Act, and are
likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. To the extent
any proposed band or range encompasses rates or charges
which are not consistent with the public interest and the pur-
poses and policies of this Article and Act or otherwise fully
proper, or any proposed formula or standard determines rates
or charges which are not consistent with the purposes and
policies of this Article and Act or fully proper, the Commis-
sion shall have the power to modify the level, scope or limits
of such band or range, and to modify or limit the operation
of such formula or standard, as necessary, to ensure that

A-21

rates or charges resulting therefrom are consistent with the
purposes and policies of this Article and Act and fully proper,
and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.

(b) The Commission may require a telecommunications
carrier to file a variable tariff as described in paragraph (a)
for any or all competitive local exchange telecommunications
service which is offered or provided by such carrier, if the
Commission finds, after notice and hearing, that the deter-
mination of rates or charges for such service by such a tariff
would improve the Commission’s ability to effectively regulate
such rates or charges and that such improvement is required
by the public interest. Any such tariff required by the Com-
mission shall be approved only if it is also consistent with
the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Section.

(c) When the Commission approves a variable tariff pur-
suant to this Section, as proposed or modified, the telecom-
munications carrier shall place such tariff in effect thereafter
and shall determine rates or charges according to the provi-
sions thereof.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-507)

Sec. 13-507. In permitting, approving, investigating or
establishing rates, charges, classifications or tariffs for non-
competitive services offered or provided by a telecom munica-
tions carrier which also offers or provides competitive ser-
vices, the Commission shall not allow or establish rates,
charges, classifications or tariffs which in any way, directly
or indirectly, include or reflect:

(a) the value of investment in facilities used, jointly or
separately, to provide competitive service, to the extent such
facilities are used to provide competitive service;

(b) expenses incurred for the provision of competitive
service, including, but not limited to, the salaries or wages,

A-22

or portion thereof, of employees whose employment activities
are directed, in whole or in part, to the provision of competi-
tive service, to the extent such expenses are incurred to
provide competitive service;

(c) any incremental risk or increased cost of capital which
is associated with or attributable to the competitive portion
of such carrier’s business.

In the event that facilities are utilized or expenses are in-
curred for the provision of both competitive and noncompeti-
tive services, the Commission shall allow or establish rates or
charges for the noncompetitive services which reflect only that
portion of such facilities or expenses properly and reasonably
allocable to the noncompetitive services. Every telecommuni-
cations carrier shall, to the fullest extent practicable, identify
such common facilities and expenses in its books and accounts
and shall clearly describe any means used to allocate such
common facilities or expenses between noncompetitive and
competitive services and related rates or charges. If the Com-
mission determines that such accounting and reporting re-
quirements alone are insufficient to permit the Commission
to meet the ratemaking and tariff supervision obligations of
this Section, it shall have the power to take or require such
additional action as necessary to ensure that rates or charges
for noncompetitive services reflect only the value of facilities,
or portion thereof, used and useful, and the expenses or por-
tion thereof reasonably and prudently incurred, for the pro-
vision of such noncompetitive services. The Commission shall,
in such event, also establish, by rule, any additional accounting
or reporting procedures, rules, regulations or mechanisms
necessary to identify and properly allocate the value or amount
of such facilities or expenses.

For the purposes of this Section, the Commission shall not
allocate to any competitive service all or part of the value of

A-23

investment in facilities utilized, or expenses incurred, in con-
nection with providing noncompetitive service.

The Commission may establish, by rule, appropriate meth-
ods for calculating the long-run marginal costs of providing
any telecommunications service, and for determining whether
the rates or charges for telecommunications service are at a
level equal to or greater than such long-run marginal cost. The
Commission may order any telecommunications carrier to
conduct a long-run marginal cost study and to provide the
results thereof to the Commission. Any cost study provided
to the Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Section
may, in the Commission's discretion, be accorded proprietary
treatment.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-508)

Sec. 18-508. The Commission is authorized, after notice
and hearing, to order a telecommunications carrier which
offers or provides both competitive and noncompetitive tele-
communications service to establish a fully separated subsid-
iary to provide all or part of such competitive service where:

(a) no less costly means is available and effective in fully
and properly identifying and allocating costs between such
carrier’s competitive and noncompetitive telecommunications
services;and ~

(5) the incremental cost of establishing and maintaining
such subsidiary would not require increases in rates or charges
to levels which would effectively preclude the offer or provi-
sion of the affected competitive telecommunications service.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 138-509)

Sec. 13-509. A telecommunications carrier offering or pro-
viding competitive telecommunications service may negotiate
with customers or prospective customers for the provision by
it of such service, and in so doing, may offer or agree to pro-

A-24

vide such service on such terms and for such rates or charges
as it deems reasonable, without regard to any tariffs it may
have filed with the Commission with respect to such services.
Within 1¢ Jays after concluding any such agreement, the tele-
communications carrier shall file any contract or memoran-
dum of understanding for the provision of telecommunications
service, which shall include the rates or other charges, prac-
tices, rules or regulations applicable to the agreed provision
of such service. Upon filing its contract or memorandum the
telecommunications carrier shall thereafter provide service
according to the terms thereof, unless the Commission finds,
after notice and hearing, that the continued provision of ser-
vice pursuant to such contract or memorandum would substan-
tially and adversely affect the financial integrity of the tele-
communications carrier or would cause the cross-subsidization
of any competitive service by any noncompetitive service.

Any contract or memorandum entered into and filed pur-
suant to the provisions of this Section may, in the Commis-
sion’s discretion, be accorded proprietary treatment.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-601)

Sec. 13-601. The provisions of Article VII of this Act are
fully applicable only to telecommunications carriers offering
or providing noncompetitive telecommunications service, and
the Commission’s regulation thereof, except that the approval
of contracts and arrangements with affiliated interests re-
quired by paragraph (3) of Section 7-101 shall not apply to
such contracts or arrangements by such telecommunications
carriers where the total obligation thereunder does not exceed
the lesser of 1 million dollars or 5 percent of such carrier’s
prior annual revenue from noncompetitive services.

(Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-701)

Sec. 13-701. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act to the contrary, the Commission has no power to super-

A-25

vise or control any telephone cooperative as respects assess-
ment schedules or local service rates made or charged by such
@ cooperative on a nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, the
Commission has no power to inquire into, or require the
submission of, the terms, conditions or agreements by or
under which telephone cooperatives are financed. A telephone
cooperative shall file with the Commission either a copy of
the annual financial report required by the Rural Electrifica-
tion Administration, or the annual financial report required
of other public utilities.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-702)

Sec. 18-702. Every telecommunications carrier operating
in this State shall receive, transmit and deliver, without dis-
crimination or delay, the conversations, messages or other
transmissions of every other telecommunications carrier with
which a joint rate has been established or with whose line a
physical connection may have been made.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-703)

Sec. 13-703. (a) The Commission shall design and imple-
ment a program whereby each telecommunications carrier
providing local exchange service shall provide a telecommu-
nicotions device capable of servicing the needs of the deaf
or severely hearing-impaired together with a single party
line, at no charge additional to the basic exchange rate, to
any subscriber who is certified as deaf or severely hearing-
impaired by a licensed physician, audiologist or a qualified
State agency and to any subscriber which is an organization
representing the deaf or severely hearing-impaired as de-
termined and specified by the Commission pursuant to sub-
section (d).

(6) The Commission shall design and implement a pro-
gram, whereby each telecommunications carrier providing

A-26

local exchange service shall provide a dual party system, using
third party intervention to connect deaf or severely hearing-
impaired persons and offices of organizations representing
the deaf or severely hearing-impaired as determined and spec-
ified by the Commission pursuant to subsection (d) with per-
sons of normal hearing by way of intercommunications devices
for the deaf or severely hearing-impaired and the telephone
system, making available reasonable access to all phases of
public telephone service to deaf or severely hearing-impaired
telephone subscribers. In order to design a dual party relay
system which will meet the requirements of deaf and severely
hearing-impaired persons available at a reasonable cost the
Commission shall initiate an investigation and conduct public
hearings to determine the most cost-effective method of pro-
viding dual party relay service to the deaf or severely hearing-
impaired when using telecommunications devices and therein
solicit the advice, counsel, and physical assistance of State-
wide nonprofit consumer organizations of the deaf in such
hearings and during the development and implementation of
the system. The Commission shall phase in this program,
on a geographical basis, over a 3-year period ending January
1,1989.

(ce) The commission shall establish a rate recovery mech-
anism, which shall not exceed 3¢ per month for each line of a
subscriber to allow telecommunications carriers providing local
exchange service to recover costs as they are incurred under
this Section.

(d) The Commission shall determine and specify those
Statewide organizations representing the deaf or severely
hearing-impaired which shall receive a telecommunications
device pursuant to subsection (a) or a dual party relay system
pursuant to subsection (b), or both, and in which offices the

A-27

equipment shall be installed in the case of an organization
having more than one office. The Commission shall direct the
telecommunications carriers subject to its jurisdiction and this
Section to comply with its determinations and specifications
in this regard.

(Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-704)

Sec. 13-704. Each page of a billing statement which sets
forth charges assessed against a customer by a telecommunica-
tions carrier for telecommunications service shall reflect the
telephone number or customer account number to which the
charges are being billed.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-801)

Sec. 13-801. The Commission shall prepare and issue an
annual report on the status of the telecommunications industry
and IUinois regulation thereof on January $1 of each year
beginning in 1986. Such report shall include:

(a) A review of regulatory decisions and actions from
the preceding year and a description of pending cascs involv-
ing significant telecommunications carriers or issues;

(b) a description of the telecommunications industry and
changes or trends therein, including the number, type and
size of firms offering telecommunications services, whether
or not such firms are subject to State regulation, telecom-
munications technologies in place and under development,
variations in the geographic availability of services and in
prices for services, and penetration levels of subscriber access
to local exchange service in each exchange and trends related
thereto;

(c) the status of compliance dy carriers and the Commis-
sion with the requirements of this Article;

(d) the effects, and likely effects of IUinois regulatory
policies and practices, including those described in this Article,
on telecommunications carriers, services and customers;

A-28

(e) any recommendations for legislative change which are
adopted by the Commission and which the Commission be-
lieves are in the interest of Illinois telecommunications cus-
tomers;

(f) any other information or analysis which the Commis-
sion is required to provide by this Article or deems necessary
to provide.

The Commission's report shall be filed with the Joint Com-
mittee on Legislative Support Services, the Governor, and the
Public Counsel and shall be publicly available. The Joint Com-
mittee on Legislative Support Services shall conduct public
hearings on the report and any recommendations therein.

(Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-802).

Sec. 13-802. The Commission shall study the effects on
telecommunications carriers, providers and customers and on
telecommunications services and prices likely to result from
the issuance of multiple Certificates of Service Authority for
Intra-Market Service Area and local exchange service.

The Commission shall also study the need to retain manda-
tory prior Commission approval of tariffs classifying a new
interex: hange telecommunication service as competitive or
reclassifying a previously noncompetitive interexchange tele-
communications service as competitive as provided in Section
13-502(a), and the effects of eliminating such mandatory prior
approval. Such studies shail include notice and an opportunity
for participation and comment by all interested and potentially
affected parties. Such studies shall be completed by January,
1987 and a summary thereof, together with any legislative
recommendations, shall be included in the Commission’s An-
nual Report due on January 31, 1987.

A-29

(Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-803)

Sec. 18-808. The provisions of this Article, Sections 18-101
through 13-803 of this Act, are repealed effective December
$1, 1991.

Section 2. Section 4.3 of the “Regulatory Agency Sunset
Act”, approved September 22, 1979, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:

(Ch. 127, par. 1904.3)

Sec. 4.8. The following Acts are repealed December 31,
1985:

(Ch. 111, rep. pars. 1601 through 1670)

(1) The “Illinois Barber Law”, approved July 18, 1947, as
amended.

(Ch. 111, rep. pars. 1801 through 1839)

(2) “The Illinois Beauty Culture Act”, approved June 30,
1925, as amended.

((CH. 111 2/8, REP. PARS. 1 THROUGH 95))

((3) “AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES”,
APPROVED JUNE 29, 1924, AS AMENDED.)

(Ch. 111, rep. pars. 2001 through 2040)

(3) ((4)) The “Collection Agency Act”, approved Sep-
tember 8, 1974, as amended.

Section 3. This Act takes effect January 1, 1986, except
Section 2 and this Section takes effect upon this Act becoming
a law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0161%3A20. Public record. Not legal advice.