PUBLISHED OPINION
Case No.: 95-0915
†Petition for
review filed.
Complete
Title
of
Case:MCI
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,†
v.
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; CATHY S.
ZEUSKE, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; AND THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN,
Defendants-Appellants.
Submitted
on Briefs: December 12, 1995
COURT COURT OF
APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
Opinion
Released: July 11, 1996
Opinion
Filed: July
11, 1996
Source
of APPEAL Appeal from orders
Full
Name JUDGE COURT: Circuit
Lower
Court. COUNTY: Dane
(If
"Special" JUDGE: George
Northrup
so
indicate)
JUDGES: Eich,
C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
Concurred:
Dissented: Sundby,
J.
Appellant
ATTORNEYSFor the defendants-appellants the
cause was submitted on the briefs of Steven M. Schur, chief counsel, and
Steven Levine, legal counsel, of Public Service Commission of
Wisconsin.
Respondent
ATTORNEYSFor the plaintiff-respondent the
cause was submitted on the brief of Niles Berman and Janet L. Kelly
of Wheeler, Van Sickle & Anderson, S.C. of Madison.
COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED July
11, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.
See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-0915
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
MCI
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN; CATHY S. ZEUSKE, IN
HER
CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN;
AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF
WISCONSIN,
Defendants-Appellants.
APPEAL
from orders of the circuit court for Dane County: GEORGE NORTHRUP, Judge. Reversed.
Before
Eich, C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
VERGERONT,
J. The Public Service Commission (PSC) and Cathy Zeuske, in
her capacity as treasurer of the State of Wisconsin, appeal from an order
reversing the PSC's interpretation of § 196.85(2), Stats., Wisconsin's "remainder assessment" statute,
and from an order denying their motion for reconsideration.[1] The PSC concluded that MCI
Telecommunications Corporation's revenues from sales of interexchange
telecommunications (long-distance telephone calls) that originate in Wisconsin
and terminate outside the state are "revenues ... derived from intrastate
operations" within the meaning of § 196.85(2). We conclude the PSC's interpretation of the
statute is reasonable and reverse the orders of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
MCI
Telecommunications Corporation is a public utility that provides
telecommunications services to customers in Wisconsin.[2] MCI provides interexchange
telecommunications services for telecommunications that originate in Wisconsin
and terminate both inside and outside the state. MCI owns or leases equipment in Wisconsin which it uses to
provide these services.
A
telecommunication that originates in one state and terminates in another state
is an interstate telecommunication. See
47 U.S.C. § 153(e). A
telecommunication that both originates and terminates within one state is an
intrastate telecommunication. See
47 U.S.C. § 152(b). The Federal
Communications Commission has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over interstate
telecommunications. See 47
U.S.C. § 152(a). The regulation of
intrastate telecommunications is entrusted to the states. 47 U.S.C. § 152(b); Nat'l Ass'n of
Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 746 F.2d 1492, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
The
PSC is the state agency charged under ch. 196, Stats., with regulating public utilities in Wisconsin. The PSC regulates the intrastate activities
of telecommunications utilities in Wisconsin.
Interexchange carriers such as MCI are subject to less regulation by the
PSC than local exchange companies. For
example, interexchange carriers must file annual reports and tariffs, and are
subject to PSC complaint procedures.
However, interexchange carriers are not required to seek prior PSC
approval of construction expenditures, affiliated interest transactions, or
securities transactions.
The
PSC engages in some activities regarding nationwide utility issues, which are
authorized by § 196.02(12), Stats. The PSC regularly participates in
proceedings before various federal regulatory agencies on behalf of the
citizens of Wisconsin, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and
Federal Communications Commission joint boards. The PSC is also a member of a number of national and regional
regulatory associations to which it pays dues.
Pursuant
to § 196.85, Stats., the PSC is
authorized to annually assess public utilities providing energy,
telecommunications and water services under its jurisdiction to recover
expenses reasonably related to the performance of its regulatory duties. To recover expenses not attributable to a
specific utility, the PSC assesses utilities in proportion to each utility's
"gross operating revenues during the last calendar year, derived from
intrastate operations." Section
196.85(2). This statute is referred to
as Wisconsin's "remainder assessment" statute.
The
PSC interprets § 196.85(2), Stats.,
to include a public utility's revenues from telecommunications made from a
telephone located in Wisconsin, regardless of whether the destination of the
telecommunication initiated by the customer is inside or outside the state. Revenues from telecommunications made by MCI
customers located outside Wisconsin to a telephone in this state are not
included. The PSC has interpreted the
statute in this manner since the break-up of the Bell System in 1984. The PSC re-examined its process of determining
assessable revenues in 1989 and reconfirmed its policy.
MCI
challenged the PSC's interpretation and application of § 196.85(2), Stats., specifically with respect to
fiscal years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93.[3] MCI argued that the statute is plain on its
face and that "revenues ... derived from intrastate operations" means
revenues derived from intrastate telecommunications (telecommunications that
both originate and terminate inside Wisconsin). In MCI's view, revenues from telecommunications that originate in
Wisconsin but terminate outside the state are revenues derived from interstate
operations and should not be included in the calculation of its remainder
assessment under § 196.85(2).
MCI's challenge was rejected by the PSC.
The
parties stipulated to a statement of facts and the trial court ruled in favor
of MCI on cross-motions for summary judgment.
The trial court determined that § 196.85(2), Stats., is unambiguous and that the
term "intrastate operations" means "intrastate
telecommunications." The court
stated that revenues from telecommunications that originate in Wisconsin but
terminate outside of the state are revenues derived from interstate
operations because they do not occur wholly within the boundaries of Wisconsin. The court concluded that the PSC's
interpretation directly contravened the plain language of the statute.
The
resolution of this case turns on an interpretation of § 196.85(2), Stats.
The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the
legislature. Rolo v. Goers,
174 Wis.2d 709, 715, 497 N.W.2d 724, 726 (1993). We first look to the language of the statute. State Historical Society v. Village of
Maple Bluff, 112 Wis.2d 246, 252, 332 N.W.2d 792, 795 (1983). If the plain meaning is clear, we do not
look to rules of statutory construction or other extrinsic aids. Id. at 252-53, 332 N.W.2d at
795. Instead, we simply apply the
language of the statute to the facts before us. Id. If,
however, the statute is ambiguous, we may examine the scope, history, context,
subject matter and purpose of the statute.
Rolo, 174 Wis.2d at 715, 497 N.W.2d at 726. Furthermore, if an administrative agency has
been charged with the statute's enforcement, we may also look to the agency's
interpretation. UFE Inc. v. LIRC,
___ Wis.2d ___, ___, 548 N.W.2d 57, 60 (1996).
DISCUSSION
Section
196.85(2), Stats., provides that
the PSC shall assess the remainder assessment of utilities "in proportion
to their respective gross operating revenues during the last calendar year,
derived from intrastate operations."
The term "intrastate operations" is not defined in the
statute.
The
PSC takes the position that "revenues ... derived from intrastate
operations" includes revenues from all sales of interexchange telecommunications
to customers residing in Wisconsin, regardless of the destination of the
telecommunication. The PSC maintains
that such an interpretation is reasonable because: (1) the customer to whom the interexchange telecommunication is
sold is located in Wisconsin, and (2) MCI owns and operates, or leases and
operates, facilities in Wisconsin that are involved in providing interexchange
telecommunications services. The PSC
argues that if the legislature had intended to limit the revenues upon which the
PSC may base a remainder assessment to revenues derived from intrastate
telecommunications, it would have used the term "intrastate
telecommunications" rather than "intrastate operations" in
§ 196.85(2), Stats.
MCI,
by contrast, interprets "revenues ... derived from intrastate
operations" to mean revenues derived from intrastate
telecommunications. MCI argues that
"interstate" means transactions between states, while
"intrastate" means transactions wholly within a single state, and
that under these definitions, "intrastate operations" cannot include
telecommunications between points in different states. According to MCI, the language of the
statute is plain and admits of no other interpretation.
We
do not agree with MCI that the meaning of the statute is clear on its
face. Since the statute applies to
utilities providing energy, telecommunications and water services, the phrase
"revenues ... derived from intrastate operations" necessarily has a
different meaning as applied to each type of public utility. As applied to telecommunications utilities,
we conclude that the interpretations proposed by both the PSC and MCI are
reasonable. The statute is therefore
ambiguous. See State v.
Martin, 162 Wis.2d 883, 894, 470 N.W.2d 900, 904 (1991) (a statute is
ambiguous if it is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations). We thus turn to extrinsic sources and rules
of statutory construction in order to determine the intent of the legislature
in enacting § 196.85(2), Stats. One such extrinsic source is the
interpretation of the agency charged with enforcing the statute. UFE Inc., ___ Wis.2d at ___,
548 N.W.2d at 61.
We
have applied three distinct levels of deference to agency interpretations of
statutes: great weight, due weight and
de novo review. See Jicha
v. DILHR, 169 Wis.2d 284, 290-91, 485 N.W.2d 256, 258-59 (1992). The PSC contends that its interpretation of
the statute is entitled to great weight.
In order for an agency interpretation to be accorded great weight, all
four of the following requirements must be met: (1) the agency was charged by the legislature with the duty
of administering the statute; (2) the interpretation of the agency is one
of long-standing; (3) the agency employed its expertise or specialized
knowledge in forming the interpretation; and (4) the agency's
interpretation will provide uniformity and consistency in the application of
the statute. Harnischfeger Corp.
v. LIRC, 196 Wis.2d 650, 660, 539 N.W.2d 98, 102 (1995); UFE Inc.,
___ Wis.2d at ___, 548 N.W.2d at 61-62.
MCI
argues that we should interpret the statute de novo. This standard of review is applicable only when the issue is
clearly one of first impression or when an agency's position has been so
inconsistent as to provide no real guidance.
UFE Inc., ___ Wis.2d at ___, 548 N.W.2d at 62. However, since MCI has stipulated that the
PSC has interpreted the statute in the same manner since 1984, and points to no
instance of inconsistency by the PSC, the de novo standard is not applicable.
We
conclude the PSC's interpretation of § 196.85(2), Stats., is entitled to great weight. First, the PSC is charged with administering
§ 196.85(2). Second, the PSC has
interpreted the statute to include gross revenues from telecommunications
originating in Wisconsin and terminating both within and outside the state
since 1984. Third, the PSC exercised
its expertise in re-examining the process of determining assessable revenues in
1989. Finally, MCI does not dispute
that the PSC's interpretation will provide uniformity and consistency in the
application of the statute.
When
an agency's statutory interpretation is accorded great weight, it will be
upheld if reasonable, even if the court believes that an alternative
interpretation is also reasonable. The
burden is on the party seeking to overturn the agency action to show that the
agency's interpretation is unreasonable.
Harnischfeger Corp., 196 Wis.2d at 661, 539 N.W.2d at
102. An interpretation is unreasonable
if it directly contravenes the language of the statute, is clearly contrary to
legislative intent or is without a rational basis. Id. at 662, 539 N.W.2d at 103. Because of our conclusion that the statute
is ambiguous, the PSC's interpretation does not directly contravene the
statutory language. See id.
MCI
argues that the PSC's interpretation of the statute is unreasonable because,
while the PSC has authority to regulate only intrastate telecommunications, see
47 U.S.C. § 152(b), it seeks to impose an assessment based on revenues MCI
receives from interstate telecommunications, over which the FCC has exclusive
jurisdiction, see 47 U.S.C. § 152(a). MCI contends that because interstate telecommunications are not
regulated by the PSC, the revenues these telecommunications generate should not
be included in the calculation under § 196.85(2), Stats.
The
flaw in MCI's argument is that it equates "intrastate operations" and
"intrastate telecommunications."
We recognize that the FCC regulates interstate telecommunications, while
the PSC regulates intrastate telecommunications. However, § 196.85(2), Stats.,
does not refer to jurisdictional boundaries and there is no indication that the
legislature intended to distinguish between revenues derived from intrastate
telecommunications and revenues derived from interstate telecommunications. The purpose of § 196.85(2) is to
recover expenditures attributable to the performance of the PSC's duties and to
apportion the burden in a manner that reflects the extent to which each utility
is responsible for the PSC's activities.
The revenues that a public utility earns from its operations in
Wisconsin provide an appropriate basis for estimating the degree to which that
utility contributes to the need for the PSC's regulatory activities. The revenues MCI receives from its
operations in Wisconsin include revenues from sales of interstate
telecommunications to customers in Wisconsin.
Section
196.85(2), Stats., does not limit
the revenues upon which the PSC may base its assessment to revenues derived
from services over which the PSC directly exercises regulatory
jurisdiction. It is undisputed that the
PSC incurs costs associated with its ongoing and significant participation in
activities regarding nationwide utility issues. The PSC regularly participates in proceedings before the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
PSC also participates in FCC joint boards that meet to advise the FCC on
telecommunications regulatory issues, including issues related to the respective
jurisdiction of the FCC and state regulatory commissions. MCI's interpretation of the statute does not
recognize these costs incurred by the PSC that arise from regulating a
telecommunications utility that receives revenues from both intrastate telecommunications
(regulated by the PSC) and interstate telecommunications (regulated by the
FCC).
MCI
also argues that the PSC's interpretation of the statute is inconsistent with
the statute's legislative history. As
originally passed in 1931, § 196.85(2), Stats.,
did not contain the phrase "derived from intrastate operations." See Laws of 1931, ch. 183. This phrase was added in a special
legislative session six months later. See
Laws of Special Session of 1931, ch. 16.
MCI contends that the amendment was made because the statute, as first
passed, implicitly imposed the assessment on interstate as well as
intrastate telecommunications, and the legislature wanted to restrict its
application to revenues from intrastate telecommunications only.
We
do not find MCI's analysis of the statute's legislative history
persuasive. First, as indicated, the
statute uses the term "intrastate operations," not "intrastate
telecommunications." Second, the
statute applies to all types of utilities, not only telecommunications
utilities. Any argument that the
amendment was aimed at telecommunications utilities is simply speculation. Finally, the PSC reasonably argues that the
legislature intended to clarify that only revenues derived from a utility's
sale of utility services to customers in Wisconsin are included in the
calculation of the utility's remainder assessment, as opposed to revenues
derived from a utility's sale of utility services to customers in another
state.
MCI
contends that if the PSC's interpretation of "intrastate operations"
is accepted, "interstate telecommunications do not exist." We reject this argument. Again, MCI fails to distinguish between
"intrastate telecommunications" and "intrastate
operations." The PSC does not deny
that a telecommunication that originates in Wisconsin and terminates in another
state is an interstate telecommunication.
The PSC simply maintains that MCI's revenues from interstate
telecommunications that originate in Wisconsin are derived from intrastate
operations because the customer to whom the interstate telecommunication
service is sold is located in Wisconsin.
MCI
relies on Arkansas PSC v. Allied Tel. Co., 625 S.W.2d 515 (Ark.
1981). While the court in that case did
construe an Arkansas statute that is similar to § 196.85(2), Stats., to include revenues only from
intrastate telecommunications, it concluded the statute was subject to at least
two reasonable interpretations and, therefore, was ambiguous. As we have already indicated, we must uphold
an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if it is reasonable. Harnischfeger Corp., 196
Wis.2d at 661, 539 N.W.2d at 102. The Arkansas
PSC court also noted that the Arkansas PSC had interpreted the statute
to include only revenues from intrastate telecommunications for more than forty
years prior to the Arkansas PSC's most recent decision holding to the
contrary. Arkansas PSC,
625 S.W.2d at 517. Here, by contrast,
the PSC has interpreted § 196.85(2) to include revenues from all
interexchange telecommunications originating in Wisconsin consistently since
1984. We do not find the Arkansas
PSC opinion persuasive authority.
MCI
also relies on Kentucky Natural Gas Corp. v. PSC, 28 F. Supp. 509
(E.D. Ky. 1939), aff'd, 119 F.2d 417 (6th Cir. 1941), but that case
differs significantly on the facts. The
primary dispute in that case involved whether the Kentucky PSC or the Federal
Power Commission (FPC) could regulate a natural gas company that produced and
sold gas in Kentucky, but was predominantly interstate in character. After the court concluded that only the FPC
could regulate the company's business, it stated that "it necessarily
flows that assessments against [the company] for the maintenance of the
[Kentucky PSC] are unenforceable."
Id. at 513. In this
case, by contrast, the PSC does regulate MCI, and there is no dispute that the
PSC can impose a remainder assessment on MCI.
The dispute centers on the PSC's method of assessment.
By
the Court.—Orders reversed.
No. 95-0915(D)
SUNDBY,
J. (dissenting). I agree with the trial
court that the word "intrastate" as used in § 196.85(2), Stats., means "existing or
occurring within the boundaries of a state ...." The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language 1001 (2d ed. 1987).
"Interstate" is, of course, "intrastate's"
antonym. Random House defines "interstate" as
"connecting or involving different states: interstate commerce." Id. at 999.
I
further agree with the trial court that construction of the statute is
unnecessary in view of its plain language.
See Girouard v. Circuit Court for Jackson Co., 155
Wis.2d 148, 156, 454 N.W.2d 792, 795 (1990).
However, because we are dealing with the construction of a statute by an
administrative agency which has existed over time, we must find that the
Commission's construction is unreasonable.
See Carrion Corp. v. DOR, 179 Wis.2d 254, 265, 507
N.W.2d 356, 359 (Ct. App. 1993); see also Lisney v. LIRC,
171 Wis.2d 499, 506, 493 N.W.2d 14, 16 (1992).
The
Commission's request for deference is considerably weakened by the fact that
its construction was first adopted in 1984 even though the disputed language
was added in the 1931 Special Session of the legislature.[4] As the court in American Motors Corp.
v. DILHR, 101 Wis.2d 337, 357, 305 N.W.2d 62, 71 (1981), stated: "This `Johnny Come Lately' construction
of the statute hardly meets the requirement that there be substantial
contemporaneity to be accorded judicial deference."
In
§ 196.85(2), Stats., the
legislature made a policy decision that the Commission's expenditures
reasonably attributable to the performance of its duties relating to public
utilities, and expenditures of the state for state governmental operations to
support the performance of its duties, shall be assessed to a public utility
only for its operating revenues "derived from intrastate
operations." There is a logic to
this public policy. The legislature may
have concluded that fairness dictated that it require the Commission to recover
only its expenditures for the provision of intrastate services to public
utilities. I find it significant that § 196.85(2)
requires the Commission to calculate not only its expenditures reasonably
attributable to the performance of its duties relating to public utilities, but
also expenditures of the state for state governmental operations to support the
performance of such duties. The
legislature may have considered that state governmental operations such as the
provision of roads, schools, police protection, welfare services, and similar
services could not fairly be attributed to the interstate operations of a
public utility. We should not forget
that the language we review came into the statutes in 1931. The revenues of a telephone company from
long distance services in 1931 and the Commission's performance of services for
such operations may have been a minor fraction of the telephone company's total
revenues and of the Commission's expenditures.
The legislature may well have made a different policy determination were
it addressing the issue in 1996, and I suggest the Commission should convince
the legislature that performance of its duties and expenditures of the state
for state governmental operations to support such duties have changed
dramatically, and it is now fair, even imperative, that the Commission assess
telecommunication's utilities for interstate as well as intrastate operations.
Finally,
I return to the language of the statute.
After the Commission calculates its expenditures reasonably attributable
to the performance of its duties relating to public utilities and expenditures
of the state for state governmental operations to support the performance of
such services, the Commission makes certain deductions and then the statute
requires that, "[t]he commission shall assess a sum equal to the remainder
plus 10% of the remainder to the public utilities and power districts in proportion
to the respective gross operating revenues during the last calendar year, derived
from intrastate operations."
(Emphasis added.) If the
Commission's construction of the statute is correct, the emphasized clause of
this section is meaningless. The effect
of the Commission's interpretation is to amend the statute to read: "The commission shall assess a sum
equal to the remainder plus 10% of the remainder to the public utilities and
power districts in proportion to the respective gross operating revenues during
the last calendar year."
For
these reasons, I cannot join in our decision.
I dissent.
[1] Section 196.85(2), Stats., provides in part:
The commission
shall annually, within 90 days of the commencement of each fiscal year, calculate the total of its expenditures
during the prior fiscal year which are reasonably attributable to the
performance of its duties relating to public utilities, sewerage systems and
power districts under this chapter and chs. 66, 184 and 198 and expenditures of
the state for state government operations to support the performance of such
duties. For purposes of such
calculation, 90% of the expenditures so determined shall be expenditures of the
commission and 10% of the expenditures so determined shall be expenditures for
state government operations. The commission
shall deduct from this total all amounts chargeable to public utilities,
sewerage systems and power districts under sub. (1) and s. 184.10 (3). The commission shall assess a sum equal to
the remainder plus 10% of the remainder to the public utilities and power
districts in proportion to their respective gross operating revenues during the
last calendar year, derived from intrastate operations. If, at the time of payment, the prior year's
expenditures made under this section exceeded the payment made under this
section in the prior year, the commission shall charge the remainder to the
public utilities and power districts in proportion to their gross operating
revenues during the last calendar year.
If, at the time of payment it is determined that the prior year's
expenditures made under this section were less than the payment made under this
section in the prior year, the commission shall credit the difference to the
current year's payment. The assessment
shall be paid within 30 days after the bill has been mailed to the public
utilities and power districts. The bill
constitutes notice of the assessment and demand of payment. Ninety percent of
the payment shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.155 (1)
(g).
[2] Upon the effective date of 1993 Wis. Act 496,
MCI will be classified under ch. 196, Stats.,
as a telecommunications carrier rather than a public utility.
[3] MCI paid its
assessments and filed written objections to the assessments pursuant to
§ 196.85(4), Stats. The difference between the PSC's calculation
of MCI's remainder assessments--based on MCI's revenues from calls originating
in Wisconsin and terminating both inside and outside Wisconsin--and MCI's
calculation are as follows: (1) In
1990-91, MCI's calculation of its remainder assessment was $29,797.12, the
PSC's calculation was $112,569.10, for a difference of $82,771.98; (2) In
1991-92, MCI's calculation was $34,979.41, the PSC's calculation was
$93,091.38, for a difference of $58,111.97; and (3) In 1992-93, MCI's
calculation was $38,477.35, the PSC's calculation was $102,400.51, for a
difference of $63,923.16.