36 A.3d 449
Md.2012Background
- Verizon sought to settle six PSC cases through an alternative form of regulation (AFOR) under PUC § 4-301.
- CWA intervened in the settlement process and challenged Order 83137 approving the AFOR for Verizon.
- Order 83137 found Verizon’s service quality below PSC standards and implemented the Service Quality Plan with penalties including up to $6 million in credits.
- Key features include statewide and regional performance measures, annual operation plans, monthly reports, and a monetary at-risk mechanism tied to service quality metrics.
- PSC concluded the AFOR is in the public interest and complies with the statutory AFOR standard, balancing Verizon’s interests with consumer protections.
- CWA petitioned for judicial review; the circuit court affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AFOR is supported by substantial evidence under § 4-301(b)(1)(ii). | CWA argues 'ensuring' quality requires a literal guarantee. | Verizon and PSC contend substantial evidence supports the plan as forward-looking, not guaranteeing outcomes. | Yes; substantial evidence supports the AFOR's quality protections. |
| Whether PSC erred as a matter of law by balancing interests in approving the AFOR. | CWA contends there is no balancing standard in § 4-301. | PSC argues balancing is permissible to serve the public interest and consumer protection. | No legal error; balancing is permissible and the decision relies on public interest. |
| Whether PSC mischaracterized CWA's position in the record. | CWA claims PSC misstated its witness’s position as accepting the proposal. | PSC asserts Order viewed the overall record and sufficiency of substantial evidence, not party-specific positions. | No reversible error; the record supports the AFOR independently. |
| Whether the word 'ensuring' in § 4-301(b)(1)(ii) creates an impossible guarantee. | CWA argues 'ensuring' requires certainty that service quality will improve statewide. | Verizon argues 'ensuring' affords predictive planning without guaranteeing future outcomes. | No; statutory interpretation allows a forward-looking, goal-oriented plan with enforcement mechanisms. |
Key Cases Cited
- People's Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 355 Md. 1 (1999) (AFOR forward-looking; can't guarantee future outcomes)
- Public Serv. Comm'n v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 42 Md.App. 492 (1979) (standard of review for agency decisions in contested cases)
- Public Serv. Comm'n v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 273 Md. 357 (1974) (deference to agency expertise; substantial evidence standard)
- Board of County Comm'rs v. Turf Valley Assocs., 247 Md. 556 (1967) (probative value of agency reports in administrative decisions)
- Storch v. Zoning Bd., 267 Md. 476 (1972) (an agency report can render action fairly debatable)
- People's Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 355 Md. 1 (1999) (AFOR goals include price, quality, competition, public interest)
- Christopher v. Montgomery County Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 381 Md. 188 (2004) (agency discretion and deference in review of regulatory actions)
- Maryland State Police v. Zeigler, 330 Md. 540 (1993) (limits of judicial review of agency discretion)