WPC) KU:* %djnz 0'U@4?PS w@  m 0J 0DN #!   0J 0T 0^[ 0h 0! 0@ 0DU B 0r 0|(Nj AQl 1u 0c m[r D/z B D3 0U @ 0 1uO 0dB)(DCQ AMU* 'v~ 0N|"v"UN(&(<6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|x <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@('$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XXXXXC\XXX\  `(Times NewRomanTTuYf#'$BellSouth 8$ ' IB011C3   D D U e + +  Ӏ  U((2f$ '!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X XXXXXXXX   X `   0  (#$  0  Tech HP4si,,,,,,0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  (3u$ '!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X XXXXXXXX   ("$    ($$   1   d2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5!&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  U ((' dxdP Pd'dxd2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  \  `(Times NewRomanTT2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  *. ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd!8C << G<  9p`(Arial  !\RA'\  ,  "  ::   YYY FILED:XNovember19,1997CecilW._Crowson_AppellateCourtClerk    !#d#\RA'\  ,   $   X        _TheConsumerAdvocateDivisionraisesmanynewargumentsinitspetitionforrehearing,includingitsassertionthatTenn.CodeAnn.655209(Supp.1997),asinterpretedbythisCourt,amountstoatakingofprivatepropertywithoutdueprocessoflawandthatthisCourthasusurpedthepowersoftheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthorityinviolationofTenn.Const.art.II,1&2.WewillnotattempttorundownthethreadsofeachoftheConsumerAdvocateDivisionsargumentsbecausetheDivisionhasnotitselffiledapetitionforrehearing.Instead,weinterpretitsresponsetobethatweshoulddenyBellSouthspetitionforrehearingbecauseourOctober1,1997opinionissimplywrong.  !#d#\RA'\  ,   $   X        _Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,App.No.01A019609CH00442,1997WL106978,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.12,1997),perm.app.denied(Tenn.Oct.6,1997).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`(O$Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva g6Times New Roman Regularhttp://www.del.com ! . \RA'\  ,    X   ,__ @ , INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE !_R9;8A1-j|[`  `@R_,BELLSOUTHTELECOMMUNICATIONS,INC. )d/b/aSOUTHCENTRALBELLTELEPHONE )COMPANY,       )        ) Petitioner/Appellant,    ) PublicService        ) CommissionVS.        ) No.9503383        )H.LYNNGREER,Chairman,SARAKYLE,  ) AppealNo.Director,andMELVINJ.MALONE,Director,  ) 01A019601BC00008ConstitutingtheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthority, )        ) Respondents/Appellees.    )BELLSOUTHTELECOMMUNICATIONS,INC., )        ) PublicService Petitioner,      ) Commission        ) No.9502614VS.        )        ) AppealNo.TENNESSEEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, ) 01A019602BC00066        ) Respondent.      )STATEOFTENNESSEE,onrelationsof  )BELLSOUTHTELECOMMUNICATIONS,INC., )        ) Petitioner/Appellant,    ) DavidsonChancery        ) No.952965IIVS.        )        )KEITH_BISSELL_,STEVEHEWLETT,and  ) AppealNo.SARAKYLE,intheircapacityasCommissioners ) 01A019601CH00016oftheTennesseePublicServiceCommission,  )        ) Respondents/Appellees.    )_@ APPEALFROM@ THETENNESSEEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION@ NASHVILLE,TENNESSEE @ ForBellSouthTelecommunications,Inc.:GuyM.Hicks,IIIBennettL.RossNashville,TennesseeJamesG.HarralsonAtlanta,GeorgiaForAT&TCommunicationsoftheSouthCentralStates,Inc.:ValSanfordJohnKnoxWalkupGullett,Sanford,Robinson&MartinNashville,TennesseeForTennesseePublicServiceComm.:CharlesW.BursonAttorneyGeneral&ReporterMichaelE.MooreSolicitorGeneralMichaelW.CatalanoAssociateSolicitorGeneralNashville,TennesseeForTennesseeConsumers:CharlesW.BursonAttorneyGeneral&ReporterMichaelE.MooreSolicitorGeneralL.VincentWilliamsConsumerAdvocateNashville,Tennessee@ ,PETITIONFORREHEARINGDENIED,        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE7Dt&DdXXd7@ , OPINIONONPETITIONFORREHEARING , BellSouthTelecommunications,Inc.hasfiledapetitionforrehearingthatrequeststhiscourttomodifyitsOctober1,1997opiniontoincludeaholdingthatBellSouthspriceregulationplanbecameeffectiveonMarch1,1996.Atourinvitation,theotherpartiestothisappealhavenowresponded.AT&TCommunicationsoftheSouthCentralStates,Inc.assertsthattheissuesraisedbyBellSoutharewithintheoriginal,primaryjurisdictionoftheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthority.TheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthorityassertsthatsettingMarch1,1996astheeffectivedateofBellSouthspriceregulationplanisimproperbecauseBellSouthhasnotbeenoperatingunderapriceregulationplanasaresultofourApril3,1996stayorder.TheConsumerAdvocateDivisionlaunchesanunfocusedfusilladeofcomplaintsthatourOctober1,1997opinion overlooksor misapprehendspriorcaselaw,materialfacts,andtheargumentsintheConsumerAdvocatesearlierbriefs. <    OurOctober1,1997opinionfocusedontheprocedureemployedbytheTennesseePublicServiceCommissiontoconsiderandactonBellSouthsapplicationforapriceregulationplan.RatherthanfocusingonthesubstanceormeritsoftheCommissionsdecision,weheldthattheproceduretheCommissionfolloweddidnotcomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.655209.Accordingly,wevacatedtheCommissionsordersandremandedthecasetoitssuccessorforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththerequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.655209. WeagaindeclinetheinvitationtoreviewthewisdomoftheGeneralAssemblyschoiceofthetransitionprocedureinTenn.CodeAnn.655209overa fullblownratehearing.TheGeneralAssemblyhastheprerogative,withinconstitutionalboundaries,tofashionthisStatespublicpolicy.SeeCaryv.Cary,937S.W.2d777,781(Tenn.1996).Accordingly,thecourtsconsistentlydeclinetoinquireintolegislativemotivations,seeMemphisPublishingCo.v.CityofMemphis,871S.W.2d681,688(Tenn.1994),orintothewisdomofthelegislaturespolicychoices.See_Neece_Ԁv.CityofJohnsonCity,767S.W.2d638,639(Tenn.1989);Statev.SouthernFitness&Health,Inc.,743S.W.2d160,164(Tenn.1987);_Soukup_Ԁv.Sell,171Tenn.437,441,104S.W.2d830,831(1937). Thedoctrineofseparationofpowerscounselsthecourtstoavoidrequiringanadministrativeagencytotakeaparticularactionexceptinthemostextraordinarycircumstances.Weshoulddecline,forconstitutionalandpracticalreasons,toshoulderanagencysresponsibilities.Thus,thegoalofaremandincasesofthissortshouldgenerallybetorequiretheagencytocarryoutitstaskinamannerconsistentwithitsstatutoryauthority.SeeHoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,___S.W.2d___,___(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). =    Throughouttheseproceedings,BellSouthconsistentlyassertedthattheprocedurefollowedbytheCommissionwasnotauthorizedbyTenn.CodeAnn.655209andrequestedthecourtstorequiretheregulatorstomaketheirdecisionsinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.655209.OurOctober1,1997opinionsettlesthedisputeconcerningwhatTenn.CodeAnn.655209requires.NowitfallsupontheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthoritytoconsiderBellSouthsapplicationforapriceregulationplaninaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.655209. OrderingtheAuthoritytograntBellSouthsapplicationforapriceregulationplanandtodeclarethatthisplanhasbeenineffectsinceMarch1,1996wouldinvadetheAuthoritysjurisdictionandwouldalsobeinconsistentwithourApril3,1996stayorder.Asaresultofourstay,BellSouthhascontinuedtooperateundertheformerregulatorystatutesratherthanthenewstatutesenactedin1995.Accordingly,BellSouthhasnot,asamatteroffactandlaw,beenoperatingunderapriceregulationplansinceMarch1,1996.Itwouldbeerrorforustoholdatthisjuncturethatithas. BellSouthspetitionforrehearingisrespectfullydeniedandthecaseisremandedtotheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthority.ThecostsincidenttothispetitionaretaxedagainstBellSouthTelecommunications,Inc.anditssuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.4Jo?8   5  6<-?8P-nate   7th-        __________________________        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE_________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE