ÿWPC” ÃrM7àˆÁ”4B÷†«´ ©Ç±ÛüdÅ&rà·ÛCx¯è‰²>‘ü抄Zc,±‰£À,¢Ä76$à̺sË®à!‚Ô”E¨QDQîÀ 2ib®XäàŒ¥´¬*ü)|$„K¨å€·;)6_zšWhôÊÔ€4+Íç È»}ï±¶“2 侌ŒU;&õž‡~~E Y î¸íúY©— )ŒÓã¶w•מø˜é×ýú³•1«boêä5UfO£¬/`ûþÒ_²Ï}«ŸšÎ9¥aÉOñÐ8.‰1åê¸ Ð[NÂ~ò;—gÝ…øÈh‚éÛ¶‡Ý¤¦¼VÎdÒÖMf~^bm3L¸É„5š‰V¡ïüYN'šQD¸Tc!¦ÚWþ•Uï½´kkhˆõÙÇÏ ¬“· ;.ZP‹­òÏ]޶,Þ8L±ÇpjîUƒpÛ¢#xZ½ÌXì'9”–õ6RàŸ2àcFÍ…0'Xâ­1`OŠW[As»eß+“ª÷ *ÑÊF—Ÿ½¤g½:|¾|Ч*åÕ]pÕhÆ Ê~ëŒYàéxžÈnKÇwyÄâ¢C{…&£4—˱èï xgu…ÝDIß°Kn6?ÃhÞŸ¹X¤bƒ’wú^å­pøÎ'æÎ3õÔœE8>b#Á\ % U N# 0ˆq U+Nù UNG 0D• zÙ ÒS î% ( Ü;^ Æ#ÆéƯÆuw;N?4AUEdf mhb‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ 0ë Bzz 0¤— D5; D-p 0K ASèÆ; 0¤ 0D¥ A«é˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt äÝ ƒR Ñ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€The€methodology€used€to€compute€the€increase€had€been€previously€accepted€by€the€TRA. Ý ƒR Ñ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€find€no€merit€in€the€Appellantððs€arguments€that€the€TRA€decision€is€invalid€in€any€respect.€€The€AppellantÐ ° Ðclaims€that€the€TRA€failed€to€specify€its€findings€of€facts€and€conclusion.€€However,€we€are€at€a€loss€to€decipher€whatÐ tÄ Ðexactly€is€missing.€€To€the€extent€the€Appellant€argues€the€TRA€exceeded€its€authority,€we€summarily€reject€thatÐ 8ˆ Ðargument. ÒÝ ƒR Ñ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€parties€have€referred€to€this€argument€as€the€ð ðuse€it€or€lose€itðð€theory.’žL)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ;)lXŸ\Až3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2 Ñ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà¥ò»»Ô d(|3ˆ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼]…»»»ÔÑ8€yXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îP4]…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼]…»îîP4 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJUNE€15,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XyX»¼]…ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]…»XXyò#ÔCONSUMER€ADVOCATE€DIVISION,€on€behalf€of€Tennessee€consumersòòóó€v.Ð úJ ÐTENNESSEE€REGULATORY€AUTHORITY€and€UNITED€TELEPHONE„Ð  ^ ÐSOUTHEASTòòóó,€INC.Ô‡XyX»¼]…Ôó óÐ " r ÐÌò òRule€12€ó óà@@½½ìàò òPetition€for€Review€from€the€Tennessee€Regulatory€AuthorityÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„00626;€The€Honorable€Sara€Kyle,€Director€€€€€€€Ð ^  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01699„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R12„CV€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XyXXXyÔThis€appeal€involves€price€regulation€of€telecommunication€companies€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„Ð  ð Ð209.Ô#†XyXXXyd#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔ€€Ô#†XyXXXy!#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔIn€September,€1998,€United€Telephone€Southeast€filed€its€1998€Annual€Price€Regulation€filingÐ ŒÜ Ðwith€the€Tennessee€Regulatory€Authority.€The€filing€proposed€an€increase€in€rates€for€non„basicÐ xÈ Ðservices.€€In€determining€the€amount€of€the€increase,€UTSE€combined€the€calculations€of€annualÐ d´ Ðmaximum€increases€based€on€the€rates€of€inflation€for€the€three€preceding€years€and€applied€thisÐ P  Ðcumulative€figure€to€UTSEððs€rates€in€effect€in€June€1995.€The€TRA€approved€the€price€regulationÐ <Œ Ðplan.€The€Consumer€Advocate€Division€appeals€that€approval€under€Rule€12€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ (x Ðof€Appellate€Procedure.Ô#†XyXXXye#ÔÔ#†¼]…»XXyð#ÔÔ‡XyX»¼]…ÔÐ d ÐÓXÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€12;€Petition€for€Review;€Judgment€of€the€Tennessee€Regulatory€AuthorityÐ ì< ÐAffirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]…»àXy™ #ÔÔ‡XyX.¼]…ÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,€óóÐ ° Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œ ì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€L.€VincentÐ t"Ä! ÐWilliams,€Deputy€Attorney€General,€for€AppellantÐ `#°" ÐÌJ.€Richard€Collier,€Jonathan€N.€Wike,€for€Appellee,€Tennessee€Regulatory€AuthorityÐ 8%ˆ $ ÐR.€Dale€Grimes,€T.€G.€Pappas,€James€B.€Wright,€for€Appellee,€United€Telephone„Southeast,€Inc.Ð $&t!% ÐGuy€M.€Hicks,€Patrick€W.€Turner,€for€Appellee,€Bellsouth€Telecommunications,€Inc.Ð '`"& ÐÓr ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]…»XXy¡ #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼]…ÔÐ è(8$( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼]…»XXyµ #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼]…ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XyXXXyÔThe€Consumer€Advocate€Division€appeals€from€the€Tennessee€Regulatory€Authorityððs€€approval€ofÐ À*&* ÐUnited€Telephone„Southeastððs€price€regulation€plan.€€Ð ¬+ü&+ ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€Facts€and€Procedural€HistoryòòÐ „-Ô(-ý Їó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€Consumer€Advocate€Division€of€the€Office€of€the€Attorney€General€(hereinafter€referredÐ ° Ðto€as€ð ðAppellantðð)€represents€the€interests€of€Tennessee€consumers€of€public€utility€service€pursuantÐ œì Ðto€T.C.A.€ðððð€65„4„118(c)(2)(A)€and€65„5„210(b).€€The€General€Assembly€created€the€TennesseeÐ ˆØ ÐRegulatory€Authority€(ð ðTRAðð)€and€vested€within€it€"general€supervisory€and€regulatory€power,Ð tÄ Ðjurisdiction€and€control€over€all€public€utilities."€T.C.A.€ðððð€65-1-201€and€65-4-104.€€UnitedÐ `° ÐTelephone„Southeast€(ð ðUTSEðð)€is€a€public€utility€providing€telecommunications€service€in€the€StateÐ L œ Ðof€Tennessee.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€1995,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€enacted€chapter€408€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1995,Ð  ` Ðwhich€significantly€altered€the€manner€in€which€Tennessee€regulated€public€utilities.€€See€T.C.A.€ðð€Ð ü L  Ð65„5„201€òòet€seq.óó€€òòóóòòóó€€Under€the€previous€regulatory€scheme,€if€a€local€exchange€carrier€such€as€UTSEÐ è 8  Ðwanted€to€increase€either€its€rates€or€its€rate€of€return,€that€carrier€was€required€to€file€its€proposedÐ Ô$  Ðrate€increase€with€the€Tennessee€Public€Service€Commission.€€See€T.C.A.€ðð65„5„203€(1993).€€òòóó€€TheÐ À  ÐCommission€had€the€power€to€suspend€the€rate€change,€conduct€an€investigation,€and€hold€a€hearingÐ ¬ü  Ðon€the€question€of€whether€the€increase€was€ð ðjust€and€reasonable.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Under€the€new€law,€theÐ ˜è  ÐGeneral€Assembly€permitted€incumbent€local€exchange€carriers€to€adopt€a€ð ðprice€regulation€planððÐ „Ô  Ðin€lieu€of€the€then€existing€method€of€setting€and€changing€rates.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€purpose€of€the€1995€act€was€to€ease€the€traditional€regulatory€constraints€on€localÐ H˜ Ðtelephone€companies€and€to€permit€greater€competition€for€local€telecommunications€services.€Ð 4„ ÐòòBellSouth€Telecommunications,€Inc.€v.€Greeróó,€972€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€AÐ  p Ðstatement€of€this€purpose€is€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€65„4„123.€€Under€the€price€regulation€provisions€ofÐ  \ ÐChapter€408,€ð ð[r]ates€for€telecommunications€services€are€just€and€reasonable€when€they€areÐ øH Ðdetermined€to€be€affordable€as€set€forth€in€this€section,ðð€and€it€is€left€to€the€TRA€to€ð ðensure€that€ratesÐ ä4 Ðfor€all€basic€local€exchange€telephone€services€and€non„basic€services€are€affordable€on€the€effectiveÐ Ð  Ðdate€of€price€regulation€for€each€incumbent€local€exchange€company.ðð€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209(a).€OnceÐ ¼  Ða€company€enters€price€regulation€under€the€statutory€scheme,€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209(e)„(g)€govern€theÐ ¨ø Ðamount€by€which€the€company€is€permitted€to€change€its€rates.€€The€change€is€determined€byÐ ”ä Ðreference€to€a€formula€incorporating€the€national€inflation€rate.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àUTSE€elected€to€become€a€price€regulated€company€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209€on€JuneÐ X ¨ Ð16,€1995.€€UTSE€submitted€a€price€regulation€plan,€which€the€TRA€approved,€on€September€20,Ð D!” Ð1995.€€Subsequent€to€the€TRAððs€approval,€any€increase€in€UTSEððs€rates€would€have€to€follow€theÐ 0"€  Ðprovisions€of€ðð€65„5„209(e),€which€states:€€€Ð #l! ЀÌà8  àà ` àA€price€regulation€plan€shall€maintain€affordable€basic€and€non-basic€rates€byÐ ô$D # Ðpermitting€a€maximum€annual€adjustment€that€is€capped€at€the€lesser€of€one€half€(ðð)Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€percentage€change€in€inflation€for€the€United€States€using€the€gross€domesticÐ Ì&"% Ðproduct-price€index€(GDP-PI)€from€the€preceding€year€as€the€measure€of€inflation,Ð ¸'#& Ðor€the€GDP-PI€from€the€preceding€year€minus€two€(2)€percentage€points.€€AnÐ ¤(ô#' Ðincumbent€local€exchange€telephone€company€may€adjust€its€rates€for€basic€localÐ )à$( Ðexchange€telephone€services€or€non-basic€services€only€so€long€as€its€aggregateÐ |*Ì%) Ðrevenues€for€basic€local€exchange€telephone€services€or€non-basic€services€generatedÐ h+¸&* Ðby€such€changes€do€not€exceed€the€aggregate€revenues€generated€by€the€maximumÐ ° Ðrates€permitted€by€the€price€regulation€plan.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌÌà  àOn€September€15,€1998,€UTSE€filed€its€1998€Annual€Price€regulation€filing€with€the€TRA.€Ð `° ÐUTSE€amended€this€filing€on€October€16,€1998.€òòóó€€UTSEððs€filing€proposed€an€increase€in€rates€forÐ L œ Ðnon„basic€services€that€utilized€a€cumulative€calculation€based€on€a€stipulated€methodology.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ToÐ 8 ˆ Ðcalculate€the€1998€rate€increase,€UTSE€combined€the€calculations€of€annual€maximum€increasesÐ $ t Ðbased€on€the€rates€of€inflation€for€the€three€preceding€years€and€applied€this€cumulative€figure€toÐ  ` ÐUTSEððs€rates€in€effect€in€June€1995.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€September€29,€1998,€the€Consumer€Advocate€Division€of€the€Office€of€the€AttorneyÐ Ô$  ÐGeneral€filed€a€ð ðComplaint€or€Petition€to€Intervene,ðð€bringing€a€contested€case€against€UTSE€withÐ À  Ðrespect€to€the€proposed€rate€adjustments.€€The€Appellant€contended€that€the€price€increase€requestedÐ ¬ü  Ðby€UTSE€exceeded€the€limits€imposed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209(e).€€The€Appellant€argued€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðmaximum€permissible€rate€increase€is€limited€by€the€amount€calculated€by€applying€the€statutoryÐ „Ô  Ðinflation„based€formula€only€to€the€prior€yearððs€inflation€rate,€and€that€UTSE€could€not€choose€toÐ pÀ Ðdefer€taking€one€yearððs€maximum€permissible€increase€to€a€subsequent€year.׃ T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€UTSE€argued€that€theÐ \¬ Ðstatute€permits€it€to€accumulate€unused€portions€of€maximum€rate€increases€that€it€would€have€beenÐ H˜ Ðpermitted€to€use€in€previous€years€and€instead€use€them€in€a€subsequent€year.€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€TRA€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€matter€on€May€13,€1999.€€On€October€13,€1999,Ð  \ Ðthe€TRA€issued€its€final€order.€€€The€TRA€found€that€methodology€employed€by€UTSE€in€arrivingÐ øH Ðat€its€1998€rate€increase€complied€with€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209(e).€€The€AppellantÐ ä4 Ðfiled€the€present€appeal€seeking€a€reversal€of€the€TRAððs€decision€on€the€basis€that€ðð€65„5„209(e)€Ð Ð  Ðrequires€a€prices€regulated€telephone€company€to€use€the€full€maximum€permissible€increase€in€theÐ ¼  Ðyear€it€arises€or€lose€the€opportunity€to€use€that€increase€in€a€subsequent€year.€€In€addition,€theÐ ¨ø ÐAppellant€claims€that€the€TRAððs€order€was€technically€deficient€under€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„314(c),€becauseÐ ”ä Ðit€did€not€set€forth€the€agencyððs€findings,€conclusions,€and€reasoning€in€sufficient€detail.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€Law€and€AnalysisÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óThe€parties€to€this€appeal€agree€that€our€review€of€the€TRAððs€decision€is€governed€byÐ 0"€  ÐT.C.A.ðð€4„5„322(h),€which€provides:ò òÐ #l! ÐÌó óà0  àà ` àThe€court€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€agency€or€remand€the€case€for€Ðô$D #(#(# Ðà  àfurther€proceedings.€€The€court€may€reverse€or€modify€the€decision€if€the€rights€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àof€the€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€the€administrative€findings,€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àinferences,€conclusions€or€decisions€are:Ð ¸'#& Їà  àà ` à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€or€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àclearly€unwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€€orÐ $ t ÐÌà  àà ` à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€the€Ð ü L  Ðà  àlight€of€the€entire€record.Ð è 8  ÐÓ  ÓSince€the€present€case€involves€an€issue€of€statutory€interpretation,€€a€question€of€law,€we€mustÐ Ô$  Ðreview€the€TRAððs€ruling€òòde€novoóó€to€determine€whether€its€decision€complies€with€the€terms€of€ðð€65„Ð À  Ð5„209(e).€€However,€under€both€state€and€federal€law,€the€construction€of€a€statute€by€the€agencyÐ ¬ü  Ðcharged€with€the€enforcement€or€administration€of€that€statute€is€afforded€great€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòChevronÐ ˜è  ÐU.S.A.€v.€Natural€Resources€Defense€Councilóó,€467€U.S.€837,€844,€104€S.Ct.€2778,€2782,€81€L.Ed.2dÐ „Ô  Ð694€(1984);€€òòNashville€Mobilphone€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Atkinsóó,€536€S.W.2d€335,€340€(Tenn.€1976).€€As€such,Ð pÀ Ðwe€recognize€the€€respect€due€the€TRAððs€decision.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€in€the€present€case,€simply€stated,€is€whether€ðð€65„5„209(e),€allows€a€company€suchÐ 4„ Ðas€UTSEÔ#†XyXXXy>#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔ€to€not€raise€rates€in€any€particular€year,€but€still€use€that€yearððs€inflation€rates€in€aÐ  p Ðsubsequent€rate€calculation.€€In€this€case,€UTSE€did€not€raise€rates€in€1996€or€1997,€but€thenÐ  \ Ðattempted€to€raise€its€rates€in€1998€using€the€inflation€figures€from€the€years€in€which€it€did€not€raiseÐ øH Ðrates.€€The€Appellant€argues€that€by€not€raising€its€rates€in€1996€or€1997,€UTSE€waived€its€right€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€increases€from€those€years.€€UTSE,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€subsection€(e)€does€notÐ Ð  Ðpreclude€its€right€to€a€cumulative€increase.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àA€statute€must€be€construed€so€as€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intent€and€purpose€of€theÐ ”ä Ðlegislation,€considering€the€statute€as€a€whole€and€giving€words€their€common€and€ordinary€meaning.€Ð €Ð ÐòòMarion€County€Bd.€of€Commissioners€v.€Marion€County€Election€Commissionóó,€594€S.W.2d€681Ð l¼ Ð(Tenn.€1980).€€€Ô#†XyXXXy«5#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔWhen€approaching€statutory€text,€courts€must€presume€that€the€legislature€says€in€aÐ X ¨ Ðstatute€what€it€means€and€means€in€a€statute€what€it€says€there.€€òòWorley€v.€Weigel's,€Inc.óó,€919€S.W.2dÐ D!” Ð589,€593€(Tenn.€1996).€€A€corollary€to€that€statement€is€that€the€absence€of€certain€words€in€a€statuteÐ 0"€  Ðmust€also€be€given€due€notice.€€Accordingly,€we€must€construe€statutes€as€they€are€written,€€òòJacksonÐ #l! Ðv.€Jacksonóó,€210€S.W.2d€332,€334€(1948),€and€our€search€for€the€meaning€of€statutory€language€mustÐ $X" Ðalways€begin€with€the€statute€itself.€€òòNeff€v.€Cherokee€Ins.€Co.óó,€704€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€1986).€Ð ô$D # ÐWhere€the€parties€legitimately€have€different€interpretations€of€the€same€statutory€language,€anÐ à%0!$ Ðambiguity€exists,€and€we€may€consider€the€legislative€history€and€the€entire€statutory€scheme€forÐ Ì&"% Ðinterpretive€guidance.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€952€S.W.2d€417,€419€(Tenn.€1997);€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòLyons€v.€Rasaróó,€872€S.W.2d€895,€897€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†XyXXXyø9#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔòòóóÌà  àThe€specific€language€of€Ô#†XyXXXyï>#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔððÔ#†XyXXXy]?#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔ€65„5„209(e)€does€not€provide€an€ð ðanswerðð€to€the€question€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhether€a€cumulative€rate€increase€is€allowed.€€Although€the€formula€provided€in€the€statute€uses€theÐ h+¸&* Ðnational€inflation€rate€from€the€ð ðpreceding€year,Ô#†XyXXXy£?#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔðð€there€is€no€indication€as€to€whether€a€company€suchÐ ° Ðas€UTSE€may€defer€one€yearððs€rate€increase€to€another€year.€€In€this€regard,€we€believe€that€bothÐ œì Ðparties€have€legitimate€interpretations€of€the€statutory€language.€€The€Appellant€believes€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðlanguage€contemplates€a€year„by„year€increase,€while€the€Appellees€believe€the€language€only€setsÐ tÄ Ðthe€formula€to€be€used€in€calculating€a€rate€increase€and€does€not€mandate€that€rates€be€increasedÐ `° Ðevery€year€if€they€are€to€be€increased€at€all.€Ð L œ ÐÌÔ#†XyXXXyê@#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔà  àT.C.A.€Ô#†XyXXXyœC#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔððÔ#†XyXXXyñC#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔ€65„5„209(e),€by€its€own€terms€applies€to€both€basic€and€non„basic€services.€Ð $ t ÐHowever,€subsection€(f)€of€that€statute€applies€to€rate€increases€for€basic€services.€€That€subsectionÐ  ` Ðstates€that€ð ðin€no€event€shall€the€rate€for€residential€basic€local€exchange€telephone€service€beÐ ü L  Ðincreased€in€any€one€(1)€year€by€more€than€the€percentage€change€in€inflation€for€the€United€StatesÐ è 8  Ðusing€the€gross€domestic€product-price€index€(GDP-PI)€from€the€preceding€year€as€the€measure€ofÐ Ô$  Ðinflation.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€65„5„209(f).€€This€section€clearly€provides€that€a€company€such€as€UTSE€couldÐ À  Ðnot,€as€they€are€attempting€to€do€in€the€present€case,€defer€the€maximum€allowable€increases€for€basicÐ ¬ü  Ðservices€from€previous€years€and€take€those€increases€in€one€year.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àEven€the€Appellant€concedes€that€these€sections€should€be€considered€together.€€However,Ð pÀ Ðthe€Appellant€argues€that€since€subsection€(f)€references€the€formula€provided€in€subsection€(e),€theÐ \¬ Ðlanguage€precluding€cumulative€rate€increases€found€in€subsection€(f)€is€equally€applicable€toÐ H˜ Ðsubsection€(e).€€We€do€not€believe€that€this€is€a€proper€reading€of€the€statute.€€The€fact€that€such€aÐ 4„ Ðlimitation€appears€in€subsection€(f),€while€not€appearing€in€subsection€(e),€implies€that€the€legislatureÐ  p Ðdid€not€intend€to€limit€the€increases€for€non„basic€services€(subsection€(e))€as€it€did€for€basic€servicesÐ  \ Ð(subsection€(f)).€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€we€find€support€for€this€position€in€subsection€(h)€of€the€statute,€whichÐ Ð  Ðprovides:€ð ð[i]ncumbent€local€exchange€telephone€companies€subject€to€price€regulation€may€set€ratesÐ ¼  Ðfor€non-basic€services€as€the€company€deems€appropriate,€subject€to€the€limitations€set€forth€inÐ ¨ø Ðsubsections€(e)€and€(g).ðð€€This€statement€implies€that€the€limitation€found€in€subsection€(f),€namelyÐ ”ä Ðthe€prohibition€against€cumulative€rate€changes,€does€not€apply€to€a€rate€change€for€non„basicÐ €Ð Ðservices.€€Subsection€(h)€clearly€states€that€the€only€limitations€on€a€rate€change€for€non„basicÐ l¼ Ðservices€are€found€in€subsections€(e)€and€(g).€€Since€neither€of€those€subsections€contain€an€expressÐ X ¨ Ðprohibition€against€cumulative€rate€changes€for€non„basic€services,€as€does€subsection€(f),€we€believeÐ D!” Ðthe€Legislative€intent€to€be€clear.€€In€short,€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€to€preclude€the€cumulativeÐ 0"€  Ðrate€change€contemplated€in€the€present€case.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWe€also€find€support€for€our€decision€in€the€purpose€behind€the€entire€statutory€scheme.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðstated€purpose€of€the€statutory€scheme€at€issue€in€this€case€has€been€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€65„4„123.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThat€purpose€is€to€Ô#†XyXXXy7D#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔease€the€traditional€regulatory€constraints€on€local€telephone€companies€and€toÐ Ì&"% Ðpermit€greater€competition€for€local€telecommunications€services.€€òòBellSouth€Telecommunications,Ð ¸'#& ÐInc.€v.€Greeróó,€972€S.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Clearly,€the€General€Assembly€intendedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€protect€the€consumersðð€interests€while€allowing€a€flexible€method€for€companies€such€as€UTSEÐ )à$( Ðto€change€its€rates.€€Ô#†XyXXXy¦P#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔNot€allowing€a€company€a€cumulative€rate€increase€will€encourage€that€companyÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€increase€its€rates€every€year.€€If€a€company€knows€that€it€will€not€be€able€to€take€a€particular€yearððsÐ h+¸&* Ðincrease€in€subsequent€years,€we€can€assume€that€it€will€take€the€increase€each€year€so€as€not€to€loseÐ ° Ðthe€increased€revenues.€€However,€by€allowing€a€cumulative€rate€increase,€a€company€will€not€be€soÐ œì Ðinclined€to€raise€their€rates€on€a€yearly€basis.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€short,€we€believe€the€TRAððs€approval€of€UTSEððs€rate€increase€is€supported€by€the€statutoryÐ `° Ðlanguage.€€The€TRA€has€experience€and€authority€in€this€area.€€We€find€its€decision€to€be€consistentÐ L œ Ðwith€a€logical€reading€of€the€statutory€scheme€Ô#†XyXXXyÊR#ÔÔ‡XyXXXyÔand€therefore€affirm€its€decision.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ  ` ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àFor€the€aforementioned€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Tennessee€RegulatoryÐ è 8  ÐAuthority€which€approved€the€price€regulation€plan€submitted€by€United€Telephone„Southeast.€Ð Ô$  ÐCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Consumer€Advocate€Division,€for€which€executionÐ À  Ðmay€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#†XyXXXyVV#ÔÔ#†¼]…»XXy#ÔÔ€XyX»¼]…ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE