The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two primary issues regarding the Consumer Advocate Division's petition to intervene with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) concerning a tariff filed by BellSouth Telecommunications. First, the court determined that the Consumer Advocate's petition did not qualify as a written complaint as required by statute. Second, it concluded that the TRA is not obligated to conduct a contested case hearing for every written complaint received. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had asserted that the TRA was mandated to hold a hearing based on the Advocate's filing. The background involved BellSouth's tariff introduction on June 3, 1996, followed by the Advocate's intervention petition lacking specific allegations of the tariff's unjustness. The TRA, succeeding the now-defunct Public Service Commission (PSC), had approved the tariff on June 28, 1996, leading to the Advocate's subsequent appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction but later allowed a rehearing, arguing that a hearing was required due to the written complaint. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated TRA's order approving the tariff, affirming that the Advocate's filing did not meet the requirements for a formal complaint.
The Court of Appeals reversed the PSC order and remanded the case to the TRA for a contested case hearing, a decision now reversed by this Court following an appeal by BellSouth and the TRA. The Court of Appeals held that under Tenn. Code Ann. 65-5-203(a), the TRA must hold a contested case hearing upon receiving a written complaint, interpreting the Advocate's petition to intervene as such a complaint. BellSouth and the TRA contest this interpretation, arguing that the petition does not meet the definition of a “written complaint” under TRA rules and that the TRA is not statutorily required to hold a hearing.
In addressing these issues, the Court emphasizes the importance of ascertaining legislative intent from the statute's language and applying reasonable construction without distorting its meaning. The TRA has broad supervisory and regulatory powers over public utilities, as established by the General Assembly, which favors a liberal interpretation of the TRA's authority. The legislature has indicated a clear intent to grant the TRA extensive powers to govern utilities effectively, including the authority to adopt procedural rules for enforcement of its statutes.
The TRA has established rules for filing petitions and complaints, emphasizing that such submissions must be in writing, signed, and include specific elements such as allegations, factual statements, legal citations, and a clear request for relief. A petition must detail the matters being complained about, including any challenged rates or regulations. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that an Advocate's petition constituted a valid complaint. However, the petition lacked specificity regarding the alleged justness of the rates in question, only indicating a need for a contested case due to potential consumer prejudice without detailing how consumers might be affected. The petition sought to intervene and requested the court conform to a stay from a related case, but it did not meet the TRA's specificity requirements. The rules, adopted under legislative authority, are critical for ensuring that public utilities understand the nature of complaints against them, as they bear the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness of rate changes. The Court of Appeals should have assessed the petition against TRA rules, leading to the conclusion that the Advocate’s submission did not qualify as a 'written complaint' under the relevant statute. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in its determination.
The petition to intervene in this case was determined not to be a written complaint. However, the potential statutory duty of the TRA to hold a contested case hearing upon the filing of a proper written complaint was considered for future reference. The statutory language indicates that the TRA has discretionary authority rather than a mandatory duty to convene such hearings, as it does not state that the TRA "shall hold a hearing" upon receiving a written complaint. The General Assembly has used mandatory language in other statutes regarding the TRA's duties, suggesting that the absence of such language in Tenn. Code Ann. 65-5-203(a) reflects an intentional choice.
The TRA has the power to investigate matters concerning public utilities, which implies it has discretion to decide on convening a contested case hearing after investigation. The General Assembly has asserted that any uncertainties regarding the TRA's powers should be resolved in favor of its authority, reinforcing the interpretation of discretionary powers.
As a result, it was concluded that the TRA does not have a mandatory duty to convene a contested hearing for every written complaint filed. The argument from the Advocate regarding the statute's last sentence was rejected; this sentence pertains to the TRA's duty once a hearing is convened, not to the obligation to initiate one. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse the TRA's order and remand for a contested case hearing was found to be in error. The order of the TRA approving the tariff was reinstated.
