WPC$7 [ J'^Ro;5o&N %G_{cHFJRrwOaB}"H͇F ޶ a-xQT1&s## %^  0UNMw4 z- mN'u;Nc 0DeE& 0U 0 0 0 0c! 0" 0" 0|# 0#$ 0$ 0% 0Z& 0 ' 0' 0a(b) 0 ) 0) 0:* 0* 0++ 0W, 0- 0- 0U. 0. 0/ 000U>00000000&0000000!1!1!1!1$71&[1 01111 Bl2l2 02 D3-3 D-`3 0K33 AS3+4 04 0D5 A555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666"6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$666666666 7HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 603  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=M3:i+00 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.wpt3|xU  BainGilliam P.J. CAPDiLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R$      1  A  _TheAuthoritysfinalorderdenyingthepetitionstosuspendthetariffandtoconveneacontestedcase  proceedingwasfiledonApril14,2003.TheeffectivedateofTenn.CodeAnn.655101(c)wasJuly1,2004.Act t ofApril7,2004,ch.545,2,2004Tenn.Pub.Acts.1335,1336.(#$  0    R$      2  A  _ThisresultcouldconceivablyhavebeendifferenthadthisproceedingtakenplaceafterJuly1,2004because  Tenn.CodeAnn.655101(c)(3)(C)(i)wouldhaverequiredthecomplainingpartytodemonstratea substantial t likelihoodofprevailingonthemeritsofitscomplaint.... *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  - -*,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   \  `&Times New Roman           (|G2$ !.8Hdd8         0  A d(|3G$ !.8Hdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Hdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK        8           !.8Hdd8     _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter  _TRX3'3'LetterT  H8XXdd8  COaEOa?cOa" PWnQL?c W ۋ U@ P0HINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#HP0:#Ԉ &   July9,2004Session L XXH #HXX#OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL,CONSUMERADVOCATE J ANDPROTECTIONDIVISIONv.TENNESSEEREGULATORY  ^ AUTHORITYXXH  " r @@ AppealfromtheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthority ^  @@No.0300060 J  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301363_COA_ԄR12CVFiledDecember21,_2005_   AV) ` dE<` A     #HX#XX.HWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand x PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. d "#HXXQ#=HH OPINIONONPETITIONFORREHEARING  N   =XX=H  OnNovember29,2005,thiscourtissuedanopinionfindingthattheTennesseeRegulatory t Authority(Authority)failedtofollowtherequirementsofthenexistinglawwhenitdeclinedto ` conveneacontestedcaseproceedingwithregardtoBellSouthTelecommunications,Inc.s L  WelcomingRewardProgramtariff.BoththeAuthorityandBellSouthhavefiledtimelypetitions 8 forrehearinginaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.39withregardtoportionsofthatopinion. $ t @) I.  !L  @! ScopeoftheRemand  "8!   TheAuthorityhasexpresseddoubtwithregardtothesignificanceofourremandinstructions $ # inlightofourconclusionthatthedisputeregardingthe WelcomingRewardProgramtariffismoot % $ becausetheprogramexpiredbeforetheappellaterecordwasfiledwiththiscourt.Notwithstanding &!% theexpirationoftheprogram,weremandedthecasetotheAuthority forfurtherproceedings '"& consistentwiththisopinion.Thisstandardinstructiondoesnotrequireanyparticularactionbythe p(#' Authoritywithregardtothe WelcomingRewardProgram.ItisintendedtoallowtheAuthority \)$( totakewhateveractionsitdeemsnecessarytoconcludethismatterconsistentwiththiscourts H*%) opinion.Dependingonthefactsoftheparticularcase,theseactionsmaybenothingmorethan 4+&* taxingcostsorcollectinganyapplicablefees.  ,p'+  .4*. U    @) II.   @   TheApplicationofTenn.CodeAnn.655101(c)(Supp.2005)     BoththeAuthorityandBellSouthassertthatweoverlookedTenn.CodeAnn.655101(c) t intheportionofouropiniondiscussingthestandardsfordeterminingwhetheritshouldconvenea ` contestedcaseproceedingtoreviewaproposedtariff.Thisstatutesuppliesspecificstandardsand L  givestheAuthoritybroaddiscretionwithregardtoconveningacontestedcaseproceeding. 8  However,thestatutewasnotineffectwhentheAuthorityconsideredthetariffatissueinthiscase. #  1      ׀ $ t OuropinionmeasuredtheAuthoritysactionsatissueinthiscaseagainstthelawineffectatthe  ` time.ProceedingsoccurringafterJuly1,2004will,ofcourse,bemeasuredagainstTenn.CodeAnn.  L  655101(c)totheextentitisapplicable.  8  @^^( III.   @ TheRightoftheCAPDandtheBellSouthCompetitorstoaHearing   @nn!InThisProceeding      Asafinalmatter,boththeAuthorityandBellSouthexpressconcernwithSectionIVofour p November29,2005opinioninwhichweconcludedthattheCAPDandBellSouthscompetitorshad \ notwaivedtheirrighttotakeissueonthisappealwiththedenialoftheirpetitionsforacontested H casehearing.Theyassertthatinsteadofmakingawaiverargument,theywerearguingthatthe 4 CAPDandBellSouthscompetitorssimplyfailedtopresentsufficientevidencetotheAuthorityto  p warrantconveningacontestedcaseproceeding.  \   WeadheretoourconclusionthattheCAPDandBellSouthscompetitorsdidnotwaivetheir 4 righttoinsistonappealthattheAuthorityshouldhavegrantedthemacontestedcasehearing.We   likewiseadheretoourconclusions(1)thatboththeCAPDandBellSouthscompetitorspresented   particularizedallegationsallegingtheillegalityoftheproposedtariff,(2)thattheydemonstrated  specificallyhowtheywouldbeinjuredbytheproposedtariff,and(3)thatthesemattershadnotbeen  addressedbytheAuthorityinearlierproceedings.Asthelawstoodatthetime,theseshowings  shouldhavebeensufficienttotriggeracontestedcasehearing.AsDirectorJonespointedoutinhis l April25,2003dissenttotheorderdenyingthepetitionsforsuspensionofthetariffandfora X  contestedcasehearing: D! 8  8`    Therecordhereshowsthatasaresultoftheaggrievedentities #l! inthisdocketexpressingconcernsthataffectedtheirinterests,the $X" majorityorderedthePetitionertomakeamendmentstoitsoriginal $D # filing.Themajoritysveryactionsoforderingamendments %0!$ consistentwiththepleadingsoftheaggrievedentitiesrenderedthis &"% proceedingadefactocontestedcaseproceeding.Here,substance '#& overformiscrucial.Nevertheless,themajoritydisregardedthe (#' COa C C  administrativeconsequencesofitsactionsinfavoroferectinga  standardfortheconveningofacontestedcasethatapparentlyrequires  anentitytoprosecuteitsentirecaseonthefrontendinordertosecure  thejudicialrightscontemplatedinTennesseesUniform t AdministrativeProceduresAct.`` x` x ThefilingsoftheCAPDandBellSouthscompetitors,coupledwiththeirpresentationsand 8  argumentsduringtheproceedingsbeforetheAuthority,providedamplebasisforconveninga $ t contestedcaseproceeding. #  2        ` @dd) IV.   8  @*  ThepetitionsforrehearingfiledbytheAuthorityandBellSoutharedenied.Wetaxthecosts   relatedtothesepetitionsinequalproportionstotheTennesseeRegulatoryAuthorityandto   BellSouthTelecommunications,Inc.   #XXX=Xa#   `     h     _______________________________ H    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.