Dobson Telephone Company d/b/a McLoud Telephone Company v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's denial of Dobson Telephone Company's request for reimbursement from the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund. The court held that Dobson was entitled to recover increased costs incurred after the Oklahoma Department of Transportation required relocation of its telephone facilities, and that the Commission improperly imposed additional evidentiary and eligibility requirements. The Commission's order was vacated and the matter was remanded with instructions.

Holdings

1. An eligible local exchange telecommunications provider serving fewer than 75,000 access lines must recover from the OUSF the net increase in costs resulting from changes required by state or federal regulatory rules, orders, policies, or law. Dobson therefore was entitled to reimbursement for the increased costs caused by ODOT's relocation order.
2. The Commission could not discount Dobson's entire application merely because the confidential documents reviewed by the OUSF Administrator were not publicly filed in the Commission record, particularly where the Commission's rules and established practice contemplated on-site review of such materials.
3. Reimbursement under § 139.106(K) cannot be conditioned on proof that the provider's rates are reasonable and affordable or that the reimbursement is necessary to maintain those rates.
4. Section 139.106(K) does not require an applicant to allocate relocation-project costs between primary universal services and other services as a condition of recovering qualifying cost increases.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an eligible local exchange telecommunications provider is entitled under 17 O.S. Supp. 2016, § 139.106(K)(1)(b) to recover increased costs caused by a state agency order requiring relocation of telecommunications facilities.
2. Whether the Corporation Commission could deny the reimbursement because supporting confidential documents were not publicly filed in the Commission record.
3. Whether reimbursement under § 139.106(K) may be conditioned on proof that the provider's rates are reasonable and affordable, that the funding is necessary to maintain those rates, or that project costs be allocated between primary universal and other services.
4. Whether the Corporation Commission's wholesale denial of Dobson's application was supported by the law and substantial evidence.

Disposition

vacated