Mont. PSC told state Senate’s Energy & Telecom Committee its memb...

effective competition existed. PSC Comr. Matt Brainard testified Tues. that there was no reason for bill because present law allowed agency to phase in reduced regulation as competition increased, and PSC had been doing so for several years. He said measure would interfere with what PSC had been trying to accomplish in encouraging local competition while protecting consumer interests. But Qwest defended bill, saying it would leave substantial body of regulations to protect customer interests while freeing company to “compete in the marketplace in a timely fashion.” It would allow Qwest and other incumbent telcos to self-elect price cap regime that would put basic exchange service, switched access and certain basic ancillary services under nonindexed caps and cost-based price floors. All other services would be deregulated. There would be no prerequisites or mandatory obligations in return for caps. For deregulated services, PSC would lose authority to handle complaints, except in very limited circumstances. Most complaints would be shifted to state attorney gen. or state courts. For price-capped services, bill would allow cap changes only because of exogenous factors such as tax changes or new federal or state laws, but presumption would be that exogenous cap change proposed by a telco would be valid. PUC would have only 60 days to prove cap change wasn’t justified. For deregulated services, proposal would require companies to keep current price lists on file at PSC, but agency would lack any veto power over posted prices. Only grounds for complaints to PSC on deregulated services would be that company had charged rate or provided discount not included in price lists.