The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joan B. Gottschall
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Illinois Bell Telephone Company ("SBC")*fn1 has brought suit challenging determinations made by the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") that require SBC to provide its competitors with access to certain portions of SBC's network. SBC claims that the ICC's regulations are preempted by federal law. The parties agree that there are no disputed factual issues and have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the parties' motions are granted in part and denied in part.
The central question at issue in this litigation is whether the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act," "the 1996 Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., preempts certain provisions of the Illinois Public Utilities Act ("IPUA," "the Illinois Act"), 220 ILCS § 5/1-101, et seq. Answering this question requires an understanding of the two statutes, as well as the implementing regulations issued by the FCC and the ICC. This task is complicated, however, by several factors, foremost among which is the 1996 Act itself. As the Supreme Court has noted, it "would be gross understatement to say that the 1996 Act is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction." AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 397 (1999). Nor have the FCC's attempts to interpret the 1996 Act always helped to clarify matters. Indeed, the FCC's regulations have been reversed and remanded on several occasions, both by the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit. Meanwhile, the ICC has attempted to interpret the IPUA based on the FCC's varied reinterpretations of the 1996 Act's requirements. Because the parties' arguments presuppose familiarity with this thicket of statutes, cases, and regulations, the court provides the following background.
A. Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
Until the 1990s, local phone service generally was regarded as a natural monopoly. See, e.g., Iowa Utilities, 525 at 371. Under this early regime, states typically granted an exclusive franchise in each local service area to a local exchange carrier (LEC). These LECs owned the network facilities, which included the local loops (wires connecting telephones to switches), the switches (equipment directing calls to their destinations), and the transport trunks (wires carrying calls between switches) that constituted a local exchange network. The rates charged by such companies typically were regulated by each state's public utility commission (PUC).
Technological advances, however, have opened up the possibility of competition among providers of local telephone service. In an effort to promote such competition, Congress passed the 1996 Act. A central feature of the Act is its so-called "unbundling" obligations, which require incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") to provide new market entrants ("competing local exchange carriers" or "CLECs") with access to certain portions of the ILECs' networks at a fair price. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "Congress recognized that without allowing new entrants to use the incumbents' local exchange networks and other technology and services, the incumbents would maintain a stranglehold on local telephone service: no new entrant could realistically afford to build from the ground up the massive communications grid the incumbents had developed through years of monopolistic advantage." Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. McCarty, 362 F.3d 378, 382 (7th Cir. 2004).
1. Section 251 of the 1996 Act
Incumbents' general unbundling obligations are set forth in Section 251 of the 1996 Act. Section 251(d) charges the FCC with determining which network elements should be unbundled. In making these determinations, Congress instructed the FCC to "consider, at a minimum, whether -- (A) access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary; and (B) the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer." 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(2). The latter requirement is often referred to as the "impairment requirement."
The FCC has made several efforts to specify incumbents' unbundling obligations. The Commission issued its first unbundling order in August 1996. In re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) ("First Local Competition Order"). There, the FCC interpreted the "impairment" standard "as requiring the Commission and the states . . . to consider whether the failure of an incumbent to provide access to a network element would decrease the quality, or increase the financial or administrative cost of the service a requesting carrier seeks to offer, compared with providing that service over other unbundled elements in the incumbent LEC's network." Id. ¶ 285. In addition, the FCC decided that any increase in cost or decrease in quality, regardless of degree, constituted impairment. In AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999), however, the Supreme Court held that the FCC had interpreted the impairment requirement too broadly. Specifically, the Court found that the Commission had failed to take into account whether CLECs could provide the network elements themselves, or acquire the requested element from a third party. Indeed, the Court stated that under the FCC's standard it was "hard to imagine when the incumbent's failure to give access to the element would not constitute an 'impairment.'" Id. at 389.
On remand from Iowa Utilities, the Commission offered a new interpretation of the impairment requirement. Specifically, the FCC held that a market entrant would be impaired if, "taking into consideration the availability of alternative elements outside the incumbent's network, including self-provisioning by a requesting carrier or acquiring an alternative from a third-party supplier, lack of access to that element materially diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to provide the services it seeks to offer." Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999). Once again, however, the FCC's interpretation was deemed inadequate. Specifically, in United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ("USTA I"), the D.C. Circuit found the FCC's revised definition unreasonable because, among other reasons, the Commission had failed to "differentiate between those cost disparities that a new entrant in any market would be likely to face and those that arise from market characteristics linked (in some degree) to natural monopoly . . . that would make genuinely competitive provision of an element's function wasteful." Id. at562-63 (internal quotation marks omitted).
On remand from USTA I, the Commission made yet another attempt to interpret the impairment requirement. See In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 F.C.C.R. 16978 (2003) ( "Triennial Review Order," "TRO"). The FCC now determined that a CLEC would be "impaired when lack of access to an incumbent LEC network element posed a barrier or barriers to entry, including operational and economic barriers, that are likely to make entry into a market uneconomic." Id. ¶ 84. The FCC also made blanket determinations that CLECs were impaired without access to certain network elements, at the same time delegating to state commisions the authority to perform more "nuanced" and "granular" impairment determinations.
The D.C. Circuit once again rejected many of the FCC's findings. United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ("USTA II"). In particular, USTA II held that the FCC's new impairment standard was overly vague. The court also found that the FCC could not delegate to state commissions the responsibility for making more detailed findings in response to the FCC's blanket determinations of impairment.
On February 4, 2005, the FCC issued its response to USTA II. See In the Matter of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Order on Remand, 20 F.C.C.R. 2533 (2005) ("TRO Remand Order," "TRRO"). In relevant part, the TRRO stated that ILECs no longer have an obligation to provide CLECs with unbundled access to certain network elements. TRO Remand Order ¶ 199. The FCC found that removal of the unbundling requirement was justified because newer, more efficient switching technologies were now widely available and continued dependence on the ILECs infrastructure negatively affected incentives to invest in new technologies. Id. The TRRO's holdings recently were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Covad Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
B. The Illinois Communications Commission
Prior to the passage of the 1996 Act, Illinois, like a number of other states, had already taken steps of its own to promote local telephone competition. Originally, SBC had been regulated by the state using a traditional "rate of return" framework, which capped the rates SBC could charge at an amount necessary to recoup costs and provide a "reasonable" rate of return on SBC's equity. SBC later petitioned for an alternative form of regulation with fewer earnings restrictions to enable it to respond to the advent of new local competition. In exchange for this alternative regulation, SBC agreed to make portions of its network available to its new competitors. Section 13-801 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act contains the requirements to which ILECs that have opted for alternative regulation status are subject. On June 11, 2002, the ICC issued an order further specifying SBC's obligations under Section 13-801. See Ill. Bell. Filing to Implement the Public Utils. Act, Doc. No. 01-0614, 2002 Ill. PUC LEXIS 564 (Ill. Comm. Comm'n June 11, 2002). Importantly, for the purposes of this litigation, the Illinois Act, unlike the 1996 Act, embodies no impairment requirement. Illinois' unbundling requirements therefore differ from the unbundling requirements announced by the FCC.
C. Procedural History of the Present Dispute
After Section 13-801 of the IPUA took effect in June 2001, the ICC initiated proceedings to implement the law. In June 2002, the ICC issued its final order. In August 2002, SBC filed suit challenging Section 13-801 and the June 2002 Order. The gravamen of the complaint was that Illinois law and the ICC's regulations were preempted by the 1996 Act and the FCC's regulations. After SBC filed suit, a number of competing local exchange carriers ("the Competing Carriers") were granted leave to intervene.*fn2
At the time the litigation was first initiated, the FCC was preparing to issue its Triennial Review Order. SBC therefore filed a motion, which the court later granted, to suspend briefing in the case until the TRO had been issued. When the TRO was finally issued, the ICC asked the court to remand the case so that the ICC could reconsider its interpretation of Section 13-801 in light of the TRO's new unbundling rules. The court granted the remand in May 2004.
The ICC subsequently issued two decisions: the Phase I Remand Order, issued in April 2005, and the Phase II Remand Order, issued in November 2005. The Phase I Order addressed the ramifications of the FCC's TRO, while the Phase II Order addressed the implications of the TRRO. Generally speaking, the orders did not substantially change the state law requirements. Indeed, the ICC took great pains to emphasize that its powers were limited, and that it was unable to reinterpret Illinois law so as to avoid a conflict with federal law.
As a creature of statute, the Commission has no general powers except those expressly conferred by the legislature. Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court has long instructed that an administrative agency can neither limit nor extend the scope of its enabling legislation. . . . The Commission must follow and implement the statute's plain language irrespective of its opinion regarding the desirability of the results surrounding the operation of the statute. . . . There are areas where the plain language of the statute conflicts with recent pronouncements of the TRO and USTA II. In those instances, we have no ability to substitute language consistent with federal law to avoid a conflict.
In February 2005, SBC filed suit once again in this court and moved for a preliminary injunction. While noting that SBC had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, the court concluded that the threat of irreparable injury was greater to the Competing Carriers than to SBC, and that the public interest favored maintenance of the status quo and militated against entry of a preliminary injunction. See llinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Hurley, No. 05 C 1149, 2005 WL 735968 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2005). Thereafter, the parties filed the cross-motions for summary judgment presently before the court.
SBC's current complaint challenges several requirements under Illinois law. These are as follows:
* The ICC's determination that, under Illinois law, SBC must unbundle certain network elements, viz.: (1) local circuit switching; (2) switching related elements; (3) Ocn-level loops and dedicated transport; (4) dark fiber loops; (5) entrance facilities; (6) feeder subloops; (7) DS1 and DS3 loops and dedicated transport; and (8) dark fiber transport.
* Illinois' so-called combination requirements (i.e., requirements that SBC allow competing carriers to locate and install their own equipment on SBC's premises).
* Illinois' "collocation requirements." Collocation refers to a competing carrier locating and installing its own equipment on an ILEC's premises.
* Illinois' requirements with respect to "splitters" (i.e., devices that separate the high- and low-frequency portions of a copper loop, allowing for the simultaneous transfer of high-speed DSL data transmission and single line telephone service).
* The ICC's ruling regarding "terminating switching" (i.e., a competitor's use of an SBC switch to complete delivery of a call from that carrier's customer to an SBC customer). SBC argues that each of these Illinois requirements conflicts with, and therefore is preempted by, the 1996 Act and the accompanying FCC regulations. ...