dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
I have been struggling to reconcile this case with U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998), and I have been unable to do *385that. These two eases are peas out of the same pod.
In this case, the majority opinion quotes from the appellant, U S West Communications, Inc. (U S West), the following issues for review:
I.
Whether the Commission acted in excess of its statutory authority in setting additive prices for EAS [Extended Area Service].
II.
Whether the Commission has the authority to order U S West to remit revenues collected from its customers through an EAS additive charge to Silver Star in order to subsidize the operation and provision of EAS by Silver Star. .
III.
Whether .the Commission has the authority to impose a revenue neutral standard to pricing which requires U S West to subsidize the provisioning of EAS by Silver Star.
The Appellee, Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC), responds with this statement of issues:
I. Did the Wyoming Public Service Commission act outside the scope of its statutory authority in establishing additive prices for extended area of service?
II. Does the Wyoming Public Service Commission have the authority to establish a levelized extended area service additive price which results in the creation of an intercompany subsidization of a noncompetitive service?
III. Should the Wyoming Supreme Court remand the issue of pricing to the Wyoming Public Service Commission for further findings related to the extended area service additive price 1 which was established in this case?
The Intervenor, Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc. (Silver Star),- poses several new issues:
I. Does W.S. 8-1-107 preclude the Wy- . oming Telecommunications Act of 1995 from applying to this case?
II. Is U S West bound by the theories that it advanced before the Commission?
III. If the Telecommunications Act of 1995 applies to this case, does the Commission have authority to establish EAS under, its authority to regulate qualify of service and order an EAS additive and an inter-company settlement, in order to maintain revenue neutrality?
IV. Was the intercompany settlement arrangement’ ordered by the Commission a reasonable mechanism to avoid a revenue deficiency in Silver Star and a windfall to U S West?
V. Was the intercompany settlement arrangement a subsidy?
In U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, No. 96-264, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998), U S West Communications, Ine., set forth these issues in its brief:
I. Whether the Wyoming Public Service Commission (“PSC”) acted in excess of its statutory authority in setting additive prices for Extended Area Service (“EAS”).
II. Whether the PSC.has the-authority to.order U S.WEST Communications, Inc. (“U S WEST”) to remit revenues from the EAS additive .prices, collected by U.S. WEST from its customers, to Union Telephone Company, Inc. (“Union”) in order to subsidize Union’s operation and provision of EAS to its customers.
III. Whether the PSC has the authority to unilaterally change a customer petition for EAS service into a price regulation application by U S West as defined and governed by the provisions of W.S. § 37-15-203(b).
The PSC, as Appellee in that case, responded with this statement of issues:
I. Did, the Wyoming Public Service . . Commission act within the scope of *386its statutory authority in establishing additive prices for extended area of service?
II. Does the Public Service Commission have the authority to require U.S. West to remit revenues from the Extended Area Service additive prices collected by U.S. West to Union Telephone Company?
III. Does the Public Service Commission have the authority to consider the application by U.S. West for pricing of a noncompetitive service as an application for innovative and nontraditional price regulation pursuant to the 1995 Wyoming Telecommunications Act?
The issues as stated by the U S West Communications, Inc. and the PSC in the two cases are substantially identical.
In this case, the Mayor of Afton initiated the administrative proceeding by a letter accompanied by a petition signed by 729 U S West customers. In U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998), 132 residents of Rock River, customers of Union Telephone Company, Inc., petitioned the PSC to establish an extended area service between their exchange and the Laramie exchange, which was serviced by U S West. The petition in that case was filed late in 1994, although no hearing was held until after March 1, 1995. In this case, the petition was presented in July of 1994, with the first hearing held in December of that year. In both cases, the administrative order that was appealed, after finding that the EAS was a non-competitive service, established an additive price, the effect of which was that U S West was required to subsidize the cost of local service for the other exchange involved in the extended area service implemented by the Commission order.
In this case, the majority affirms the action of the PSC, holding that because the proceedings were initiated before the effective date of the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995, Wyo. Stat. §§ 37-15-101 through 501 (Supp.1995), the prior law is controlling, and the PSC had authority to enter the order that is appealed. In U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998), the Court holds no local exchange company had filed an application for price regulation pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 37-15-203(b), and the PSC was without authority to enter the order establishing the additive price. In this case, the majority justifies its decision by holding that pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 8-1-107 (1989), the “civil or criminal” proceedings were initiated prior to the effective date of the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995, and for that reason the action of the PSC was controlled by the law in effect at the date the proceedings were initiated. The authority to set the rate is found in Wyo. Stat. § 37-3-107 (1977) under prior law. This provision is unchanged by the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995, and presumably would justify the PSC order in U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, No. 96-264, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998), which we reverse.
While I do not agree with the PSC that it had authority to establish the additive prices at issue in these cases, I must credit the Commission with consistency. That is not true with respect to the two decisions of this Court. I have grave doubts as to whether administrative proceedings were encompassed in the intent of the legislature when Wyo. Stat. § 8-1-107 was adopted, since it antedated the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, Wyo. Stat. §§ 16-3-101 through 114 (1990 & Supp.1994), by more than fifty years, and in fact was adopted before the PSC was created. I would construe that statute to extend, as its terms connote, only to civil and criminal actions, proceedings and prosecutions, and would not apply it in administrative agency eases. I would hold that the legislature can revoke the authority of any administrative agency at any time, and' the PSC, at the time it entered the order, had no regulatory authority in this case. That is the effect of our holding in U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, No. 96-264, 958 P.2d 371 *387(Wyo.1998), and I am satisfied that is the correct result.
Either the order of the PSC should be reversed in this case, or the order of the PSC should be affirmed in U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, 958 P.2d 371 (Wyo.1998). The cases are substantially identical, and we cannot reverse in one instance and affirm in the other. I choose to reverse in both cases, and consequently, I dissent from the majority affirmance in this case.