upreme Court has also recognized that state regulatory schemes can confer antitrust immunity in much the same manner as federal regulatory schemes. The Supreme Court has identified two standards that must be satisfied before state action immunity can attach. "First, the challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy; second, the policy must be actively supervised by the State itself" (Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n V. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court noted in a later case: The [active supervision] requirement is designed to ensure that the state-action doctrine will shelter only the particular anticompetitive acts of private parties that, in the judgment of the State, actually further state regulatory policies. To accomplish this purpose, the active supervision requirement mandates that the State exercise ultimate control over the challenged anticompetitive conduct. The mere presence of some state involvement or monitoring does not suffice. (Patrick V. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 100-01 (1988)) Thus, the Supreme Court has held that for state action immunity to apply, the state must actively review the rate increases in question; mere authority to review those rates is not sufficient. 57 Although some courts have concluded that the state tariffing process is enough to immunize retail access, others have refused to confer state action immunity on the refusals of local telephone companies to open their networks to independent providers of long-distance services and CPE. 59 addition, the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the federal government jurisdiction over areas of local telephone service that had previously been the exclusive province of the states, further narrowing the potential scope of state action immunity.60 Moreover, as noted earlier, the emergence of competition in last-mile distribution has led state public utility commissions to begin deregulating 56 Essential Commc'ns, 610 F.2d