20190618Answer to Reconsideration.pdf

Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 388-l 200
Facsimile: (208) 388-l 300
prestoncarter@ eivenspursl ey. com
RECEIVED
?0l9JUtl lB pH 3:0[
,rLl?ffi%tu#fil8r,o*
Attorney for Respondent Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RAUL MENDEZ,Case No. INT-G-19-03
Complainant,INrrnuouNTAIN Gls CourpANY's
ANswnn ro Rc,uL MnNoBz's
PrcrrrroN Fon RTcoNSTDERATToNVS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY,
Respondent.
Intermountain Gas Company ("Intermountain Gas" or the "Company'') files this Answer
in response to the Motion for Reconsideration (or Petition for Reconsideration) filed by Raul
Mendez ("Petition").
INrnopucttoN
In January 2019, Mr. Mendezfl/,.ed a formal complaint ("Complaint") asserting, among
other things, that Intermountain Gas had wrongly applied a $14.00 Account Initiation Charge to
his account. Mr. Mendez also argued that the Company had manipulated his bills, violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that Staff had violated his due process rights.
Intermountain Gas and Commission Staff responded to the Complaint with evidence and
legal argument. The Commission considered the parties' legal argument, reviewed the evidence
before it, and issued an Order denying the Complaint. See Order No. 43336 (May 23,2019).
ORICINAL
INTERUoUNTAIN GAs CoMPANY,S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1470s755 t
Page I of5
Mr. Mendez now asserts that he was 'odenied the opportunity to conduct discovery during
the formal complaint proceedings and in the process his constitutional right to Due Process has
been violated." Petition at2. Mr. Mendez also argues that the Commission's Order was not based
on substantial evidence. Id. at 3 ("There was nothing during the formal complaint proceedings
that would suggest that the Commission final order was based upon substantial evidence.").
AncuunNr
1. Mr. Mendez did not request discovery, though he acknowledges that discovery was
available.
Mr. Mendez argues that he was "denied the opportunity to conduct discovery during the
formal complaint proceedings." Petition at2.Yet he also asserts that "all parties to a proceeding
have a right of discovery of all other parties per IDAPA 31.01 .01 .222." Petition at 1.
Mr. Mendez did not request discovery from the parties or from the Commission during
this proceeding. Nor did he assert that discovery was necessary to resolve his formal complaint.
Having never requested discovery, or asserted that discovery was necessary, Mr. Mendezwas
never denied a right to discovery. He never asserted one.
In addition, Mr. Mendez does not identi$r how discovery would have altered the
proceedings. Mr. Mendez argues that discovery would reveal billing statements, and the
application process for customers. Petition at3-4. But Mr. Mendez has access to his own billing
statements. Discovery on that issue is not necessary. While Mr. Mendez notes that the Company
provided a sunmary rather than billing statements, he does not identify any inaccuracies. Mr.
Mendez asserts or implies that there is some body of documents that would have altered the
outcome of the proceeding. However, the proceeding involved straightforward application of the
Company's tariffs and Commission's regulations. Discovery, while available, would not have
changed the outcome.
INTERM0UNTATN GAS CoMPRNy,S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
14705755 1
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Mendez also asserts that, in discovery, he would have obtained orders the
Commission cited in its Order. Petition at 4 ("The Commission makes mention of some previous
Orders, however, people have to guess what they are since none have been provided during these
proceedings and most certainly, there is no reference on where to find them."). However, Mr.
Mendez never requested the relevant Orders, which are public documents available upon request
and on the Commission's website.
In short, Mr. Mendez did not attempt to engage in discovery, or otherwise avail himself
to available means of gathering evidence, and he has not identified how discovery would have
changed the outcome. The Company respectfully submits that Mr. Mendez's due process rights
were fully respected in this proceeding. Reconsideration is not warranted.
2. The Commission's Order was based on substantial evidence.
Mr. Mendez argues that the Order was not based on substantial evidence. Petition at 4
("The records shows that the Commission made a Final Order on 512312019 that is not based
upon substantial facts and evidence, since no discovery has taken place that would resolve the
issues in question.").
Not so. The Commission's Order identified and discussed the evidence before it. It
identified and discussed the relevant rules in light of prior orders. The Order is, indeed, based on
the evidence in the record and on prior decisions. Mr. Mendez's argument does not support
reconsideration.
3. The Commission should deny reconsideration.
Mr. Mendezwas provided a full and fair opportunity to develop and present his case. The
Commission carefully considered the evidence before it, and the relevant rules, orders, and
policy considerations. Intermountain Gas respectfully submits that the Commission should deny
Mr. Mendez's Petition.
INrsRvouNterN Gns CoMpANy's ANSWER To PETITIoN FoR RECoNSTDERATToN Page 3 of 5
14705755 |
Dated: June 18,2019
Respectfully submitted,
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley, LLP
Attorney for Intermountain Gas Company
INTERMoUNTAIN GAS CoupRNY,s ANSWER To PETITIoN FoR RECoNSIDERATIoN
14705755 1
Page 4 of5
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I certify that on June 18,2079,I caused to be served a true and correct copy of
INrrRuouNTArN GAS Cotrrp.q.Nv's ANSwER To RAUL MTNoEZ's PprntoN FoR RECoNSTDERATToN
upon the following individuals in the manner indicated below:
Hand Deliverv: (original & 7 copies)
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W . Washington Street
Boise, lD 83702
Mail Delivery:
Raul Mendez
Complainant
2712N. Goldeneye Way
Meridian, ID 83646
-Preston N. Carter
-
INTgnvOuNTAIN GAS CoMPANY,S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIoN
14705755 1
Page 5 of5