20190703reconsideration_order_no_34371.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 3,2019
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF )CASE NO.INT-G-19-03
RAUL MENDEZ AGAINST )
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY )
)ORDER NO.34371
On January 25,2019,Raul Mendez filed a formal Complaint with the Commission
against Intermountain Gas Company ("IntermountainGas"or "Company")alleging the Company
wrongly applied a $14.00 Account Initiation Charge to his account,improperly manipulated his
bills,and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").Mr.Mendez also alleged
Commission Staff violated his right to Due Process through the informal complaint process
(collectively,the "Complaint").
On May 23,2019,the Commission issued an Order denying Mr.Mendez's Complaint
on all counts.Order No.34336.
On June l1,2019,Mr.Mendez filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
On June 18,2019,the Company filed an Answer to Mr.Mendez's Petition for
Reconsideration.
Now,having considered the record before it,the Commission denies Mr.Mendez's
Petition for Reconsideration.
THE COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr.Mendez's Complaint alleged the Company improperly manipulated his bills,
improperly applied an Account Initiation Charge,and violated the FDCPA.Mr.Mendez also
alleged Commission Staff violated his Due Process rights through the informal complaint process.
In his Petition for Reconsideration,Mr.Mendez alleges he was not allowed to conduct discovery,
and therefore his Due Process rights were violated and the Commission's Order was not based on
substantial evidence.'
THE ANSWER
Intermountain Gas filed an Answer to Mr.Mendez's Petition for Reconsideration.The
Company noted Mr.Mendez never submitted discovery requests in the case,and did not identify
1 Mr.Mendez styled his filing a "Motion for Reconsideration."Because Commission Rules exclusively refer to
"Petitions for Reconsideration,"we refer to Mr.Mendez's filing as a Petition for Reconsideration.
ORDER NO.34371 1
in his Petition for Reconsiderationhow discovery would have changed the outcome of the Order.
The Company also states the Commission's Order identified and discussed the evidence before it
and applied the relevant law.Therefore,the Company recommends the Commission deny Mr.
Mendez's Petition for Reconsideration.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§61-626(2).Reconsideration provides an opportunityfor any interested person to bring to the
Commission's attention any question previously determined,and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunityto rectify any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.Kootenai
Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,879,591 P.2d 122,126 (1979);see also Eagle Water
Company v.Idaho PUC,130 Idaho 314,317,940 P.2d 1133,1136 (1997).Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration,Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsiderationto "set forth
specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided
in the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in conformity with the law."IDAPA
31.01.01.331.01.Rule 331 further requires the petitioner provide a "statement of the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted."Id.A
petition must state whether reconsideration should be conducted by "evidentiary hearing,written
briefs,comments,or interrogatories."IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03.Grounds for reconsideration or
issues on reconsideration that are not supported by specific explanation may be dismissed.IDAPA
31.01.01.332.
Having reviewed the record,including the Complaint,the Answer of Intermountain
Gas,the Response of Commission Staff,the Reply of Mr.Mendez,the Petition for Reconsideration
of Mr.Mendez,and the Answer of Intermountain Gas to Mr.Mendez's Petition for
Reconsideration,the Commission denies Mr.Mendez's Petition for Reconsiderationbecause the
Petition for Reconsideration does not bring to light a mistake or omission for the Commission to
correct.
Mr.Mendez states he was "denied the opportunityto conduct discovery during the
formal complaint proceedings[.]"Petition for Reconsideration at 2.Yet Mr.Mendez does not
indicate who denied him the opportunity to conduct discovery or how he was denied the
opportunityto conduct discovery.Mr.Mendez acknowledges both he and the Company had the
rightto conduct discovery in this case.Id.at 1 (citing Commission Rules 221-240,and specifically
ORDER NO.34371 2
Rule 222).And we note Mr.Mendez attached the Commission's Rules of Procedure,including
discovery Rules 221-240,to his Reply.It thus appears that the only obstacle to Mr.Mendez's
ability to conduct discovery in this case was his conscious decision not to conduct discovery,or
his failure to realize the Commission's publicly available Rules clearly authorized him to conduct
discovery.Pro se litigants are held to the same standards and rules as those represented by an
attorney.See Michalk v.Michalk,148 Idaho 224,229,220 P.3d 580,585 (2009).We decline to
reconsider our decision because Mr.Mendez now wishes to exercise his discovery rights but fails
to explain how lack of discovery resulted in an erroneous or unlawful decision.
Mr.Mendez argues that because no discovery was conducted in this case,the
Commission's decision could not have been based on substantial evidence.Petition for
Reconsiderationat 4.This position is untenableand demonstrates confusion regarding the purpose
of discovery in relation to building the administrative record.The parties do not have to conduct
discovery before the Commission can decide a case.The Commission's Rules of Procedure state
that the Commission "bases its decisions and issues its orders on the hearing record (excluding
exhibits denied admission),the Commissioners'record and items officially noted.The hearing
record and the Commissioners'record are part of the Commission Secretary's official file."
IDAPA 31.01.01.281.Thus,the hearing record and the Commissioners'record are items in the
Commission Secretary's official file,but not all items in the Commission Secretary's official file
are part of the hearing record or the Commissioners'record,and therefore,not all items in the
Commission Secretary's file form the basis for a Commission decision.Discovery requests and
responses are items that are included in the Commission Secretary's official file,but are not
included in the hearing record,or the Commissioners'record.See IDAPA 31.01.01.282(stating
the Commission Secretary's official file includes discovery);IDAPA 31.01.01.283 (stating,
"Workpapers,requests for discovery,answers to discovery and other documents filed with the
Commission Secretary and served on the parties,whether or not discussed at hearing,are not part
of the hearing records unless introduced as exhibits at hearing.");IDAPA 31.01.01.284.01 (stating,
"The Commissioners'record in a proceeding automatically includes all pleadings,orders,notices,
briefs,proposed orders and position papers.The Commission may add documents officially
noticed to the Commissioners'record.").Unless incorporated in a document that is part of the
hearing record or the Commissioners'record,or officially noticed,facts learned in discovery are
not part of the record upon which the Commission bases its decisions.
ORDER NO.34371 3
Even though discovery was not conducted,the Commission's decision in this case is
supported by substantial and competent evidence.Substantial and competent evidence is "more
than a scintilla of proof,but less than a preponderance."Matter of Wilson,128 Idaho 161,164,
911 P.2d 754,757 (1996).It is "relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to
support a conclusion."Mancilla v.Greg,131 Idaho 685,687,963 P.2d 368,370 (1998).Here,
the Commission made its determination based on the parties'written filings,and the facts and
analyses contained therein.The Commission determined the Account Initiation Charge was
correctly applied after looking at the language in the Company's Tariff and the Commission's
Utility Customer Relations Rules ("UCRR"),and reviewing the arguments of the parties.See
Order No.34336 at 5-6.The Commission determined the Company did not manipulate charges
on Mr.Mendez's bill after reviewing the charges as submitted by Mr.Mendez,Staff,and the
Company in light of Commission-approved changes and fluctuations in consumption during the
period in question.See Id at 7.The Commission determinedthe Account Initiation Charge is not
a deposit after reviewing the definition of "deposit"in the UCRR and reviewing the arguments of
the parties.See Id at 7-8.The Commission determined Mr.Mendez did not make a cognizable
claim under the FDCPA after looking at the text of that Act and reviewing the arguments of the
parties.See Id at 8.The Commission determined Mr.Mendez's Due Process rights were not
violated after reviewing the facts alleged by Mr.Mendez and applying applicable legal principles
to the facts,as advocated by the parties.See Id In sum,each of the Commission's determinations
was based on substantial and competent evidence in the record,and we therefore decline to
reconsider Order No.34336.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr.Mendez's Petition for Reconsiderationis denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by this
Order may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idahopursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules.See Idaho Code §61-627.
ORDER NO.34371 4
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of July 2019.
PAUL KJELL N ,PRESIDENT
ÍŒÊTIbÏE RAPER,CO SIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\GAS\INT-G-19-03\lNTGl903order on reconsideration ej
ORDER NO.34371 5