The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190723Mendez Notice of Appeal.pdfRaulMendez 2712 N. Goldeneye Way Meridian,ID 83646 PH (208) 860-s037 Rau lm e n de 220 02 @gmai l. com RAUL MENDEZ, Complainant/Appel lant, VS INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY, Respondent. BEFORE TIIE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION R[CEIVED tCl! JUL 23 P${ t: 23 ::1.:ri,ij i-,U:LIC J iiLITiiS CO}IMISSION CASE No. INT-G-19-03 NOTICE OF APPEAL To: The above named respondent, Intermountain Gas Company, and the Secretary of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Notice is hereby given that: Appellant/Complainant, Raul Mendez appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court from the Orders entered on May 23,2019 and July 3,2019. I. PARTIES l. Raul Mendez (Complainant) is an individual residing in Ada County. 2. Intermountain Gas Company (Respondent). II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The Idaho Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Orders from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Idaho Code 6l-627 III. APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 4. Issues on Appeal: a) The Idaho Public Utilities Commission performs both Legislative and Judicial functions. Formal complaints against utilities fall within their judicial scope per IDAPA 31.01.01.43. b) Discovery is authorized under the Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure during formal complaints per IDAPA 3 1.01.0 l .221 -240. c) The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is required to convene a prehearing conference for the purposes of scheduling discovery per IDAPA 31.01.01 .2ll-220. There is no evidence that a hearing ever took place to schedule discovery or any other matters as discussed under the commission rules. It appears that the only evidence of a hearing on this complaint was when the 'staff presented Mr. Mendez complaint to the commission. Mr. Mendez was discouraged to attend such hearing by the staff. d) The Idaho Supreme Court has established that procedural errors that result in violations of constitutional rights will result in commission orders being vacated. e) Order N0. 34371 states that the parties do not have to conduct discovery before the commission can decide a case. This is contrary to the rules and more importantly in direct contradiction to the commission role as seeker of truth in its judicial capacity. f) Order N0. 34371 states that the commission reached its decision based on substantial and competent evidence. This of course, without no hearing record and without discovery. The decision is the result of arbitrary decision making that denies people like Mr. Mendez adequate due process. g) Mr. Mendez has been a customer for the utility for 16 years and he did not stop being a customer when he voluntarily requested service being stopped on 51412018. Mr. Mendez restarted service for his existing account with the same account number with the same billing information on 9 I 1412018. h) The utility company and the commission assert that Mr. Mendez became an applicant for new services after l0 days of non-service. The l4 dollar initiation fee for a new account was deemed appropriate. i) The utility and the commission assert Mr. Mendez applied for services in9ll4l20l8 as a new customer with the same customer address, same account number and same billing information. Despite the fact they assert that he applied a second time in 9ll4l20l8 there is no evidence that any applications have been submitted for review; either real as required in 2003 or imaginary as alleged for 911412018. j) Mr. Mendez is a residential customer within the meaning of IDAPA 31.21.01 which defines customer as someone whose name appears on the utility's regular bill for residential service or who signed a written application for service or other document informing the customer that he or she was assuming an obligation for payment of service. There is no evidence of a second signed application, 'other document,'or an application process for 911412018. The 14 dollar initiation fee charged on a l6 year old existing account is an unlawful charge being assessed by utility on those customers who temporarily disconnect their service. Mr. Mendez submitted a signed application and paid the 14 dollar initiation fee on a new account in 2003. The utility and the commission assert that after 10 days of non-service the existing customer becomes an applicant for a new account with the same billing information and without a signed application as required by rule. In other words, every single time a customer decides to shut off service for longer than 10 days (for whatever reason) the utility will charge the l4 dollar initiation fee to an existing account without an application. k) The Idaho Supreme Court website has a link to some information regarding the IPUC and utilities that was attached as exhibit 6 of Mendez ll24l20l9 complaint. It asks if the utility can charge a deposit prior to turning on service? The answer is no unless the service is restarted after termination for nonpayment. Mr. Mendez was asked to pay 14 dollars on an existing account as a condition for restarting his voluntarily disconnected service; not because of nonpayment but rather because the utility asserts Mr. Mendez applied for services in9l20l8. l) The Idaho Supreme Court link also states that the IPUC is a state agency established to make sure the utilities in Idaho treat all of their customers fairly. It adopts rules that apply to residential customers of investor owned utilities such as: Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, Suez water, etc. IDAPA 3l.21.01.5 defines utility as any public utility providing gas, electric or water service subject by law to the Commissioner's jurisdiction. In other words, all of the aforementioned are subject to the same rules; yet the IPUC has asserted during both informal and formal proceedings that Suez water does not charge a fee to an existing customer after 10 days of non-service in the form of an initiation fee for a new account, or that existing Suez customers apply for services without a signed application. The practice is unreasonable, preferential and discriminatory to both Mr. Mendez and other utilities like Suez. The commission is violating IC 6l -3 I 5 by allowing Intermountain Gas to charge an unlawful fee to customer's that temporarily disconnect service and by allowing for manipulation of fees. M) Mr. Mendez has also raised legitimate concerns with Intermountain Gas manipulating fees. Fee manipulation is more difficult to detect on billing showing high fees and significant usage. However, Mr. Mendez does not use gas during summer months and despite that his billing has been inconsistent. No discovery has taken place that would help uncover unfair billing practices by utility. Despite the lack of discovery the utility has admitted on their 312912019 answer that they shift costs around of the customer's voluntarily disconnecting service to other customers; on top of charging unlawful initiation fees to those who temporarily disconnect service. There is nothing in the IPUC Rules authorizing Intermountain Gas to shift costs around to customers. Iv. TRANSCRIPT/RECORI) 5. Complainant requests that a copy of the entire record plus transcript be prepared and send to the Idaho Supreme Court. He will file a Motion for fee waiver along with this notice of appeal. 6. Service of this Notice of Appeal has been made on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Secretary 7 . Complainant appeals on all issues of Law and Fact. Dated: JuJv 22.201fl'--^' W^-. Raul Mendez 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifu that on July 22,2019I served a copy to: Edward Jewell PO Box 83720 Boise. ID 83720 Preston Carter 601 w.St. Boise.ID 83702 Raul Mendez Typed/printed name mail prestoncarter@ givenspursl ey. com secretary@puc. idaho. gov qA )tz^ Signature a By personal a L