20060508Response to INT Answer.pdf

FRITZ X. HAEMMERLE
HAEMMERLE & HAEMMERLE
O. Box 1800
400 South Main Street, Suite 102
IIailey, Idaho 83333
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: fxh(g)haemlaw.com
ISB #3862
Attorneys for Petitioner
ORIGINAL
,--, ,'" , !
' U. \' I
" ; :
. ii
:~ ,;" ,
')" u"
BEFORE TIlE IDAIIO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CRAIG JOIlSON CONSTRUCTION
L.L.C.
Petitioner
vs.
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Respondent.
) Case No. INT -O6-
) RESPONSE TO ANSWER OF
INTERMOUNTIAN GAS
COl\1ES NOW, the Petitioner, Craig Johnson Construction, LLc., by and through its
attorney Fritz X. Haemmerle of Haemmerle & Haemmerle, P.LLc., and hereby responds to the
Respondent's Answer as follows:
Any paragraph or portion of a paragraph not specifically admitted is denied.
The Petitioner is without knowledge of the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
4 and, therefore, denies same. Based on information and belief, the Petitioner was advised by an
Intermountain Gas employee that the wrong meter was installed on the Project.
RESPONSE TO ANSWER OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS - 1
In answering paragraph 5, the Petitioner denies that the gas bill was "inaccurately
prepared.
In answering paragraph 6, the Petitioner denies that the bills were "inadvertently
charged.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 do not require a response.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
PETITIONER SIIOULD PREVIAL ON TIlE PLEADINGS.Even if the responses by
the Respondent were true, the Petitioner should prevail as a matter of law.Under IDAPA
31.21.01.204, the Respondent is allowed to submit corrected billing only "(w)henever the billing for
utility service was not accurately determined because a meter malfunctioned or failed, bills were
estimated, or bills were inaccurately prepared.In this case, even if the Respondent's facts were
true, the Petitioner must prevail because the billing, according to the Respondent, was based on a
programming error. The allegation is not that the programming failed; rather, the allegation is that
the "meter was programmed incorrectly.See, Answer !)( 2. Accordingly, there is absolutely no
showing that a meter malfunctioned of failed, that bills were estimated, or that bills were
inaccurately prepared.To the contrary, the bills were accurately prepared based on the
programming of the meter by Respondent's employees.
REQUEST FOR PRE-IlEARING CONFERENCE
The Petitioner hereby requests a Pre-Hearing Conference as set forth under IDAP A
31.01.01.211. Petitioner requests the ability to take discovery in the case.
RESPONSE TO ANSWER OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS - 2
DA TED thiS day of April, 2006.
HAEMMERLE & HAEMMERLE, P.L.L.C
~~
IL.~
Fritz X. emmerle
RESPONSE TO ANSWER OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS - 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on th J7~ay of April, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of the
within and foregoing document upon the attorney(s) named below in the manner noted:
Michael P. McGrath
INTERMOUNT AIN GAS COMPANY
555 South Cole Road
Boise, ID 83707
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
By depositing copies of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at the
post office at Hailey, Idaho.
By hand delivering copies of the same to the office of the attorney(s) at his offices in
Hailey, Idaho.
By telecopying copies of same to said attorney(s) at the telecopier number
, and by then mailing copies of the same in the United States
Mail, postage prepaid, at the post office at Hailey, Idaho.
~ ~ (j"".. -- ~
FRITZ X. HAEMMERLE
RESPONSE TO ANSWER OF INTERMOUNTAIN GAS - 4