|
3-2500-16881-2 MPUC Docket No. G-008/CI-04-2001 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
FIRST PREHEARING ORDER |
This matter came on for a prehearing conference before
Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D. Sheehy on October 28, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.,
in the Small Hearing Room of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
(Commission).
Steven H. Alpert, Assistant Attorney General,
Eric F. Swanson, Esq.,
Pam Marshall, Executive Director, Energy CENTS Coalition,
Janet Gonzales appeared for the staff of the Commission, and
Kate Kahlert appeared for the Commission’s Consumer Affairs Office (CAO).
Based on the discussions during the prehearing conference, and all of the files and proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. The parties to
this matter as named in the Commission's Order Referring Issues to the Office
of Administrative Hearings and Issuing Notice and Order for Hearing of
September 26, 2005, are CenterPoint Energy and the OAG-RUD. The Commission’s Order scheduled a prehearing
conference to take place at 2:00 p.m. on October 13, 2005. At the request of the parties, the prehearing
conference was rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. on October 28, 2005.
2. On October 4, 2005, ECC filed a Petition
to Intervene in this matter. At the
prehearing conference, no party objected to ECC’s Petition to Intervene, and
the petition was granted. ECC has party
status in this matter.
3. The
final date for filing Petitions to Intervene is November 22, 2005. Any persons petitioning to intervene as a
party after that date may be restricted as to the scope of their
participation. Petitions to Intervene
must be filed with the Administrative Law Judge; the petition and any
objections thereto must be served on all existing parties and the Commission.
4. Any person admitted to this proceeding as an intervenor after the date of this Order shall be bound by the terms of this Order.
5. Members of the public need not become formal parties to be considered participants in the hearing. Members of the public may offer either oral or written testimony, and they may offer exhibits for inclusion in the record. Any person desiring to become a formal party to the proceeding, however, must file a Petition to Intervene.
ISSUES
6. The issues in this case are: (1) Did CenterPoint violate the Cold Weather Rule (CWR)? (2) If CenterPoint violated the CWR, did it do so knowingly and intentionally? and (3) If CenterPoint violated the CWR knowingly and intentionally, what penalties/remedies are warranted?
7. The parties agree that this case is to address whether the CWR was violated with respect to the 2,560 customers who had been disconnected from gas service as of October 15, 2004, the start of last year’s cold weather season. The Commission has retained jurisdiction to address all time-sensitive matters pertaining to the 2005 cold weather season.
8. The parties also agree that they will address the issue of restitutional remedies in the class action litigation that is pending in U.S. District Court. The OAG-RUD has withdrawn its previously proposed suggestion that the Commission establish a procedure for determining restitution for individual customers.
DISCOVERY
9. The parties have attempted to develop a method of examining some type of representative sample of customers within the universe of 2,560 customers, in order to avoid the cumbersome and time-consuming work involved in examining the records for each individual customer, but they have been unable to agree on such a method. To date, CenterPoint has produced requested customer records for approximately 300 of the 2,560 customers. The parties appear to agree that even if it were not necessary to examine all customer records for the purposes of this proceeding, the records may have to be produced in connection with the federal litigation, and they are attempting to agree upon a method and timetable for producing complete customer records.
10. Because of the voluminous discovery that has yet to take place, the parties agree that it is not appropriate at this time to set a hearing date. Another prehearing status conference will take place by telephone on November 17, 2005. You must call 651-284-3547 and enter code “1117” when asked for the meeting number. As discovery progresses the parties should be able to reach stipulations as to the format of the evidence to be presented at the contested case hearing.
11. All
requests for information shall be made in writing, or
electronically followed by writing, to the person
from whom the information is sought,
with a copy of the request mailed to all parties of record. No such request shall be provided to the
Administrative Law Judge. The party
responding to the information request shall provide the information requested
to the requesting party within eight business days after receipt of the
request, unless the requesting party agrees to provide additional time. There shall be a continuing obligation to
update and supplement information responses.
The information need not be supplied as a matter of course to all other
parties unless specifically requested by a party. Information requests or responses received after 3:00 p.m. on business days or on weekends or
State holidays shall be considered as being received on the following business
day, except that any U.S. Mail received during business hours shall be
considered as being received on the same day.
12. In the event the information cannot be
supplied within eight business days, the responding party shall notify the requesting
party within four business days of receipt of the discovery request of the
reasons for not being able to supply the information and attempt to work out a
schedule of compliance with the requesting party. All disputes concerning the reasonableness of
discovery requests and the timing and sufficiency of responses shall be
resolved by the Administrative Law Judge upon motion of a party. Notice of such a motion should be made by
email if possible and may be made be heard by telephone conference among the
Administrative Law Judge and affected parties.
13. The Administrative Law Judge has signed the Protective
Agreement and Order proposed by CenterPoint and ECC. The only modification made to the Order is
that the phrase permitting nonpublic data to be marked as “CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE AGREEMENT” has been changed to “NOT PUBLIC
– PRIVATE DATA ON INDIVIDUALS” to conform to the definitions used in the Data
Practices Act and Minn. Stat.
§ 216C.266.
PROCEDURE
14. The Rules of the Office of Administrative
Hearings govern the conduct of the hearings, and the Professionalism
Aspirations adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court will be observed.
Dated
this 4th day of November, 2005.
s/Kathleen
D. Sheehy
Administrative
Law Judge