2014 UT App 232

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U TA H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

W E R N E R U HL I G

, Peti tioner,

v. P UB L I C S E R

VI C E C OMMI S S I ON

, Respondent.

H I -C OUNTR

Y E S TAT E S H OM E OW N E RS A S S O C I AT I O N

, Inter venor

.

Per CuriamDeci si on No. 20140635-CA Filed October 2, 2014

Or i gin al Proceedi ng i n thi s Court

Werner Uhli g, Petiti oner Pr o S e
Melani e A. Reif, Attor ney for Respondent Publ i c

Ser vic e Commi ssi on J. Craig Smi th and Adam S. Long, A tto rneys for Inter venor Hi -Country Estates Homeowners

Associ ation

Before J UD G E S

G RE G OR

Y K. O R M E, M I C H E L E M. C H RI S T I AN S E N , and S E N I OR J UD G E RUS S E L L W. B E N C H

. 1

PER CURIAM :

¶1 Peti tioner Werner Uhli g seeks judic i al rev i ew of a deci si on of the Pub li c Ser vic e Commi ssi on (the Commi ssi on) deter minin g that he lacked standing to challen ge a May 2014 Repor t and Or der

1. The Honor abl e R ussell W. Bench, Senior Judge, sat by speci al assi gnment as authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 11-201(6)

.Uhlig v. PS C

approv ing p r oposed water service sch edules and rat es on an appli cati on by Hi -Country Estate s Homeowners Associ ation (Hi

Countr y Estates). Thi s case i s before the court on the Commi ssi on’s motion for sum mary di sposi tion and on Hi -Country Estates’s motion to i nterv ene. We gr ant Hi -Country Estates’s motion to i nt e r v e ne i n the case before thi s court, affi rm the Commi ssi on’s deci si on on standing, and di smi ss the petiti on for r e v ie w based upon Uhli g’s lack of standing to seek judic i al rev i ew.

¶2 In Ju l y 2 0 1 3, H i

- C ountry Estates fi led i ts appli cati on wi th the Commi ssi on. After appropr i ate notic e, the Commi ssi on issued a sch eduling or der on Sept ember 24, 2013, setting a deadline of December 2 7, 2 0 13, for indi vidu als to request to interv ene as parties. Uhli g di d not request int e r v e nt i on, and the deadline for doin g so pass ed. The Commi ssi o n he ld evidenti ary hearin gs at whi ch the parties—inclu ding two inte r venor s—partic i pated. The Commi ssi on held an addi tional hearin g to take statements from members of the pub li c. Uhli g pro vided testim ony at that hear ing, objecting to t he p r oposed standby fee rat e increase from hi s posi tion as a resi dent of Hi -Country E st a tes and as a private well

owner who is not connected t o i ts water system. O n M ay 5, 2 0 1 4 , the Commi ssi on i ssu ed i ts R e p or t and Or der approv ing the propo sed rat es. The or der advis ed the parties of their rights to seek agency re viewor rehear ing and to pet i tion for judic i al rev i ew.

¶3 Although he had not interv ened as a party , Uhlig fil e d a request for agency rev i e w or rehear ing. In the Repor t and Or der Denying Mr

. Uhli g’s Request for Review or Rehearing dated June 19, 2014, the Commi ssi on ruled that Uhli g lacked standing becau se

a request for rev i ew or rehear ing of a C o mmis si on acti on can be fi led only by a party to the agency proceeding. B e ca us e U hli g nei ther requested nor wa s gr anted interv ention, the Commi ssi on ruled that he lacked standing to challen ge the Commi ssi on’s May 2014 Repor t and Or der, and di smi ssed hi s reque st fo r agency

r e v i ew. Uhli g fi led a petiti on for judi ci al rev i ew of the or der di smi ss i ng hi s r equest for rev i ew in the agency. The Co mmi ssi on

20140635-CA 2 2014 UT App 232Uhlig v. PS C

now moves for sum mar y di sposi tion. Inter venor Hi -Country Estates jo i ns that motion.

¶4 The Utah Supreme Court consi dered a si mi lar case in Ball v. Public Servic e Commissi on , 2007 UT 79, 175 P.3d 545. The petiti oners i n Ball moved to i nterv ene in the case before the Commi ssi on. The supreme court di smi ssed the peti tion for judi ci al rev i ew based on l a ck of standing after affi rmi ng the Commi ssi on’s or der denyin g i nterv ention. Id. ¶ 27. The supreme court stated that st a nd ing before the supreme court was dependent on t he o ut co me of i ts

re vi e w of the Commi ssi on’s or der denying the request to in te rv e n e

. Id. ¶ 29. After deter min ing that the Commi ssi on proper ly deni ed the request to interv ene, the s u p re m e court held that the petiti oners also lacked standing. Id. ¶¶ 2 9 -30, 62. Accordi ngly, we fi rst consi der whether the Commi ssi on proper ly deter mined that Uhli g lacked standing to seek agency rev i ew in the formal adjudi cati ve proceedings.

¶5 In rul ing t hat Uhli g was not a party to the proceedings before i t, the Commi ssi on noted that under prov i si ons of the Admini strat i ve Procedures Act (UAPA), i f permi tte d by statute or

an agency’s rules, “parties to any adjudi cati ve proceeding [may] seek rev i ew of a n o rder by the agency or by a superi or agency.” Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4 -3 0 1 (1)( a) (Lexi sNexi s 2011). “‘Party ’

me a ns the agency or other person commenc ing an adjudi cati ve proceeding, all respondents, a l l p ersons permi tte d by the presi ding offi cer to i nterv ene i n t he proceeding, an d a l l persons authorized by statute or agency rule to partici pate as parties in an adjudi cati ve proceeding.” Id. § 63G-4 -103(1)(f). It i s undi sputed that Uhli g di d not seek to i nterv ene i n the proceedings before the C ommi ssi on,

a nd t he tim e to do so under the sch eduling or der expired. U hl ig clai ms that the Commi ssi on di d not prov i de adequate information

ex p l a ining how to move to interv ene. Thi s clai m lacks merit. Becaus e Uhli g nei ther sought nor obtained permi ssi on to interv ene

as a party i n the agency proceedings, the Commi ssi on proper ly ruled that Uhli g lacked standing to seek rev i ew or rehear ing in the agency.

20140635-CA 3 2014 UT App 232Uhlig v. PS C

¶6 Generally, an i ndi vid ua l lacks standing to seek judi ci al

rev i ew when the party was not a par ty in the agency proceeding. See Ball , 2007 UT 79 , ¶ 4 4

. After affi rmi ng the Commi ssi on’s deci si on deny ing a motion t o interv ene, the Utah Supreme Court i n Ball then consi dered whether any of the petiti oners had standing gr anted by st atute. Utah Code secti on 54-7-15 gr ants standing to seek judi ci al rev i ew of Commi ssi on deci si ons reg ardin g publi c uti li ties to “any party , stockho l d e r , bondholder, or other person pecun i arily intere sted i n the publi c uti li ty who i s di ssati sfi ed wi th

an or der of the commi ssi on.” Id. ¶ 46 (citat i on and internal quotat i on marks omi tte d). UAPA requires an indi vidu al seek ing judi ci al rev i ew of an agency deci si on to exhaust all admini strat i ve remedies i nclu ding applyi ng for a rehear ing. Id. ¶ 47. UAPA also requires that an i ndi vidu al seeki ng judi ci al rev i ew mus t have been “sub stanti ally prej udi ced” by the agency d eci si on. Id. ¶ 48. The supreme court stated, “In sum, an in di vidu al may have appellate standing to seek judi ci al rev i ew of an agency deci si on i f he or she has e x haus ted all admini strat i ve remedies and quali fi es as an ‘a g gr i eved’ or ‘subs tantially prej udi ced’ ‘part y, stockholder , bondholder, or other person pecun i arily intere sted in t he p ublic uti li ty.’ ” Id. ¶ 49. In Ball, the supreme court consi dered whether the petiti oners who quali fi ed as “rat epayer s” had appellate standing becau se they were “pecun i arily intere sted in the publi c uti li ty.” Id. ¶ 51. The supreme court conclu ded that al t ho ug h rat epayer s are aggr i eved by the i ncrease in their bi lls, “they lack appellate standing becau se they have no pecun i ary intere st in the publi c ut i li ty and there fore do not fall wi thi n the clas ses of perso n t o wh o m st anding i s gr anted.” Id. ¶ 57. It follows that Uhli g i s no t wi thi n the clas s of persons authorized by statute to have standing to seek judi ci al rev i ew.

¶7 Based upon the foreg oin g, we a ffirm the Commi ssi on’s deci si on that Uhli g lacked standing t o p art i ci pate in the agency proceedings, and we di smi ss the petiti on for rev i ew based upon hi s lack of standing i n thi s proceedi ng for j udi ci al rev i ew.

20140635-CA 4 2014 UT App 232