Opinion ID: 2514124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appeal of deemed denial of declaratory action request

Text: ¶ 26 The apparent basis for the Counties' petition for review of the deemed denial of the declaratory action before the PSC is the notion that the failure of the PSC to act within sixty days of the Counties' filing of their request for a declaratory ruling triggers section 63-46b-21(7) of the Utah Code, Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA). This section provides that if an agency has not issued a declaratory order within 60 days after receipt of the petition for a declaratory order, the petition is denied. Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-21(7) (1997). ¶ 27 The provisions of the UAPA dealing with requests for administrative agency declaratory orders unambiguously provide that the agency may proceed to issue a declaratory order that would substantially prejudice the rights of a person who is a necessary party only upon the written consent of that person. Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-21(3)(b). Certainly, Qwest qualifies as a necessary party to agency action under this provision where Qwest would be required to disgorge nearly $17 million. Qwest has not given its necessary written consent for the PSC to resolve the issues raised by the Counties in the declaratory proceeding. ¶ 28 The PSC is, in effect, boxed in because the Counties have pled for a limited form of relief that can be granted only upon Qwest's consent. The Counties apparently seek review of the deemed denial to this court to avoid an argument that section 63-46b-21(7) turns the inability of the PSC to issue a declaratory order into final agency action, thereby initiating the running of the review process. See Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14(a) (stating time frame in which to petition for review of administrative order absent applicable contrary statute is thirty days). ¶ 29 The Counties did not seek review or rehearing of the PSC's deemed denial of the declaratory action. We are without jurisdiction to review administrative orders unless and until the Counties apply for review or rehearing pursuant to section 54-7-15 of the Utah Code. See Hi-Country Homeowners Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 779 P.2d 682 (Utah 1989) (holding that association was required to seek PSC review or rehearing of its ruling to invoke jurisdiction of this court). ¶ 30 We have held that [w]here the outlined procedures have not been complied with, this court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. Utah Dep't of Bus. Reg. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 602 P.2d 696, 699 (Utah 1979); see also Williams v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 754 P.2d 41, 48-49 (Utah 1988) ([T]he parties' failure to request rehearing before the PSC leaves the Court without subject matter jurisdiction over the petition.). Under these standards, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the review because the Counties did not petition for rehearing pursuant to section 54-7-15 and thus we must dismiss the petition for review of the declaratory action.