Opinion ID: 2622975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the commission's order denying the request to intervene

Text: ¶ 18 On January 6, 2006, the Commission issued its Order on Request to Intervene (the Intervention Order), denying Ball and Geddes formal intervention in the proceedings. In the Intervention Order, the Commission noted that both Ball and Geddes were familiar with the proceedings and, had they wanted to intervene, they should have done so in a more timely manner. The Commission stated, We will not give them reprieve from the consequences of their own choices. The Commission further noted that allowing their late intervention would set[] precedent for seeking intervention after the normal conclusion of the administrative process. ¶ 19 The Commission also explained that Ball and Geddes's interest as consumers was protected because the Division and [Consumer Services] are statutorily charged with including customers' interest in their deliberations and advocacy under Utah Code sections 54-4a-6 and 54-10-4. The Commission noted that [b]oth entities thoroughly studied the issues in this matter, carefully scrutinized [Questar's] proposals and analysis, and fulfilled their statutory responsibilities. Indeed, the Commission found that the Division and [Consumer Services] obtained significant concessions and compromises from Questar. ¶ 20 The Commission ultimately indicated that allowing the intervention would violate Utah Code section 63-46b-9: [I]t is not appropriate for [Ball and Geddes] to be granted such a tardy intervention and eviscerate the work already done and subject all parties, the regulatory process, the State's and customers' interests, to the vagaries of the odyssey foreshadowed in [their] intervention.