Opinion ID: 2622975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: review of the commission's intervention order

Text: ¶ 30 We review the Commission's Intervention Order denying Ball and Geddes's request to intervene for substantial evidence in the record. [30] Because the Commission based its decision on substantial record evidence, its denial of Ball and Geddes's request to intervene was proper. ¶ 31 Section 63-46b-9 of the UAPA governs intervention in Commission proceedings. Section 63-46b-9(2) grants a qualified right to intervene so long as (a) the petitioner's legal interests may be substantially affected by the formal adjudicative proceeding; and (b) the interests of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the adjudicative proceedings will not be materially impaired by allowing the intervention. [31] The Respondents concede that Ball and Geddes may be substantially affected by the proceedings. Thus, the only issue is whether Ball and Geddes's intervention meets the second requirement for intervention. ¶ 32 Ball and Geddes rely on our decision in Millard County v. State Tax Commission, where we allowed Millard County to intervene in a proceeding before the Utah State Tax Commission (the Tax Commission). [32] In Millard County, Intermountain Power Agency (IPA) filed a petition for redetermination of its sales and use tax liability with the Tax Commission in May 1988. [33] One month after IPA filed its petition, Millard County (the County) petitioned to intervene in the proceeding since it was a significant beneficiary of the taxes paid by IPA. [34] The Tax Commission and IPA subsequently settled and stipulated to IPA's tax liability in August 1988. [35] As a result of this settlement, the Tax Commission in February 1989 denied Millard County's petition to intervene. [36] We reversed and held that the Tax Commission erred in denying the County intervention because the County had legal interests that would be substantially affected by the proceeding. [37] Moreover, the County's intervention was filed after only one month of proceedings and therefore would not have disrupted the minimal work completed by the parties up to that point. [38] ¶ 33 Unlike Millard County's timely petition, Ball and Geddes's request to intervene will materially impair the interests of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the Commission proceedings. Ball and Geddes filed their request to intervene in this case over a year after the parties initiated proceedings and after the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Beginning in October 2004 and prior to Ball and Geddes's attempted intervention in November 2005, the parties undertook much work at great expense. The parties engaged in vigorous negotiations and retained independent experts to make assessments of the best alternatives to deal with the CBM supply. Moreover, Questar provided lengthy testimony and responded to over four hundred discovery requests made by Consumer Services and the Division that comprised over one thousand pages. Ball and Geddes's failure to intervene earlier was not for lack of knowledge or notice of the proceedings; indeed, Ball originally participated in the proceedings as a staff director for Consumer Services. As staff director, Ball was aware of the six technical conferences conducted by Questar, as well as the initial recommendations made by Consumer Services and the Division. By January 2005, Ball knew that Questar had narrowed down the preferable alternatives for dealing with CBM to CO2 removal or precision blending of gas streams. ¶ 34 The Stipulation in this case was not used to prevent another party from participating in the proceedings, as in Millard County, [39] but was entered into before Ball and Geddes attempted to intervene. Furthermore, Ball and Geddes's request to intervene came after they failed to participate in the public hearings that were conducted to receive testimony favoring or opposing the Stipulation. Although Ball and Geddes argue that the Commission failed to give adequate notice of the hearing, the record indicates that the Commission followed all UAPA guidelines for providing notice. Indeed, two nonparties received notice of the proceedings and participated in the hearing, including one individual who was not a regular participant in Commission proceedings. ¶ 35 Finally, in Millard County, the County did not have its interests adequately represented by another party in the proceedings, whereas Ball and Geddes's interests as consumers in this case were protected by Consumer Services and the Division  both charged by statute with protecting consumer interests. Consumer Services indicated at the Stipulation hearing that the market for CBM had undergone a material change and had become a significant source of gas, providing substantial benefits to consumers. According to Consumer Services, because of this change in market conditions, the Stipulation would financially benefit Questar's customers. ¶ 36 Ball and Geddes do not provide any reasonable explanation for their late intervention. They argue that up until their request to intervene, they had relied on Consumer Services to represent their interests as consumers, but at the moment Consumer Services agreed to the Stipulation, it abandoned the interests of consumers and yielded to the desires of Questar. Were we to follow Ball and Geddes's reasoning, a party would need to disagree only with the direction of the proceedings to be justified in intervening, no matter how late in the game. Such reasoning is misguided because it ignores the plain language of section 63-46b-9, which requires that intervention not materially interfere with the interests of justice and the orderly and prompt adjudication of the matter before the Commission. [40] ¶ 37 Ultimately, Ball and Geddes's intervention contemplates undoing all of the Commission proceedings in order to subject to their scrutiny and cross-examination. Clearly, at this late stage, such action would materially impair the proceedings because it would require all the parties to duplicate expenditures of time and money to accommodate a party who was well aware of the proceedings and yet decided to postpone intervention. Therefore, the Commission properly denied Ball and Geddes's request to intervene. ¶ 38 In addition to affirming the Commission's Intervention Order, we briefly discuss two additional bases for upholding the Commission's order. First, Ball and Geddes failed to substantially marshal the evidence as required when contesting a factual finding of the Commission. Second, Ball and Geddes failed to meet the briefing requirements of rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.
¶ 39 A party is required to marshal the evidence supporting the Commission's factual findings and to show that, despite the supporting facts, and in light of conflicting or contradictory evidence, the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. [41] In this case, Ball and Geddes failed to substantially marshal the evidence in support of the Commission's finding regarding intervention. Instead, they advocated their position by merely arguing that it is just and equitable for them to intervene in the proceedings. Their failure to marshal the evidence is a sufficient basis for affirmance of the Intervention Order. [42]
¶ 40 Additionally, Ball and Geddes's briefing on the issue of intervention is inadequate. Under rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, petitioners seeking judicial review must identify the legal or factual errors of the lower court or agency. [43] We have consistently declined to review issues that are not adequately briefed. [44] And we have long held that it is improper to mak[e] blanket assertions and leav[e] the responsibility to the court to ferret out evidence from the record to support [them]. [45] In this case, Ball and Geddes's overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court. [46] ¶ 41 After the Commission denied their request to intervene, Ball and Geddes submitted a request for reconsideration to the Commission. In their brief for reconsideration, Ball and Geddes failed to raise or even identify a single error that would have required the Commission to modify its Intervention Order. Rather, Ball and Geddes incorporated by reference the brief they had previously filed with the Commission on December 13, 2005, which included arguments as to reasons the Commission should grant the intervention. Thus, Ball and Geddes essentially asked the Commission to review the previous brief and find some reason to change its Intervention Order. ¶ 42 In its motion to dismiss, Questar highlights this inadequate briefing before the Commission. Questar argues that because Ball and Geddes did not raise any issues of error in their request for reconsideration, they did not preserve any issues for our review. Indeed, Utah Code section 54-7-15 states that [a]n applicant [for reconsideration] may not urge or rely on any ground not set forth in the application in an appeal to any court. [47] ¶ 43 Furthermore, like their request for reconsideration, Ball and Geddes's memorandum opposing summary dismissal of their appeal consists of a single page and does not identify specific issues of error but merely incorporates by reference the same December 13, 2005 brief. Their memorandum further states in reference to that brief that these pleadings, seeking reconsideration, speak for themselves and show the Court that these Petitioners have raised arguments of substantial merit, warranting review in this Court. Ultimately, Ball and Geddes's petition before us amounts to a request that we review their initial request for intervention and find some merit in that argument. Even under a de novo standard of review, such briefing would be inadequate. But here, where we give deference to the Commission's decision and review for substantial evidence in the record, asking us to review the arguments and facts originally submitted to the Commission is clearly inappropriate. Accordingly, had we so chosen, we could have avoided addressing the intervention issue as a result of inadequate briefing.