Power company asks judge to proceed with its lawsuit

Monday, May 6, 2002 | 9:45 a.m.

CARSON CITY --Nevada Power Co. has asked District Judge Bill Maddox to proceed with a hearing to determine if the Las Vegas utility has been shortchanged by the state Public Utilities Commission in its $922 million rate increase request.

The company, in a petition filed last week by its lawyer, William Peterson, is requesting the judge ignore the motions by the utilities commission and state Consumer Advocate Timothy Hay to dismiss the suit.

Maddox has not ruled on the motions, nor has he set a hearing for the case.

The power company's lawsuit, filed April 11, asks the court to grant the utility its full request to recover the extra money it spent on buying fuel. The PUC cut $437 million from the rate request.

Hay and Jeff Parker, counsel for the PUC, in their motions to dismiss the suit, argued that motions are still pending before the PUC that must be settled before a final decision is made.

Hay has asked the PUC to reconsider its decision and to reject the full $922 million. The Nevada Coalition of Commercial Energy Consumers wants the PUC to take another look at its ruling and to disallow another $12.7 million in expenses granted Nevada Power.

"Allowing the commission to proceed with the petition for reconsideration will ensure regulatory consistency," Parker wrote in his motion. Efficiency would be promoted by permitting the commission to "proceed and correct any errors or mistakes in the commission's order," he said.

Hay, in his motion to dismiss, said the utility in its lawsuit makes "vague and ambiguous allegations" that it should be forced to spell out.

Both Parker and Hay also say the suit should be dismissed, because all of the parties -- including 10 groups that intervened in the rate case -- were not served with the legal action.

Peterson argues that the district court now has "primary authority," since the PUC issued its final order. He said the state commission "is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider or modify its order."

Peterson also points out the district court ruled in a 2000 rate case that all the parties did not have to be served in order to continue the legal action.