Vol. 35 No.9
       ©2007 Marianas Variety
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 www.mvariety.com
Serving the CNMI for 35 years
 

© 2007 Marianas Variety
Published by Younis Art Studio Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Email :
mvariety@vzpacifica.net
Torres seeks judicial review of CUC billing dispute

By Moneth G. Deposa
Variety News Staff

REPRESENTATIVE Stanley T. Torres Jr. and staffer Jack A. Angello are asking the court to suspend the Commonwealth Utilities Corp.’s disconnection activities scheduled for today, March 28.
On Feb. 26, the CUC administrative hearing officer issued an order denying the motion of Torres and Angello for summary adjudication.
The order stated that power rates established by CUC are legal and Torres, Ind.-Saipan, must pay the withheld charges within 30 days or by March 28.
On March 7, Torres and Angello requested a stay of any disconnection action against them while their appeal was pending.
Torres and Angello said CUC’s administrative hearing officer’s decision “was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law.”
The decision, they added, was “in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory rights and was unsupported by substantial evidence as required by applicable law.”
Torres and Angello also used as their cause of action a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
They said the Act provides that increasing the price of goods on the basis of emergency circumstances by any person, defined to include corporations, is unlawful.
“CUC enacted its new rate schedule which was the basis of the billing disputed with CUC, and was made effective immediately upon publication in the Commonwealth Register based on the emergency adoption provisions contained in the Administrative Procedures Act,” the petition added.
They also described CUC’s rate hike decision as “an unfair business practice.”
The two want the court to set a hearing date prior to March 28 to stay CUC’s disconnection activities and issue all necessary and appropriate orders to postpone it pending the conclusion of the judicial review.
They also want the court to reverse the hearing officer’s administrative order.