Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission
61 A.3d 662
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Washington Gas, a DC public utility, faced a rate case before the PSC and refused to produce the full Accenture MSA contract with appendices during discovery.
- The PSC ordered production of the entire MSA; Washington Gas disclosed portions and offered to allow in-camera review of missing parts.
- Order 14383 compelled responses by July 23, 2007; subsequent orders 14384 and 14385 intensified production and defined the scope as the whole agreement with appendices.
- Washington Gas eventually produced the contract in full after the forfeiture order was issued; the PSC imposed a $350,000 fine under DC Code §§ 34-706 and 34-708.
- Washington Gas sought reconsideration and later appealed after this court held the Commission lacked authority to impose forfeiture without Superior Court action.
- The Superior Court ultimately ruled in Washington Gas I that the forfeiture authority was improper, and Washington Gas paid the sum under protest; the current appeal concerns the proper sanction calculation and related conversion claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forfeiture sanction was properly imposed. | Washington Gas argues the order was ambiguous and the sanction was improper. | Commission contends a knowing violation of a lawful order warranted per diem fines. | Sanction valid but start date limited to after reconsideration period. |
| When do per diem sanctions commence for a willful violation? | Gas asserts reconsideration period should delay start of penalties. | Commission argues penalties accrue during the violation period; reconsideration does not suspend it unless stayed. | Per diem fines commence after the time for reconsideration expires. |
| Is Washington Gas liable for conversion regarding the $350,000 payment? | Gas contends the Commission cannot convert or seize funds it paid under protest. | District and Commission maintain the conversion claim fits a tort/damages regime and § 12-309 notice applies. | Gas entitled to summary judgment on conversion; prejudgment interest measured from protest payment. |
| Does the action implicate the interplay of § 34-905 vs § 34-706/34-708 penalties? | Gas argues § 34-905 is the exclusive penalty provision for orders enforcing production. | Penalties under § 34-706 and § 34-708 are cumulative and apply to willful violations of lawful orders. | Penalty scheme properly applied; cumulative penalties permitted; per diem determined as above. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 982 A.2d 691 ((D.C.2009)) (forfeiture authority; appellate reversal on authority grounds)
- Snowder v. District of Columbia, 949 A.2d 590 ((D.C.2008)) (conversion claims may be unliquidated and subject to §12-309 notice)
- World Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 68 A.2d 222 ((D.C.1949)) (World Fire cited regarding liquidated vs unliquidated tort claims)
- District Cablevision Ltd. P’ship v. Bassin, 828 A.2d 714 ((D.C.2003)) (analyzing ascertainable sums for liquidated claims)
- District of Columbia v. Pierce Assocs., Inc., 527 A.2d 306 ((D.C.1987)) (affirms method for determining liquidated claims)
- One 1995 Toyota Pick-Up Truck v. District of Columbia, 718 A.2d 558 ((D.C.1998)) (excessive fines framework guidance)
- Owens v. District of Columbia, 993 A.2d 1085 ((D.C.2010)) (strict construction of notice requirements)