ALJDEC

01-12116-AFR · Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery · 2001-06-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 22, 2001. APPEARANCES: The Appellant, Robert Woolsey, appeared personally. The Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery was represented by Assistant Attorney General Patrick Irvine. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The issue in this proceeding is whether the Appellant, Robert Woolsey, is entitled to reimbursement payment under Sections 31 and 32 of Laws 2000, 7th S.S., Ch. 1(“SB1001”). Appellant appeals from a denial of his claim for reimbursement by the Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery. 2. In August of 2000, Appellant placed a down payment with Courtesy Chevrolet to purchase a new gasoline powered ¾ ton pickup truck which he intended to have converted to run on an alternative fuel. 3. When Appellant ordered his new truck, he did so in reliance on the State of Arizona’s then-existing alternative fuel vehicle subsidy program. That program offered grants or tax credits to persons who purchased alternative fuel vehicles or who converted vehicles to run on alternative fuel. See Laws 2000, Ch. 405. 4. Before Appellant took delivery of his new vehicle, the Arizona Legislature modified the parameters of the alternative fuel vehicle program such that he no longer qualified for an alternative fuel vehicle subsidy. Appellant took delivery of his vehicle on December 1, 2000. 5. Appellant admitted that he had been following press coverage of the Arizona Legislature’s modification of the alternative fuel vehicle program. 6. Appellant subsequently obtained repayment from the dealership for the costs of the conversion package that he had previously paid and repayment of funds paid for a home fueling station. 7. Appellant has not converted his gasoline powered truck to operate on an alternative fuel. 8. The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery initially approved Appellant’s claim, and then later recinded that approval. However, Appellant did not assert this reversal as legal grounds upon which his application should have been approved.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In this proceeding, Appellant bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery improperly denied his application for alternative fuel loss reimbursement. Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) Rule R2-19-119. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence ' 5 (1960). SB 1004 sets forth the law governing Appellant’s claim for reimbursement. Section 31 of SB 1004 provides, in relevant part: A. A person is eligible to present a claim for reimbursement to the department of administration if the person might have been eligible for a tax credit under section 43-1086, 43-1086.01, 43-1086.02, 43-1174, 43- 1174.01 or 43-1174.02, Arizona Revised Statutes, before the applicable section was amended by this act but does not meet the requirements imposed by this act and both of the following apply:

1). The person canceled a contract or purchase order to purchase or lease a vehicle or to convert a vehicle to operate on alternative fuel, or to purchase, install, or construct a vehicle refueling apparatus or an alternative fuel delivery system.

2). The person suffered actual monetary loss directly related to the purchase or lease of a vehicle, to the conversion of a vehicle to operate on alternative fuel or to the purchase, installation or construction of a vehicle refueling apparatus or an alternative fuel delivery system.

Section 32 of SB 1004 provides, in relevant part: A. Only the following actual monetary losses directly related to the purchase or lease of a vehicle or to the conversion of a vehicle to operate on alternative fuel shall be reimbursed by the state:

1). Any forfeited down payment or deposit paid by the claimant to a motor vehicle dealer or a conversion company, or both.

2). The fair market value of a vehicle traded to a motor vehicle dealer in lieu of a down payment or deposit.

3) Any financial penalty imposed by a motor vehicle dealer, conversion company or lender because of cancellation of a contract, if the original terms of the contract signed on the date of the purchase or order require that such a penalty be paid.

Appellant did not establish that either his claim for reimbursement for the cost to purchase his vehicle fell within any of the three categories of reimbursable costs established under SB 1004, Section 32(A). Therefore, Appellant did not establish that he was entitled to reimbursement for his claim. Because Appellant did not establish that his claim was eligible for reimbursement under SB 1004, he did not establish that the Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery improperly denied his application for alternative fuel loss reimbursement. … …

RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director of the Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery affirm the denial of Appellant’s reimbursement application.

Done this day, June 5, 2001

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery Kathy Peckardt, Executive Director 1700 W. Washington, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85007 ATTN: Lorinda Goodman

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826