ALJDEC

01-12575-AFR · Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery · 2001-07-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 2, 2001. APPEARANCES: Brenda and Mark Peterson appeared on their own behalf. Respondent was represented by Patrick Irvine, Assistant Attorney General. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Gregory L. Hanchett _____________________________________________________________________ In this matter, Complainants Mark and Brenda Peterson (hereinafter Complainants) seek recovery for losses incurred as a result of the demise of the Alternative Fuel Recovery program. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the following findings of fact, conclusion of law, and recommended decision are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In July, 2000, Complainants entered into an agreement to purchase a Ford F-150 pick-up truck which was to have been equipped with an alternative fuel system. 2. Although the vehicle was ordered in June, 2000, Complainants were unable, due to delays at the dealership and in the system installation process, to take delivery of the vehicle until December 1, 2000. 3. Complainants, because they took delivery of the truck and did not cancel the contract, did not forfeit any down payment or incur any financial penalty. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In this proceeding, Complainants bear the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Office of Alternative Fuel recovery (hereinafter “Office”) improperly denied their 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). This tribunal has only those powers prescribed by applicable legislation and administrative regulation. It has no ability to effect any remedy not specifically prescribed by statute. State Board of Regents v. State Personnel Board, 195 Ariz. 173, 985 P.2d 1032 (1999). SB 1004 sets forth the law governing Complainants’ claim for reimbursement in this proceeding. 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.

4. Complainants did not establish that their claim fell within any of the three categories of reimbursable costs established under SB 1004, Section 32(A). Therefore, Complainants did not establish that they were entitled to reimbursement for their claim in this forum. 5. Because Complainants did not establish that their claim was eligible for reimbursement under SB 1004, they did not establish that the Office improperly denied their application for alternative fuel loss reimbursement. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director of the Office affirm the denial of Complainants’ reimbursement application. Done this day, July 2, 2001.

______________________________________ Gregory L. Hanchett Administrative Law Judge Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Department of Administration - Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery Elliott Hibbs 1700 W. Washington, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85007 ATTN: Michael Murphy

By ___________________________

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

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