4. Motion to Dismiss

Pacific moves to dismiss on the basis that the complaint lacks sufficient signatures under Pub. Util. Code § 1702 and would require Pacific to violate the provisions of Pub. Util. Code § 532.

Pub. Util. Code § 1702 states in pertinent part:

"No complaint shall be entertained by the commission, except upon its own motion, as to the reasonableness of any rates or charges of any gas, electrical, water, or telephone corporation, unless it is signed by the mayor or the president or chairman of the board of trustees or a majority of the council, commission, or other legislative body of the city or city and county within which the alleged violation occurred, or by not less than 25 actual or prospective consumers or purchasers of such gas, electricity, water, or telephone service."

While the complaint is accompanied by affidavits signed by numerous persons challenging the foreign exchange rate, complainant admits that the signatures were obtained in 1998 as part of an earlier protest that preceded this complaint. Complainant states that he can easily obtain 25 signatures for this complaint if the Commission so requires.

Pacific's other ground for dismissal is based on Pub. Util. Code § 532, which states in pertinent part:

"Except as in this article otherwise provided, no public utility shall charge, or receive a different compensation for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished, or for any service rendered or to be rendered, than the rates, tolls, rentals, and charges applicable thereto as specified in its schedules on file and in effect at the time. . . "

Pacific's tariff schedules specify the monthly rate in effect for foreign exchange service in the North Tahoe area, and the tariff sheets are attached to Pacific's pleadings and have been furnished to complainant. The monthly rate under the tariff is $34.15. Pacific avers that that complainant's demand that Pacific charge only $10.65 for foreign exchange service would be inconsistent with the tariff and therefore prohibited by Section 532.

Complainant argues that his request for relief does not conflict with Section 532 because this Commission lacks jurisdiction to rule on the oral contract that allegedly was made by complainant, Pacific and Nevada Bell. According to the complaint, only the Nevada Public Utilities Commission can rule on that matter, since complainant is billed by Nevada Bell and the dispute involves the foreign exchange rate denoted in that billing.