20220525Final_Order_No_35418.pdf

ORDER NO. 35418 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 25, 2022

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL
COMPLAINT OF NICOLE BURBANK
AGAINT THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
UTILITY COMPANY, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ROC-W-21-01

ORDER NO. 35418

On June 1, 2021, Nicole Burbank (“Ms. Burbank”), filed a formal complaint (“Complaint”)
against the Rocky Mountain Utility Company, Inc. (“Company”). Ms. Burbank submitted
supplementary information to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) on July 28,
and August 17, 2021. Previously, Ms. Burbank filed an informal complaint with the Commission
Staff (“Staff”) about the Company. Staff was unable to resolve the dispute between Ms. Burbank
and the Company informally.
On September 27, 2021, the Commission issued a Summons requiring the Company to
answer the allegations in the Complaint and to address additional questions raised by the
Commission in the Summons. The Company responded on November 1, 2021. Ms. Burbank filed
a Declaration and Response to Respondent’s Answer on November 19, 2021. On November 30,
2021, Staff filed comments.
Having reviewed the record, the Commission now issues this Order granting in part and
denying in part the relief requested in the Complaint.
BACKGROUND
A. The Complaint
Ms. Burbank asserted that the Company failed to provide her a “Terms of Agreement or
Contract” for water service. Complaint at 1. Ms. Burbank claimed her builder connected to the
Company’s water system without giving her notice and “due to confusion moneys were paid to
[the Company]”. Id. Ms. Burbank also alleged that she had not received invoices from the
Company. Id. When invoices were provided to her, Ms. Burbank claimed that the Company billed
her a customer deposit but labeled it as a hook-up fee so it would not violate the Commission’s
Customer Relations Rules. Id. Ms. Burbank also alleged that the Company violated the
Commission’s Customer Relations Rule 102 by “basing the deposit on her sex, marital status, and

ORDER NO. 35418 2
children.” Id. Ms. Burbank then claimed that the Company increased her water bill each month by
adding “multiple line items to the Utility bill” without seeking approval of the Commission. Id. at
1-2. Ms. Burbank asserted that the Company used the nonpayment of these unapproved line items
to threaten to shut off her water service. Id. at 2. Ms. Burbank asserted these billing practices
violated the Commission’s Customer Relations Rules 201.01(a-i), 202.01, 203.01-.03 and 206.01
through 207. Id.
Ms. Burbank next alleged that the Company overcharged her for a customer deposit for
$850.00 and billed her $97.50 for utility service in the same month. Id. Ms. Burbank also argued
that the Company wrongfully charged her $58.00 for sewer services every month. Id. Ms. Burbank
also claimed that the Company violated Rule 109.02 because the Company “drafted NEW
documents”. Id. Last, Ms. Burbank alleged that she does not have a meter on her property for
“water usage but more important for water pressure” and that “[n]o one has investigated the water
pressure to this day.”. Id. Ms. Burbank also alleged the Company failed to disclose the terms and
conditions for water usage to her. Id. at 3.
Ms. Burbank requested that all alleged over-payments for monthly services and the
customer deposit be refunded to her or applied against future water service charges. Ms. Burbank
also requested that the Company follow proper procedures for billing and send her a utilities bill
only to:
Nicole Burbank
3890 East Ash Lane
Rigby, Idaho 83442
Email: [e-mail]

On July 28, 2021, Ms. Burbank filed correspondence alleging that Staff’s Decision
Memorandum about her Complaint was inaccurate. See July 28, 2021, Correspondence. Ms.
Burbank asserted that since filing her Complaint, she had received multiple letters from the
Company threatening to shut off her water service. Id. Ms. Burbank attached these disconnection
notices to her correspondence. Id. Ms. Burbank stated that the Commission had notified the
Company not to disconnect her service.
Ms. Burbank asserted that the Company “has extorted over 100 residents in our
neighborhood for years.” Id. Ms. Burbank asserted that she provided documents from other
residents in the subdivision to counsel for Staff that included line item increases on water bills to

ORDER NO. 35418 3
allegedly pay for a “new water Well” that she contends was not built. Id. Ms. Burbank further
complained that “low water pressure has never been investigated.” Id.
On August 17, 2021, Ms. Burbank filed additional correspondence advising the
Commission that on August 16, 2021, her “water was temporary [sic] shut off.” See August 17,
2021, Correspondence. Ms. Burbank also alleged that on this same day, the owner of the Company
came to her house unannounced and threatened to dig up the water and septic lines if she didn’t
pay her bill. Id. Additionally, Ms. Burbank attached disconnection notices she received from the
Company and her bill that contained amounts charged for water and septic usage. Id.
B. The Company’s Response
The Company asserted that its hook-up fee information was located on its website.
Company’s Response at 1. The Company stated that on February 10, 2020, it was contacted by
First American Title Company, who “said that it was okay to pay [hook-up] fees through escrow.”
Id. The Company attached copies of the information it received from the title company including
the letter about fees, a Warranty Deed, and a check for the hook-up fee and first month’s utilities.
Exhibit 1, attached to the Company’s submitted documentation, shows that $850.00 was charged
for a hook-up fee and an additional $97.50 was charged for monthly dues ($82.50 for water and
$15.00 for septic).
Additionally, the Company attached a copy of Check No. 29924 that it received from First
American Title for $947.50 for File No. 818616-RI, Re: 3890 East Ash Lane. Id.; Exhibit 1B. The
Company also attached an itemized statement to its Response for the monthly water service
provided to Ms. Burbank’s residence at 3890 East Ash Lane beginning in April of 2020. Id; Exhibit
2. The Company’s itemization showed that Ms. Burbank made four payments of $39.50 totaling
$158.00 to the Company for water service but that she has not made any further payments since
August of 2020; however, Ms. Burbank has continued to receive water service from the Company.
Id. The Company asserted that Ms. Burbank had a past due balance of $592.50 as of the October
2021 billing period. Id. The Company also asserted that it had separated invoices for water and
sewer service as of September 2, 2021. Id.
C. Ms. Burbank’s Declaration and [Reply] to the Company’s Response
Ms. Burbank again asserted that “the Company’s owner and operator showed up at her
house on August 16, 2021, and threatened to dig up her property if she did not pay money owed
to him.” Declaration at 1. Ms. Burbank also asserted that the Company shut off her water without

ORDER NO. 35418 4
notice or cause on August 16, September 1, 10, 24, and October 14, 2021. Id. at 2-3. Ms. Burbank
next alleged that the Company shut off her water in retaliation for the Complaint. Id. Ms. Burbank
also stated she deposited a large sum of money into escrow with First American Title Company
for closing costs and miscellaneous expenses, but never agreed to the pay the Company for a hook-
up fee despite the money being withdrawn from escrow. Id. at 4. Ms. Burbank also asserted that
when she purchased her home she received no documentation from the escrow company, nor did
she receive information from the Company. Id.
Ms. Burbank asked the Commission to stop the Company from extorting her. Id. Ms.
Burbank also requested that the Commission “correct the fraud that has been committed against
[her]” and prevent the Company from retaliating against her. Id. Ms. Burbank also requested that
the Commission require regular testing of the water pressure by a third-party with no affiliation to
the Company. Id.
STAFF COMMENTS
On November 30, 2021, Staff filed comments in the case. Staff commented on: (1) the
hook-up fee; (2) Monthly Charges for Water Service; (3) Disconnection Notices; (4) Termination
of Service; and (5) Water Pressure.
1. The Hook-Up Fee
Staff noted that the filed rate doctrine prevents a utility from charging more or less than its
Commission approved rates. Staff Comments at 6. Staff stated the Company’s Commission-
approved hook-up fee is $150.00. See Order No. 30703. Ms. Burbank contended that she paid an
$850.00 fee through Escrow when she closed on her residence but provided no documentation or
other evidence corroborating this contention. See Staff Comments at 6-7. Staff sent Ms. Burbank a
production request seeking documentation that could help Ms. Burbank demonstrate that she had
paid the hook-up fee, but she failed to respond. Id. Staff did receive a copy of the “ALTA
Settlement Statement-Seller” from Higley Developments, LLC who sold 3890 East Ash Lane to
Ms. Burbank. See Supplemental Affidavit of Jolene Bossard.1 The Seller’s Statement showed that
Higley Developments, LLC paid the $850.00 “Hook-Up Fee to Rocky Mountain Utility.” Id. at
Exhibit B. Staff noted the $850.00 fee was paid when Ms. Burbank closed the purchase for her
residence at 3890 East Ash Lane to connect her to the Company’s water and sewer systems. Id.
Staff reasoned if Ms. Burbank did not pay the hook-up fee, she would not have any standing to

1 Staff also received the same Seller’s Statement from the Company.

ORDER NO. 35418 5
make a claim for a refund. Company Response at 1 and Exhibit 1B attached thereto. Staff
recognized the Company’s assertion that it charged $150.00 to connect to its water system
(implying that the additional $700 is to hook up to sewer) and cited its webpage for this
information.2 Staff pointed out that the $850.00 was not separated for the water and sewer system
connections on this Company’s summary which could cause confusion for customers. Staff
Comments at 6. Staff recommended that the Commission direct the Company to modify its
invoices and webpage information to clearly inform new customers that the hook-up fee to connect
to the Company’s water system for water service is $150.00.
2. Monthly Charges for Water Service
On May 10, 2021, Staff spoke with a Company representative who advised that a “new
service” for Ms. Burbank’s residence started on March 20, 2020, and payments were made by Ms.
Burbank for water service until August 4, 2020. Affidavit of Jolene Bossard, at Confidential
Exhibit A. The Company asserted that it sent Ms. Burbank an invoice every month and that
disconnection notices were also mailed to Ms. Burbank at the address Ms. Burbank had identified
as her mailing address. Id. The Company confirmed that its technician had recently spoken with
Ms. Burbank and discussed disconnecting her service. Id.
On May 10, 2021, Staff requested that the Company provide it with: (1) a copy of Ms.
Burbank’s most recent bill; (2) a copy of the Final Notice of Disconnection; and (3) payment and
billing history for Ms. Burbank. Id. Staff inquired whether invoices were sent to a standard mail
address and if it was the same as the service address for the customer. Id. Staff also asked what
payment arrangement the Company would propose for Ms. Burbank to bring her account current.
Id. The Company provided Staff with copies of Ms. Burbank’s most recent bill, final notice, and
payment/billing history. Id. at Exhibit B. Company billing history for Ms. Burbank showed charges
of $39.50 for water service and $58.00 for septic service or $97.50 each month. Id. The Company
billed Ms. Burbank for these services on the same invoice and said that all invoices were sent to
Ms. Burbank’s home address. Id. The Company also represented that it was open to payment
arrangements for the past due balance for water service. Id.
Staff noted that Ms. Burbank had received water service from the Company since April of
2020, something she had not denied. Staff Comments at 8. Staff also pointed out that Ms. Burbank
paid for water service for April, May, June, and July of 2020 but not made payments since then.

2 See rockymountainutility.com/water-ratesfees/.

ORDER NO. 35418 6
Id.; see also Company Response at Exhibit 2. According to the Company’s Response, Ms. Burbank
has a past due balance of $592.50 for water service through October 2021. Response at Exhibit 2.
Staff recommended that the Company send separate invoices for water and sewer service
to resolve any confusion over what services the Company is billing for. Staff Comments at 8.
Despite this, Staff asserted that the Company documentation demonstrated that Ms. Burbank was
billed the Commission approved amount of $39.50 per month for water service. Id. Staff
encouraged Ms. Burbank to make payment arrangements with the Company for the past due
balance for the water service she has received. Id.
3. Disconnection Notices
The Company sent disconnection notices to Ms. Burbank for failure to pay past due
balances for water and sewer service. See Exhibit A attached to Complaint; see also attachments
to July 28, 2021, Correspondence. Staff explained that the Company may terminate a customer’s
service consistent with the Commission’s Customers Relations Rules (“UCRR”) for failure to pay
for water service. See IDAPA 31.21.01.302.01.ii, -304, and -305. However, Staff believed that the
Company could not include past due charges for sewer service in its termination notices for water
service. See Rule 310, IDAPA 31.21.01.310.01.c. Accordingly, Staff recommended that the
Commission direct the Company to update its disconnection notices to include only past due
charges for water service. Staff Comments at 9.
4. Termination of Service
After the filing of the informal complaint, Staff notified the Company it could not terminate
Ms. Burbank’s service while it, and then later the Complaint, was pending. Id. Ms. Burbank alleged
her water service was temporarily shut off five times in August through October of 2021. Id. The
Company submitted responses to Staff regarding the water service outages Ms. Burbank asserted
she experienced. See Second Supplemental Affidavit of Jolene Bossard at Exhibit A. The Company
explained that on August 16, 2021, the wrong valve was closed, which interrupted Ms. Burbank’s
water service. Id. The Company also asserted that on August 20, 2021, it notified customers that
an outage would occur to tie the two wells together. Id. The Company further disclosed there was
an outage on September 10, 2021, that affected certain customers on a specific water line which
Ms. Burbank is not served by. Id. Last, the Company represented that it notified customers on
October 14, 2021, about a water outage necessary to bring the new generator online Id. The
Company claimed there were no outages on September 1 or 24, 2021. Id.

ORDER NO. 35418 7
5. Water Pressure
Ms. Burbank asserted that the Company had not investigated the water pressure on the
Company’s system. Complaint at 2; see also July 28, 2021, Correspondence at 2.
Staff described a public utility’s statutory requirements to deliver adequate and reliable
service to its customers. Staff Comments at 10. Staff also discussed the Commission’s statutory
investigatory powers to respond to customer complaints. Id. Staff noted that generally, a regulated
water corporation must maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi throughout its distribution system,
at ground level, as measured at the service connection or along the property line adjacent to the
consumer’s premises. See Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, IDAPA
58.01.08.552.01.b. ii. When water pressure falls below 20 psi, the Company must notify the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, provide public notice to the affected customers within 24
hours, and disinfect or flush the system. Id; see also Staff Comments at 10.
The Company represented that the Company’s system operates consistently at 70 psi and
the water pressure is tested daily. See Supplemental Affidavit of Jolene Bossard.
Based on the record in this case, Staff could not determine whether there were water
pressure issues on the Company’s system. Staff Comments at 10. Staff recommended that the
Company provide the Commission with a daily water pressure report from appropriate locations
on the Company’s system for 14 days following a final order in this case. Id.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Company is a water corporation and a public utility. Idaho Code §§ 61-125 and -129.
Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over the Company and this matter under Idaho Code
§§ 61-501, - 502, -503, -507, -520, -523, and -622.
1. Provision of Utility Service
Ms. Burbank asserted that there is no agreement for water service between her and the
Company. The Company alleged that First American Title Company contacted it on February 10,
2020, and stated “that it was okay to pay [hook-up] fees through escrow.” Id. The Company
attached copies of the information it received from the title company and a check for the hook-up
fee and first month’s utilities. Further, the Company asserted that it provided Ms. Burbank with a
new customer packet. See Bossard Affidavit at Exhibit C. Ms. Burbank disputes receiving this new
customer packet.

ORDER NO. 35418 8
However, Ms. Burbank is not asking for the Commission to determine that a contract does
or does not exist between Ms. Burbank and the Company, rather Ms. Burbank’s “Pray for Relief”
provides:
In accordance with IPUC 31.21.01 Sub. Section 200.04 Refund; Ms. Burbank
request that all over payments for monthly services and the over charge for the
deposit be refunded or put towards future water usage. Ms. Burbank request
RMUCI to follow the proper procedures for billing laid out in the IPUC. Ms.
Burbank request a Utilities bill only and for that bill to be sent to her home at the
address listed above. Ms. Burbank request that the IPUC issue any and all thing
[sic] that are deemed and [sic] proper and apprioate [sic].
Complaint at 3. Based upon the record, Ms. Burbank requested that she continue receiving utility
service from the Company, and for the Commission to exercise its authority over the Company to
ensure compliance with the appropriate rules and regulations.
To the extent that any finding is necessary on this issue, the Commission finds that, as
noted above, the Company is a water corporation and a public utility. Idaho Code §§ 61-125 and -
129. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over the Company and this matter under Idaho
Code §§ 61-501, - 502, -503, -507, -520, -523, and -622. Further, Rule 5.02 defines “customer” as
“any person who has applied for, has been accepted by the utility and is . . . [r]eceiving service
from a utility; or [h]as assumed responsibility for payment of service provided to another or
others.” IDAPA 31.21.01.005.02(a), (c). “If the person receiving service is not the same person
as the person assuming responsibility for payment of service, the latter is the customer for purposes
of obtaining or terminating service, receiving refunds, or making changes to the account.” Id. The
record shows that the Company has provided, and Ms. Burbank has paid for, utility services. Thus,
the Commission finds that Ms. Burbank is a customer and has standing to bring a formal complaint,
and the Company is subject to the regulatory authority of the Commission.
2. Hook-up Fee and Monthly Charges
Together, Idaho Code §§ 61-313 and 61-315 codify the concepts that make up the filed
rate doctrine in Idaho. This doctrine requires utilities to file their rates with the Commission and
creates the obligation to charge only those rates.3

3 The filed rate doctrine is explained in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 35
S.Ct. 494, 59 L.Ed. 853 (1915).

ORDER NO. 35418 9
The evidence produced in this case demonstrates that Ms. Burbank did not pay the $150.00
hook-up fee. As such the Commission finds that she is not entitled to any refund of the hook-up
fee.
The record also shows that the Company invoiced Ms. Burbank the Commission approved
amount for water service each month, $39.50. Ms. Burbank claimed she did not receive invoices
for water service from the Company; however, the Company claimed to have sent invoices to the
same address that Ms. Burbank identified as her mailing address in this case. Further, the record
shows that Ms. Burbank, in fact, paid for four months of water service from the Company. The
Commission finds this is compelling evidence that she received invoices from the Company.
As of October of 2021, Ms. Burbank’s past due balance for water service was $592.50.
This past due balance may have increased if Ms. Burbank continued to receive water service from
the Company and continued to not pay for it at the rate of $39.50 per month. Staff instructed the
Company to continue providing Ms. Burbank water service during the pendency of her Complaint.
This Order resolves the allegations made in the Complaint. After issuance of this Order, if Ms.
Burbank does not bring her past due balance for water service current or make arrangements with
the Company to do so, the Company may seek to terminate her service in compliance with Rules
301 through 313 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. See IDAPA 31.21.01.300-313 et seq.
We encourage Ms. Burbank to work with the Company to address her past due balance for water
service.
The Commission also instructs the Company, if not already corrected at the time of issuing
of this Order, to issue separate invoices for its water and sewer services to provide customers with
better and clearer billing information, starting with the Company’s next billing period for water
service.
3. Disconnection Notices
The Commission finds that the Company’s disconnection notices fail to comply with the
appropriate regulations. A utility company may terminate a customer’s service consistent with the
UCCR for failure to pay for water service. See IDAPA 31.21.01.302.01.ii, -304 and -305.
However, a Company may not terminate water service for non-payment of septic service since that
service is not regulated by the Commission. See IDAPA 31.21.01.310.01.c. The Company shall
revise its disconnection notices for water service to comply with the Commission’s UCCRs to
reflect only past due balances for water service.

ORDER NO. 35418 10
4. Termination of Service
The Commission finds that Ms. Burbank’s water service was not wrongfully disconnected.
We find that on August 16, 2021, a temporary water disconnection occurred but was unrelated to
Ms. Burbank failure to pay for water service. See Second Supplemental Affidavit of Jolene Bossard,
Exhibit A. The Commission also finds that on August 20, 2021, the Company sufficiently notified
residents of a planned water outage as permitted by its tariffs. Id. We also find that on September
10, 2021, there was an outage that affected few residents; however, Ms. Burbank was not one of
them. Id. We find that on October 14, 2021, Ms. Burbank was notified of a planned water outage
to bring a new generator online. Id. Finally, we find no corroborating evidence to support Ms.
Burbank’s assertion that there were water service outages on September 1 and 24, 2021. Id.
5. Water Pressure
The record contains conflicting evidence concerning the water pressure on the Company’s
system. Public water systems must maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi throughout its
distribution, at ground level, as measured at the service connection or along the property line
adjacent to the consumer’s premises. See IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01b.ii. The Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality is primarily responsible for the enforcement of this Rule’s water pressure
requirement. However, to assure that the Company’s water system complies with this Rule the
Company shall take daily water pressure readings from appropriate locations on the Company’s
water system for 14 days, starting the day after the issuance of this Order. At the end of the 14-day
pressure testing period the Company shall submit a report to the Commission containing the daily
water pressure readings within 21 days of issuance of this Order.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms. Burbank is not entitled to a refund of the $150.00
hook-up fee to connect to the Company’s water system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company has billed the Commission approved rate
of $39.50 per month to Ms. Burbank for water service. As of October 2021, Ms. Burbank had a
past due balance for water service of $592.50, which may have grown if she has continued to not
pay for water service from the Company.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall bill its water services on a separate
invoice from any other services the Company may provide. The Company must also revise its
website’s information on hook-up fees to accurately reflect water and septic fees separately. The

ORDER NO. 35418 11
Company shall revise its disconnection notices so that they comply with the Commission’s
UCCRs, specifically Rule 310, IDAPA 31.01.01.310. The Company shall work with Staff to
ensure that its disconnection notices comply with the Commission’s authorities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall take daily water pressure readings
from appropriate locations on the Company’s water system for 14 days, starting the day after the
issuance of this Order. At the end of the 14-day water pressure testing period the Company shall
submit a report to the Commission containing the daily water pressure readings within 21 days of
issuance of this Order.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any
matter decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-
626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day of
May 2022.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

//ABSTAIN TO AVOID CONFLICT//

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\WATER\ROC-W-21-01\orders\ROCW2101_final_cb.docx