20211130Comments.pdf

JOHN R. HAMMOND, JR.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720.007 4
(208) 334-03s7
IDAHO BAR NO. 5470
vs.
Street Address for Express Mail:
I 1331 W CHINDEN BLVD, BLDG 8, SUITE 2OI.A
BOISE, ID 83714
Attomey for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
NICOLE BURBANK,
CASE NO. ROC-W-21-01
COMPLAINANT,
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
ROCKY MOUNTAIN UTILITY COMPAIIY,
INC.
RESPONDENT.
COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Staff'), by and
through its attorney of record, John R. Hammond, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, submits the
following comments.
BACKGROUND
On June I,2021, Nicole Burbank, filed a formal complaint ("Complaint") against the
Rocky Mountain Utility Company, Inc. ("Compmy"), a water corporation and public utility,
alleging that she has never contracted with the Company for water utility service, and it is
committing fraud and extortion through its billing practices. Ms. Burbank submitted additional
information to the Commission about the Complaint on July 28, and August 17,2021.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2021
Before filing the Complaint, Ms. Burbank registered an informal complaint with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission's consumer assistance staff ("Staff') about the Company. Staff
could not informally resolve the dispute between Ms. Burbank and the Company.
On September27,2027, the Commission issued a Summons requiring the Company to
answer the allegations of the Complaint and to address additional questions raised by the
Commission in the Summons. The Company filed a response on November 1,2021. Ms.
Burbank filed a Declaration and Response to Respondent's Answer.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
Ms. Burbank alleges the Company has committed fraud and extortion. Formal Complaint
at l. Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company failed to give her a"Terms of Agreement or
Contract" for water service. 1d. Ms. Burbank further asserts that the Company never gave her a
written contractual agreement for water service. Id. Ms Burbank claims that her builder hooked
into the Company's water system without giving her notice and due to confusion "moneys were
paid to [the Company)". Id. Ms. Burbank also represents she has not received invoices from the
Company. Id. Ms. Burbank states she received copies of Company invoices through interaction
with Staff. Id. Ms. Burbank states these invoices were a "mess" and wrongly labeled. Id. Ms.
Burbank claims 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 alleges
that the Company violated the Customer Relations Rule 102 by basing the deposit on her sex,
marital status, and children.r Id. Ms. Burbank also alleges that the Company increased her water
bill every month and added multiple line items to it without approval from the Commission. Id.
Ms. Burbank asserts that one of these line items is for "septic". Id. Ms. Burbank asserts the
Company has used the nonpayment of these line items to threaten to shut off water service to her
residence. 1d.
Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company has violated its Commission approved tariff by
increasing the cost for water service "by adding line items in the water (utility) bill" and that this
violates the Commission's rules and procedures. Id. Ms. Burbank also asserts that the
Company's billing practices, and actions have violated the following Customer Relations Rules
201.01(a-i), 202.01, 203.01-.03 and 206.01 through 207. Id.
I No specific facts are given to support this allegation
STAFF COMMENTS 2 NOVEMBER 30,2O2I
Ms. Burbank also asserts that the Company has overcharged her for a customer deposit in
the amount of $850.00 and then billed her $97.50 in the same month. Id. Ms. Burbank also
asserts that the Company has wrongfully charged her $58.00 monthly. 1d. Ms. Burbank also
asserts that the Company violated Rule 109.02 because the Company created "NEW'" documents.
Id. Ms. Burbank argues the Company's billing practices do not comply with the Commission's
rules. Ms. Burbank alleges that the Company has not disclosed the terms and conditions for water
usage to her. Id. Ms Burbank also argues that she does not have a meter on her property for
water usage or for water pressure and that "[n]o one has investieated the water pressure to this
day." (Emphasis added in the original document). 1d
Ms. Burbank requests that all over payments for monthly services and the customer
deposit be refunded to her or applied against future water service charges. 1d. Ms. Burbank
requests that the Company follow the Commission's rules and that her bill for utility services be
sent to:
Nicole Burbank
3890 East Ash Lane
Rigby,Idaho 83442
Email : nursenikki0S 1 [e-mail]
Ms. Burbank alleges that Staff s initial Decision Memorandum about her Complaint was
inaccurate. See July 28, 2021, Correspondence. Additionally, Ms. Burbank asserts that since
filing her Complaint she has received multiple harassing letters from the Company threatening to
shut off her water service. Id. The Company disconnection notices attached to this
correspondence demanding that she pay past due sewer and water service charges to avoid having
her water service disconnected. Id. Burbank contends that Company has been wamed not send
these letters by the "Idaho Public Utilities Commission".2 Ms. Burbank states the threats to shut
off her water come with demands to pay ever changing amounts. Id.
Ms. Burbank asserts that the Company "has extorted over 100 residents in our
neighborhood for years." Id. I|l{s. Burbank asserts that she provided documents from other
residents in the subdivision to counsel for Staff that included line item increases on water bills to
2 Staffhas notified the Company not to disconnect Ms. Burbank's water service.
JSTAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
allegedly pay for a "new water Well" that she contends never happened.3 Ms. Burbank further
complains that "low water pressure that has never been investigated". Id. Last, Ms. Burbank
asserts that automatic withdrawal payments show going into a horse racing business owned by the
same person that owns the Company. Ms. Burbank asserts that Staff has refused to give these
documents to the Commission.
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 alleges that on this same day the owner of the
Company came to her house unannounced threatened to dig up the water and septic lines if she
didn't pay her bill. Id. In addition, Ms. Burbank attached disconnection notices she received
from the Company and her bill that contained amounts charged for water and septic usage. Id.
COMPANY RESPONSE
The Company asserts that information about its hookup fees is included on its website.
The Company attached a copy of information it received from a title company "about fees,
Warranty Deed, and a check for the hookup fee and first month's utilities." Response at l. The
Company represents that generally title companies either verbally or email "an assessment for
information." Id. at l. The Company represents that it was verbally contacted by First American
Title Company on February 10,2020, with questions about the hookup fee and monthly utility
bill. The Company alleges that someone (unknown to it) "said it was okay to pay through
escrow." Id. The Company attached a handwritten description of the charges to its Response that
were assessed to Ms. Burbank beginning from the first date of service for water. 1d. at Exhibit l.
lt is unclear who prepared this document contained in the Company's Response. This summary
purports to show that $850.00 was charged for a hookup fee and an additional $97.50 for monthly
dues. 1d. The summary also states that the "$97.50 : (82.50 month + temp. fee $15.00 for
septic)". Id. The Company has attached a copy of Check No.29924 it received from First
3 Ms. Burbank has accused Staff of refusing to give the Commission invoices from other alleged customers of the
Company. These customers have not registered informal complaints with Staff. However, the invoices for these
customers are substantially like Ms. Burbank's invoices, which in her case show that she was billed $39.50 and $58.00
monthly for water and septic services respectively. Ms. Burbank also submitted screenshots of bank account
information belonging to a third party. Without the consent of this individual Staffdoes not believe it has authority to
possess this bank account information and has deleted it.
4STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
American Title Company in the amount of $947.50 for File No. 818616-RI, Re: 3890 East Ash
Lane. Id. atBxhtbit lB.
The Company also attached an itemized statement for monthly water service that began
being delivered in April of 2020 to Ms. Burbank's residence at 3890 East Ash Lane. Id. at
Exhibit 2. T"he itemization shows that Ms. Burbank made four $39.50 payments for water service
totaling $158.00. Id. The itemization also shows that Ms. Burbank has not made a payment for
water service since August of 2020. Id. As a result, the Company contends Ms. Burbank has a
past due balance of $592.50 for this period through the October billing period. Id.
The Company also asserts that it can separate invoices for water and sewer service. The
Company implemented this change on September 2,2021.
MS. BURBAIIK'S DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO
THE COMPANY'S ANSWER
Ms. Burbank reiterates her assertions about the Company's owner showing up at her home
on August 16,2021. Declaration at 1. Ms. Burbank also asserts that her water service was
temporarily shut off on August 16,2021, September 1, l0 and 24,2021and October 14,2021,
without notice of cause. Id. at2. Ms. Burbank asserts the Company is retaliating against her by
shutting off her water. 1d Ms. Burbank also asserts that she deposited a large sum of money into
escrow with First American Title Company for closing costs and miscellaneous expenses. Id.
Ms. Burbank claims she never agreed to pay the Company for a "hook-up" fee but the money was
still taken from escrow for this. /d Ms. Burbank also asserts that at the time she purchased her
home she did not receive any documentation from the escrow company, nor did she receive
information from the Company or sign anything agreeing to pay the Company a bill. Id. Ms.
Burbank also asserts that the handwritten document attached to the Company's Responses makes
no sense and she has not seen it before. 1d. Ms. Burbank also asserts that she has not seen a bill
yet that separates water service from sewer service since September l, 2021.
Ms. Burbank prays that the Commission stop the Company from extorting her. ,Id. Ms.
Burbank also requests that the Commission "correct the fraud that has been committed against
[herself]" and prevent the Company from retaliating against her. Id. Ms. Burbank also requests
that the Commission require regular testing of the water pressure and that this testing be
performed by third party with no affiliation to RMUCI. 1d.
5STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
STAFF COMMENTS
The Company is a water corporation and a public utility, as defined under Title 61 of the
Idaho Code, and provides water service to its customers in Idaho. Idaho Code $$ 6l-125, and -
129. The Commission has jurisdiction over the Company and this matter under Idaho Code $$
61-501 , - 502, -503, -507, -520, -523, and -622. The Company provides water service to
customers, including Ms. Burbank, in the Pepperwood Crossing Subdivision located four miles
south of Rigby, Idaho. The Company's system is unmetered. The Company also provides sewer
services to its customers, which the Commission does not regulate.
1. The Hook-Up Fee
Idaho's Public tltilities Law requires that all charges "r11ade, demanded or received by any
public urtility... beiustandreasonable." Iclaho ('rxle $ 6l-301. Underthefiledratedoctrinea
"utility cannot charge more-. and also ... cannot charge less than" its approved rates and charges
on file with the Commission. Itlaho Code $ 6l-313.
The Commission approved the Company's Hook-Up Fee of $150.00 to connect to its
water system. See Roclq, tr[ounlcrin Utility Company, Sheet 2 Revision, Non-Recuruing Charges
(effective January l, 2009, approved by Order No. 30703). The Company contends that an
$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. The payment came through
Check No.29924 it received from First American Title Company in the amount of $947.50 for
File No. 818616-RI, Re: 3890 East Ash Lane. See Exhibit lB attached to the Response. The
Company contends it charges $150.00 to connect to its water system and cites its webpage for this
information. See rockymountainutility.com/water-ratesfees/. The Company also provided a
summary of Company charges sent to Ms. Burbank that show that a "Hook up Fee" of $850 was
billed to Ms. Burbank and paid with reference to #29924 (the same number of the check sent from
First American Title). See Affidavit of Jolene Bossard at Exhibit B. The $850.00 was not split
into separate amounts for the water and sewer system on this Company sunmary. Ms. Burbank
contends that she paid the $850.00 fee through Escrow when she closed on the transaction for her
residence. See JuJy 29,2021, Correspondence. However, Ms. Burbank has not provided any
evidence to support that allegation like a copy of a Buyer's Settlement Statement that would show
6STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
whether she paid this $850.00 fee or not out of her funds that were in escrow. Staff has received a
copy of the "ALTA Settlement Statement-Seller" for the entity (Higley Developments, LLC) that
sold the residence at 3890 East Ash Lane to Ms. Burbank. This statement shows that Higley
Developments, LLC paid the $850.00 "Hook-Up Fee to Rocky Mountain Utility". See
Supplemental Affidavit of Jolene Bossard. If Ms. Burbank did not pay the "Hook-Up Fee" she
does not have standing to contest this issue. Staff has informally requested that Ms. Burbank
release the closing documents for her purchase of 3890 East Ash Lane. Staff has also prepared a
Production Request to be sent to Ms. Burbank requesting this information if she does not respond
to Staff s informal request.
Based on the records that Staff received from the Company, it failed to itemize this
$850.00 charge into separate items for connecting to its water and sewer systems. The Company
has asserted that it only charged $150.00 to connect Ms. Burbank's residence to its water system,
but its records and invoices create confusion about what was ultimately charged. At a minimum,
Staff recommends that the Commission direct the Company to modiff its invoices and webpage
to clearly inform new customers that the Hook-up Fee to connect to the Company's water system
for water service is $150.00 for a new customer. Staff also recommends that the Commission
direct the Company to modifr its webpage to accurately describe what the $700 connection fee
listed there is for.
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 was established on March 20,2020, and payments were
made for water service untilAugust4,2020. Affidavit of Jolene Bossard at Confidential Exhibit
A (Confidential Exhibit). The Company asserted that it sent out an invoice every month and that
notices were mailed to Ms. Burbank. Id. The Company further advised that it had sent
disconnect notices to Ms. Burbank, but the Company preferred not to disconnect customers in the
winter. Id. The Company also advised Staffthat its technician recently spoke with Ms. Burbank
and talked with her about disconnecting service. 1d.
On May 10,2021, Staffrequested that the Company provide it with, 1) a copy of Ms.
Burbank's last bill; 2) acopy of the Final Notice; and 3) payment and billing history for Ms.
Burbank. Id. Staff also asked the Company whether invoices are 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
7STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2T
arrangement the Company would propose for Ms. Burbank to pay off any past due amount. Id.
The Company responded to Staff on the same day by providing Staff with copies of Ms.
Burbank's last bill, final notice, and payment/billing history. Id. atBxhrbit B. Ms. Burbank's
billing and payment history confirms there was a "Hook up fee" of $850 billed by the Company
which does not indicate what it is for. Id. This billing history also shows that the Company billed
Ms. Burbank $39.50 for water and $58.00 for septic monthly for $97.50 each month.4 Id. The
Company billed Ms. Burbank for these services on the same invoice. Id. The Company claimed
that all invoices were sent to Ms. Burbank's home address. Id. The Company also represented
that it was open to payment arrangements of any kind. Id.
Based on the record, Ms. Burbank has been receiving water service from the Company since
April of 2020. Ms. Burbank does not deny this. Ms. Burbank paid for water service for April,
May, June, and July 2020, but has not made any payments since that time. See Company Response
at Exhibit 2. Ms. Burbank argues that due to confusion, she paid money to the Company.
Complaint at 1. Ms. Burbank also asserts that she thought she was paying Rocky Mountain Power
and not the Company . See July 28, 202I, Coruespondence. According to the Company's Response,
Ms. Burbank has a past due balance of $592.50 for water service. Response at Exhibit 2. Assuming
Ms. Burbank is still a customer of the Company, an additional $39.50 would have been billed to
Ms. Burbank in November of 2021for water service.
One issue in this case is that the Company billed its water and sewer services on the same
invoice. Although there may be some cost savings by billing both services on one invoice, Staff
believes the clarity provided by billing water service on a separate invoice will help customers.
The Company has represented in its Response that it is now separating these services. Staff
believes the Commission should direct the Company to continue this practice of sending a
separate bill to its customers for water service. Although some confusion could have arisen due
to the Company billing water and sewer service on the same invoice, the documentation provided
to Staff by the Company demonstrates that Ms. Burbank was billed the Commission approved
amount of $39.50 per month for water service. Ms. Burbank contends she never agreed to pay
these charges or entered a contract with the Company. The Company contends that a new
customer information packet was sent to Ms. Burbank, which she denies receiving. Based on the
a The Company's Commission approved Rate Schedule I - All customers (Residential & Commercial) provides that it
charges its customers a flat rate of $39.50 for water service.
8STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2021
facts provided by the parties, water service was provided by the Company to Ms. Burbank. Ms.
Burbank paid for this service for four months so it seems extremely likely she was receiving an
invoice or other information from the Company. Ms. Burbank continues to receive water service
from the Company, but refuses to pay for it.
Staff believes the Company has charged Ms. Burbank for water service consistent with its
Tariff. Further, Staff believes Ms. Burbank should make arrangements with the Company to pay
off the past due balance for the water service she has received and so that she may continue to
receive water service from the Company.
3. Disconnection Notices.
The Company has sent disconnection notices to Ms. Burbank providing that her water
service would be shut off if she did not pay past due balances for water and sewer service. See
Exhibit A attached to Formal Complaint; see also attachmentsto July 28, 2021, Coruespondence.
The Company may terminate a customer's service consistent with the requirements of the
Commission's Customers Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water Public Utilities ("UCRR")
for a customer failing to pay for water service. See Rules 302.01.ii, 304 and 305. Staff believes
that the Company cannot include past due charges for sewer service in its termination notices as
Rule 310 of the UCRR provides that a utility will not terminate service or provide notice of intent
to terminate service if the bill cited for termination is for the purchase of non-utility goods or
services. IDAPA 31.01.01.310.01.c. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission direct
the Company to revise its disconnection or termination notices for water service that it sends to
customers for failure to pay to only include past due charges for water service.
4. Termination of Service
After Ms. Burbank opened an informal complaint with the Commission the Consumer
Assistance Staff advised the Company that it could not terminate Ms. Burbank's service while her
informal complaint and then formal complaint was pending. On November 19,2021, Ms. Burbank
filed her Declaration asserting that her service was temporarily shutoff 5 times in August through
October of 2021. Staff does not have information from the Company concerning these alleged
temporary shutoffs. Staff is sending Production Requests to the and requested information about
these allegations. Staff wishes to veriff whether these shutoff3 occurred, the reasons for any
shutoffs and what notice may have been provided to Ms. Burbank. Once it receives the Company's
9STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
Responses Staff will be in a better position to provide a recommendation to the Commission on this
ISSUe
5. Water Pressure
Ms. Burbank has asserted that no one has investigated the water pressure on the
Company's system. Complaint atZ. Inher July 28,2021, correspondence, Ms. Burbank
complains that "[]ow water pressure that has never been investigated". See July 28,2021,
correspondence at p.2.
Idaho Code $ 61-301 provides that every public utility shall furnish service that is
"adequate, efficient, just and reasonable ." Idaho Code $ 6l -5 1 5 provides that the Commission
has the power upon a complaint "to require every public utility to maintain and operate its line,
plant, system, equipment, apparatus and premises in such manner as to promote and safeguard the
health and safety of its employees, customers and the public[.]" As a public drinking water
system, the Company must comply with the rules for Public Drinking Water Systems
promulgated by ldaho Department of Environmental Quality. IDAPA 58.01.08. As a general
rule, a public water system shall 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. IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b. ii. In addition, when water
pressure falls below 20 psi, the Company must notifu [DEQ], provide public notice to the affected
customers within twenty-four (24) hours, and disinfect or flush the system as appropriate.
rDAPA s8.01 .08.552.01.b.ii.(1).
In response to a Staff inquiry related to complaints about low water pressure. the
Company represented that the Company's system is at a constant 70 psi and that water pressure is
checked daily. See Supplemental A-ffidavit of ,lolene Bos,sard.
Based on the current record in this case Staff carulot determine whether there are water
pressure issues on the Company's system. In an abundance of caution, Staff recommends that the
Company provide the Commission with a daily water pressure report from appropriate locations
on the Company's water system for fourteen days fiom the date of any Commission Order ruling
on Ms. Burbank's Complaint.
STAFF COMMENTS 10 NOVEMBER 30, 2021
h\^,Respectfully submitted this
Rocw2l .ljh comments
of November 2021
J Hammond, Jr
STAFF COMMENTS 11 NOVEMBER 30, 2O2I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBy cERTIFy rHAT I HAVE THIS 30s DRy oF NovEMBER 202r,
SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMENTS OF TIIE COMMISSION STAFF, IN
CASE NO. ROC.W-2I-OI, BY E.MAILING A COPY THEREOF, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
NICOLE BURBANK
3890 EAST ASH LANE
RIGBY ID 83442
E-MAIL : nursenikki0S 1 8@ gmail.com
JIM BERNARD
ROCKY MOUNTAIN UTILITY
2 N LANDMARK LANE STE 4
RIGBY ID 83442
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE