20230418Reconsideration_Order_No_35749.pdf

ORDER NO. 35749 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 18, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF SUNBEAM WATER
COMPANY’S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION REPORTING AND FISCAL
REQUIREMENTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. SNB-W-22-01

ORDER NO. 35749

This matter came before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) on the
Commission Staff’s (“Staff”) request to order Sunbeam Water (“Sunbeam” or “Company”) to
appear and show cause why the Commission should not impose penalties for the Company’s
continued, willful violations of its requirements under state law and the Commission’s rules.
On February 16, 2023, after failing to appear at the show cause hearing scheduled for
January 5, 2023, the Commission issued Order No. 35680 imposing penalties and ordering the
Company to submit its annual reports, pay its assessment fees, and coordinate with Staff
concerning the Company’s audit and on-site visit. Order No. 35680 gave the Company (1) 21 days
to petition for reconsideration per Idaho Code § 61-626; (2) 30 days to submit its annual reports
and pay its associated assessment fees;1 and (3) 45 days to pay its penalties. The Company has not
yet paid its assessment fees. Nor has the Company communicated with Staff regarding other
matters as directed in Order No. 35680.
On March 28, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Reconsider Penalties (“Petition”).
This Commission now issues this Order dismissing the Company’s Petition, as discussed
in detail below.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Company’s Petition stated the following:
. . . [The Company] hereby moves this Commission to Reconsider the
Commission’s decision entered in this matter on 16th day of FEBRUARY, 2023,
imposing penalties for failure to submit reports and failure to appear. Respondent
has complied with the filing requests of the Commission and does not have the
financial ability to pay said fines.

Petition at 1.

1 The Company filed its 2017 through 2021 annual GIOR statements on January 4, 2023. The 2022 GIOR is due April
15, 2023. The Company filed its 2017 through 2022 annual reports on March 17, 2023.
ORDER NO. 35749 2
LEGAL STANDARDS
Reconsideration affords parties an opportunity to bring to the Commission’s attention any
matter previously determined and provides the Commission opportunity to rectify any mistake
before the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court. Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public
Utilities Comm’n, 1980, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242. Any person or public utility has the right
to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined in a Commission order. Idaho
Code § 61-626(1). The petitioner has 21 days from the date of the final Order in which to ask for
reconsideration. Id. “Within twenty-eight (28) days after the filing of a petition for reconsideration
the commission shall determine whether or not it will grant such reconsideration, and make and
enter its order accordingly.” Idaho Code § 61-626(2). “If after reconsideration, including
consideration of matters arising since the making of the order, th e commission shall be of the
opinion that the original order or any part thereof is in any respect unjust or unwarranted or
should be changed, the commission may abrogate or change the same.” Idaho Code § 61-626(3).
Commission Rule of Procedure 332 provides that the “Commission may grant
reconsideration upon petition of any interested person or upon its own motion.” IDAPA
31.01.01.332. “Petitions for reconsideration must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided
in it is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.01. “Grounds for, or issues on reconsideration not supported by specific explanation
may be dismissed.” IDAPA 31.01.01.332.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission dismisses the Petition on its merits. The Commission finds that the
Petition does not meet the substantive requirements for reconsideration. Rule 331 states: “Petitions
for reconsideration must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided in it is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and quantity of evidence
or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01
(emphasis added). Further, “the petition . . . must state whether the petitioner . . . requests
reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03.
The Petition did not explicitly state why the penalties imposed in Order No. 35680 were
“unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law” as required by IDAPA
ORDER NO. 35749 3
31.01.01.331.01. The Company stated it did not have the ability to pay the penalties imposed, but
the Company did not provide a clear line of reasoning showing how the penalties were
“unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law.” Id. Additionally, because
the Company did not provide any rationale or information concerning the “nature and quantity of
the evidence” to support its argument, the Petition fails to meet both material elements necessary
for relief. Id.
Finally, the Company failed to fully comply with all of the requirements of Order No.
35680. The Company stated it had “complied with the filing,” but it has not. Petition at 1. The
Commission ordered that the Company submit its annual reports, pay its assessment fees in full,
and coordinate with Staff concerning the audit of the Company and on-site visit. The Company
filed its annual reports. However, the Company did not put forth any effort in remitting its
assessment fees. Similarly, the Company did not respond to Staff in a timely fashion to coordinate
an audit, an on-site visit, and public workshop. We expect the Company to complete the remaining
requirements, including working with Staff to schedule an on-site audit and public workshop.
Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed, and the Company is directed to comply with the
requirements set forth in Order No. 35608.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by
this Order, or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case, may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///

ORDER NO. 35749 4
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 18th day of
April 2023.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\WATER\SNB-W-22-01\orders\SNBW2201_recon_order_md.docx