20210316Order_No_34962.pdf

ORDER NO. 34962 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 16, 2021
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF SUEZ WATER IDAHO
INC.’S APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY
TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES
FOR WATER SERVICE IN IDAHO
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02

ORDER NO. 34962

On September 30, 2020, SUEZ Water Idaho, Inc. (“Company”) applied to raise the
rates it charges for water service. The Company proposed an October 31, 2020 effective date.
Micron Technology, Boise City, Ada County, Intermountain Fair Housing Council, SUEZ Water
Customer Group, Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, and Gannon et al.
(collectively the “Intervenors”) intervened in the case.
In Order No. 34819, the Commission suspended the Company’s proposed effective
date for 5 months and 30 days under Idaho Code § 61-622(4). The Commission then adopted the
parties’ proposed case schedule at its February 23, 2021 decision meeting. See Order No. 34942.
On February 26, 2021, three days after the Commission adopted the parties’ proposed schedule,
Boise City filed a Motion for Extension for Time signed by all Intervenors, requesting that the
Commission suspend the proposed effective date for another 60 days and extend all scheduled
deadlines 45 days.1 The Motion was filed under Rule 256.03, IDAPA 31.01.01.256.03. The Motion
cited several reasons the Intervenors believed there was good cause for an extension and asked the
Commission to consider the Motion on fewer than 14 days’ notice. These included: (1) multiple
intervenors with different viewpoints; (2) ongoing discovery; (3) multiple intervenors who are
unfamiliar with the Commission’s procedures; (4) logistics of the pandemic; (5) the need for expert
review; and (6) one intervenor’s executive director unexpectedly leaving.
On March 5, 2021, the Company filed an Answer in Opposition to the Intervenor’s
Motion (“Answer”). Among other arguments, the Company claimed that the Intervenors had not
demonstrated good cause to extend the schedule and that extending the schedule as proposed in
the Motion would prejudice the Company.

1 The Intervenors cited Idaho Code § 61-622(4), which discusses the maximum period of suspension available for
proposed new rates. Idaho Code § 61-622(4) allows the Commission to suspend the proposed effective date for 5
months plus 30 days. Additionally, the statute allows the Commission “after a showing of good cause on the
record” to suspend the proposed effective date for an additional 60 days. (Emphasis added).
ORDER NO. 34962 2
COMMISSION DECISION
Having reviewed the Motion and the Company’s response, the Commission denies the
Motion. Idaho Code § 61-622(4) allows the Commission to suspend the effective date for new
rates an additional 60 days for “good cause on the record.” We find the Intervenors have failed to
establish good cause. The reasons stated in the Motion are not compelling. Rate cases and other
large cases typically can attract many intervenors. Nor is it unusual for parties to have diverse
interest within a single case.
The Intervenors note that discovery is ongoing. Such is the case throughout any rate
case proceeding. All Intervenors were granted party status by December 4, 2020 and could have
propounded and reviewed discovery ever since. The Intervenors have enjoyed the typical rate case
pace and schedule, which inevitably includes multiple rounds of discovery, settlement discussions,
proposals, and counterproposals. Also, the time allotted for the processing of this case was clear
from the outset. In Order No. 34819, we suspended the Company’s proposed effective date of
October 31, 2020 for 30 days plus five months consistent with Idaho Code § 61-622(4).
The Intervenors assert the case schedule should be extended because several
Intervenors have never participated in a case before this Commission and are unfamiliar with the
Commission’s processes and rules. We find, however, that lack of familiarity with the
Commission’s processes and rules does not warrant granting an additional 60 days with almost
two months left in the initial period of suspension (when the Motion was filed). See Order No.
34819. Moreover, the Intervenors agreed to a case schedule that this Commission considered and
approved less than a week before they filed for an extension. The Intervenors’ have failed to
establish good cause for the Commission to further suspend the proposed effective date. If
circumstances arise that amount to good cause, we remain open to such an argument at a later date.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Intervenors’ Motion for Extension of Time is
denied. The schedule established by Order No. 34942 remains the schedule for processing this
case.
///

ORDER NO. 34962 3
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 16th day
of March 2021.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

KRISTINE RAPER, COMMISSIONER

ERIC ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\WATER\SUZ-W-20-02\Orders\SUZW2002_Commission Decision_mhdh.docx