20231121Answer to Formal Complaint of Avimor.pdf

1
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

Austin Rueschhoff, ISB No. 10592
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen, ISB No. 11947
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AVIMOR’S FORMAL ) CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03
COMPLAINT AGAINST VEOLIA WATER )
IDAHO, INC. ) ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S
) FORMAL COMPLAINT
)

Pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) Rule of Procedure 057
(IDAPA 31.01.01.057); the Summons issued by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission on October
19, 2023; and Order No. 35991 issued on November 9, 2023; Veolia Water Idaho, Inc. (“Veolia”
or “Respondent”)1 hereby submits this Answer to Avimor Development, LLC’s (“Avimor” or
“Complainant”) Formal Complaint (“Complaint”), which was filed on October 10, 2023. In
summary and as set forth in more detail below, Avimor’s Complaint is unsupported by, and
inconsistent with, Veolia’s approved tariffs and must, therefore, be rejected by the Commission.
For purposes of this Answer, Veolia will treat the 9 paragraphs in the Complaint following the

1 Veolia notes that the Complaint is addressed to Veolia North America. However, the Idaho
public utility subject to the Commission’s regulation is that company’s subsidiary Veolia Water
Idaho, Inc. As such, this Answer is provided by Veolia Water Idaho, Inc. consistent with the
entity to whom the Commission addressed the Summons and Order extending the deadline to
provide this Answer.
RECEIVED
2023 NOVEMBER 20, 2023 3:35PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

2
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

introduction sentence and offset by dashes as Complaint paragraphs 1-9, the paragraph following
the header Applicable Provisions and offset by a dash as Complaint paragraph 10, and the
paragraphs following the header Desired Relief and offset by dashes as Complaint paragraphs 11-
15. For ease of reference, Veolia has attached as Exhibit 1 a version of Avimor’s Formal
Complaint with numbers added to each paragraph.
ANSWER
1. Veolia admits that Exhibit A to the Complaint represents the Avimor Subdivision
No. 5 Water Plan as approved for construction by Suez Water Idaho, Inc. (Veolia’s predecessor)
on August 15, 2016. Veolia otherwise denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1
other than the allegation regarding whether and when the water plan was recorded. As to that
allegation, Veolia is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of that allegation and, therefore, denies the same.
2. Veolia admits that Exhibit A to the Complaint represents the Avimor Subdivision
No. 5 Water Plan as approved for construction by Suez Water Idaho, Inc. (Veolia’s predecessor)
on August 15, 2016. Veolia further submits the as-built maps of the water system in the area that
is the subject of this Complaint and a photograph showing the installed infrastructure as Answer
Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. Veolia otherwise denies each and every allegation set forth in
Paragraph 2.
3. Veolia admits that the document attached to the Errata to the Complaint filed
October 16, 2023, is a correct copy of Residential, Multiple Family Housing, Commercial,
Industrial, or Municipal Development Water Main Extension Agreement (“2016 Agreement”)
between Suez Water Idaho, Inc. and Avimor Development, LLC dated September 7, 2016. Veolia
admits that the 2016 Agreement documents how the parties agreed to extend water mains to

3
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

accomplish service to the residential lots included in the subject area. Veolia notes that the school
parcel (Lot 23 Block 12 on Complaint Exhibit A) was not designed to be serviced with the 2016
Agreement. No commercial service or fire services were proposed, reviewed, or approved for this
future school site in 2016. Veolia otherwise denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph
3.
4. Veolia admits that from April to September 2023 engineering representatives of
Idaho Novus Classical Academy and Veolia exchanged information about how water service could
be extended to the school. During those interactions, Veolia provided information about Veolia
tariff requirements, shared that Avimor’s desired pipeline routing didn’t meet the tariff
requirements, and worked with the project’s engineers to plan a pipeline layout that would meet
the tariff requirements. Veolia admits that on September 6, 2023, Veolia approved a plan that had
been submitted by the school. A copy of that approved plan is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Answer
and the email transmitting the approval is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Answer. Veolia otherwise
denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 4.
5. Veolia admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 but further notes that the purpose of
the required main extension was not simply to connect the existing mains but to construct a main
that would front the school property in accordance with Veolia’s tariffs.
6. Veolia is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies the same.
7. Veolia generally admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 but notes that the
communication from the Idaho Commission Staff to Avimor attached as Exhibit B to the
Complaint speaks for itself.

4
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

8. Veolia generally admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 but notes that the
communication from the Idaho Commission Staff to Avimor attached as Exhibit B to the
Complaint speaks for itself.
9. Veolia admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 9. Veolia is without
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in
the second sentence of Paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies the same.
10. Veolia notes that the tariffs approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission are
approved for Veolia Water Inc. but otherwise admits the allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Paragraph 11, in part, contains the Complaint’s request for relief to which no
response is required. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 11, Veolia denies those.
12. Veolia admits that the Idaho Novus Classical Academy submitted engineering
designs that were rejected by Veolia in accordance with its tariffs. Veolia admits that Idaho Novus
Classical Academy also submitted a design that was approved as discussed in Paragraph 4 above.
With regard to the other allegations in Paragraph 12, Veolia denies those.
13. Veolia is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 13 and, therefore, denies the same.
14. Veolia is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 14 and, therefore, denies the same.
15. Veolia is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 14 and, therefore, denies the same.
GENERAL DENIAL
16. Veolia denies each and every allegation of the Complaint not specifically addressed
herein, if any.

5
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
17. Complainant’s relief is barred, in whole or in part, under the Filed Rate Doctrine.
18. In accordance with Commission rules and Veolia’s approved tariffs, Veolia applies
its tariffs consistently for all developers.
19. The plan approved by Veolia as discussed above in Paragraph 4 is consistent with
requirements Veolia applies to all developers. It is in the best interests of all of Veolia’s customers
for mains to be constructed in public rights of way to keep maintenance simpler and less costly.
20. Other benefits of the approach Veolia has approved for service (besides maintaining
consistency across developers) are that (a) no easements are required to be obtained or maintained;
(b) maintaining pipes in public rights of way is less expensive and simpler than maintaining pipes
in private easements; and (c) there will be, in the end, a looped supply available to the school,
providing redundancy and additional reliability in both fire and domestic service, and less
opportunity for stagnant water.
21. Staff’s conclusion that Veolia’s proposed main extension is required by Veolia’s
Commission-approved tariffs is correct as set forth in the email attached as Exhibit B to the
Complaint. Since no mains front the property, a main extension is required in accordance with
Veolia’s tariff Sheet No. 28. Further, in accordance with Veolia’s tariff Sheet No. 39, a main
extension must extend to the subject property. In accordance with Veolia’s tariff Sheet No. 37,
routing for mains shall be normally in dedicated streets. And, finally, as set forth in Veolia’s tariff
Sheet No. 38, the Company shall design and be the sole judge as to the adequacy of any water
main extension. The relevant tariff sheets are attached to this Answer as Exhibit 6.

6
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

AFFIRMATIVE REQUEST FOR RELIEF
22. Veolia requests that the Commission dismiss or deny all relief sought in the
Complaint.

Respectfully submitted this November 20, 2023.
HOLLAND & HART LLP

By:
Austin Rueschhoff, ISB No. 10592
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen, ISB No. 11947
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.

7
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 20, 2023, a true and correct copy of the within and
foregoing ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT was served in the manner shown
to:

Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Chris Burdin
Dayn Hardie
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Boulevard
Building 8, Suite 201-A
P.O. Box 83720
Boise ID 83720
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Avimor

Norman M. Semanko
Parsons Behle & Latimer
800 W. Main Street, Suite 1300
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Brad R. Pfannmuller
General Manager
Avimor
[e-mail]

Veolia Water Idaho Inc.

Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen
Holland & Hart, LLP
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
ANSWER TO AVIMOR’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. VEO-W-23-03

s/ Chelsey Moser
30925693_v2