20210128Formal Complaint.pdf

RECEIWD
2021January 28, PM 4:54
IDAEO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSIONDAVID H. LEROY
AttorneY At L^aw
iltw& Bannock Street' Suite 201
Boise,ldaho 53702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 3424200
Idaho State BarNo. 1359
WESTERN AIRCRAFT, NC,
Water User and ComPlainant'
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMTSSION
CaseNo. S\^-z-uJ- | t- o I
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SUEZ WATER [DAHO,INC,
Regulated Utility and Respondent'
C6MES Now Complainanto Westem Aircraft' [nc., by and through its attorney of record
David H. Leroy, and for a complaint against the Respondent herein, alleges, avers and complains
as follows:
PARTIES
l. Westem Aircraft, [nc., the Complainant, is a duly licensed and operating Nevada
corporation with a principal place of business operations in Boise, Ada county, Idaho where it is
compelled to obtain domestic water access and service as a customer of the Respondent'
2. The Respondent, suez water ldaho lnc., is a duly licensed and operating ldaho
corporation and is also a regulated utility with an exclusive monopoly to provide or deny water
access and service to customers in Boise, Ada County, ldaho. Upon information and belief, it is
currently seeking a2}o/ocustomer rate hike to continue to exclusively provide such service and
COMPLAINT. I
access.
JURISDICTION
3. This Complaint is filed and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (..IPUC,'or
..Commission" hereinafter) has jurisdiction to receive, mediate or hear this dispute pursuant to
the following:
a. Idaho code Sections 61-301,61-302 and 61-303 prohibit the Respondent from
charging unjust or gffeasonable charges. from failing to provide or maintain
adequate, efficient, just, reasonable and convenient water service and from
imposing rules and regulations which are unjust and unreasonable.
b. Idaho Code Section 6l -3 t 5 prohibits the Respondent from establishing or
subjecting any user to unreasonable, prejudicial or disadvantageous chargeso
service or facilities and provides that the Commission shall have the power to
determine questions of fact arising under that section'
c. Idaho Code Sections 6l-503 and 6l-520 provide that the Commission shall
have the power to investigate and hold hearings upon a complaint as to any
charge, rule, rcgulation, contract or practice, most particularly as to "water
corporations."
d. Idaho Code Section 6l-507 gives the Commission the authority to prescribe
additional rules and regulations for the performance and furnishing of service
upon the demand of a user "within the time and upon the conditions provided in
such rules.'o
e. Commission IDAPA Rules 31.21 .01 and the provisions following establish the
COMPLAINT.2
UtilityCustomerRelationsRulesfortheRespondentasaWaterPublicUtility.
Rule40lspecificallyprovidesfortherightofausertofileaninformalcomplaint
totheCommission.Complainant.spriorattemptstoobtainresolutiondirectly
through the utility have been unsuccessful'
f. The Respondent is a "water corporation" subject to the direction and
jurisdiction of the Commission'
g. The complainant alleges that the Respondent is failing to deliver service'
adopting unfair and discriminatory practices. attempting to impose unreasonable
and unjust charges and failing to fbtlow the provisions of existing rules,
regulations and tarifTs as particularly described herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. Since the 1990's, the Complainant has operated a general aviation business on the
South side of the Boise Airport from a 24,000 square foot building designated as "Hangar No. I
"'
5. Over the past two years, the Complainant has had under design and construction a
93,200 square foot building housing an office and shop to be called "Hangar No. 0" at a cost of
$15 million with the completion and operation of the structure scheduled for March. 2021 , The
new construction is located immediately South of Hangar No. I and the two buildings will be
separated by a covered breezeway which is I I feet wide, 46 feet long and l5 feet 8 inches irr
height.
6. The breezeway area, which is oriented East and West, is within the former right of
way of the now abandoned Boeing Street and contains both the historic water main from which
Hangar I has always and still does receive water service from the Respondent. as well as a
COMPLAINT - 3
preexisting sewer line.
7. The engineering design and approved site plan using the breezeway to make the water
service connections to Hangar 0 was submitted to the Respondent and tentatively approved via
an email response by suez' agents on May 19.2020. subsequently' the city of Boise in July'
2020 approved the same Plan.
g. On August 10. 2020 an accidental breach of the Respondents' water main South of the
breezeway area by a sewer line excavation crew revealed that the Respondent's water line maps
did not correctly indicate the existing water line placement locations and depths and that an
insufficient separation between the water main and sewer lines appeared to exist in the
breezeway area.
9. By August 20,2020 Complainant's engineers had proposed a revised water connection
plan for Hangar 0 which met all DEQ water, sewer and fire line location. separation and crossing
requirements. The Respondent unreasonably withheld its approval of this proposal.
10. The Complainant requested Commission mediation and after consultation, received a
second further proposed solution in a letter form on September 1,2020 from IPUC Engineer
Michael Morrison. The Respondent unreasonably withheld its approval of any and all of the
alternatives contained in this second proposal.
I L At Respondentos own suggestion made on September 22.2020. Complainant sought
and received a conditional water line separation variance approval from DEQ utilizing the
breezeway location. Once obtained. the Respondent reversed position and unreasonably
withheld its cooperation on this third proposal.
12. On or about October 21" 2020 a collaborative, inclusive. telephone conference call
COMPLATNT .4
was conducted with representatives of approximately nine affected entities' parties and regulatory
bodies participating, including the commission' the Respondent and the complainant' The call
was not successful in producing a solution' During the course of said conversation' Nathan
croft. the construction Manager for Respondent, threatened that "suez did not have to turn on"
comprainant,s water service, unless western agreed with a, of Respondent's unreasonable terms
for doing so.
13. subsequently. the complainant was compelled to hire counsel and to make a formal
written demand to Respondent ror a water service corurection to Hangar 0 from the breezeway
area via a letter dated December 16. 2020. A copy of both the letter and the opinion of counsel'
including exhibits, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'"
I4. In rePlY the ResPondent has:
a. Issued a December 30. 2020 letter by its counsel unreasonably refusing to
providewaterservicepursuanttoanyoftheproposalspreviouslypresentedand
failing to provide any alternatives thereto. A copy of said letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B"
b. Failed to meaningfully respond to a subsequent January 5.2021 letter from
Complainant,s Project Manager. Louis Gravel, requesting comparative cost data
from which Complainant could make yet another proposal through a reply from
Respondent's counsel dated January 12.20?0' (see Exhibit "c" hereto)
c. Failed to meaningfully respond to a further January l9 letter from
Complainant's counsel again requesting comparative cost data by an exchange of
emails fiom Respondent's counsel which twice and finatly denied the disclosure
COMPLAIN . 5
of cost data, thus again rejecting complainant's requests' (See Exhibit "D"
hereto)
15. Respondent's unreasonable refusals to connect Hangar 0 to water service appear to
Complainant to be directed toward a continuing attempt to force the Complainant at
Complainant's cost, to relocate and upgrade several hundred feet of Respondent's own water
mains which service other users and may provide for future growth needs located on adjacent
airpo( and ldaho military property.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE.THECOMPLAINANT.WESTERNAIRCRAFTINC.,HEREBY
REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION GRANT IT RELIEF AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT. REGULATED WATER SERVICE UTILITY SUEZ WATER IDAIIO, INC.,
AS FOLLOWS:
l. Order Suez to allow a temporary domestic water connection to Hangar 0 from the
existing Hangar 1 water line. pending the final resolution of this matter so as not to further delay
Westernos utilization of the new structure. avoiding financial damages and lost income from
accruing to Western on and after March 1,2021.
2. Order Suez to negotiate in good faith with Westerrr by:
A. Providing the requested comparative cost estimates'
B. Approving the revised connection plan prepared by T.O. Engineers on August
2A,?020 which is compliant with all applicable waivers, statutes, rules and
regulations to allow a water service connection to Hangar 0 with all due dispatch.
C. OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE indicating which of the (other) previously
COMPLAINT - 6
propos€daltemativesolutionsitendorsessoastoallowawaterservlce
connection to Hangar 0 without charging excessive costs to the Complainant, and
permitting such final completion thereof with atl due dispatch'
3. Order suez not to attempt to charge western excessive, unreasonable and
discriminatory fees, nor to bear any costs to upgrade or relocate suez' own water mains on or
adjacent to Western's rented real property nor to otherwise discriminate against Western in the
connection and water line relocation process'
4. Grant such other and further relief as is necessary and proper to timely provide
western with water connection service to Hangar 0 at authorized rates and costs as is required by
law, regulation and tariff.
5. A formal hearing herein is requested, if necessary to seek the relief, obtain water
service and avoid the damages described herein'
DATED ffrir ZgtLday of January,202l.
Respectfully Submitted:t"
David H. Leroy,for Complainant
Western Aircraft,Inc
COMPLATNT'7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifi that on this ;ftU[", of January, 2a2l,l caused a true and correct copy of
the within instrument to be sent to:
Preston N. Carter
Givens PursleY
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ldatro 837 0l'2720
email : prestoncarter@ givenspursley'com
AttorneY for Suez Water, Inc'
Chris Hecht, Idatro Public Utilities Commission
chris.hecht@Pue -idaho. gov
David H. LeroY
Defense Counsel
P.O. Box 193
Boise,ldaho 83702
email : [e-mail]
Davalee Davis,Executive Assistant
COMPLAINT. 8
@ WesternAircraft
Wath" S
EXHIBITI
A orllhfJfrl 4faooroar aoDaY/
December 16, 2020
Suez Water
Attn: MarshalThompson, David Johns, Nathan Crofts
8248 West Vlctory Rd
Bolse, ldaho 83709
To Whom it MaY Concern,
Slnce Octob er 2!,2A19,T-O Englneers staff has been ln contact wlth Suez Water ("Suez") to receive
approval of a Suez Water Plan regarding water service for Western Aircraft, lnc.'s ('WAl") (Customer
Account s 05004810431111) hangar expansion construction proiect.
During this past year, WAI and its contractors have had on-site and group on-line conference meetlngs
in a good-falth attempt to recelve flnal approval. Working wlth Suez, TO Engineers issued a revised
water plan deslgn on August 20, 2020. that met all deslgn change requests by Suez and all regulatory
requlrements.
To date, WAI stlll has not been given final approval for the designed water plan from Suez.
Because of the stance Suez has taken regardlng lts desire to upgrade the maln water line that surrounds
the WAI leased property, WAI has sought and recelved a legalopinlon pertalnlnt to WAfs proposed
water plan deslgn. The attached Memorandum - legalOplnion from David H, Leroy Attorney at Law
supports the submltted water plan.
This letter serves as officlal notice that Western Aircraft will submit a Regulatory Complaint to the Board
of Publlc Utlllties should we not have a flnal approval of the revised submltted water plan by December
30,2020.
Gravel
ProJect Manager
cc: Austln Shonta VP/General Manager, Western Alrcraft, lnc.
John F, Kohler, Chlef Legal Counsel, Greenwlch AeroGroup, lnc.
Peter Woodke Contracts Manager, Western Alrcraft, lnc,
MEMORANDUM
LEGAL OPINION
T0: I-.OUIE GRAVEL. WESTERN AIRCRAF'I' INC
FROM: DAVID H. LEROY. ATTORNEY AT LAW
RE,:OPINIONASToTHECONDUCToFSUEZWATERIDAHo'INC.AND
ITS AGENTS WITH REGARD TO THE CONNECTION OF WATER SERVICE TO THE
NEW HANGER CONSTRUCTION SITE AT GOWEN FIELD
DATE: DECEMBER 10,2020
INTRODUCTION
This Office has been retained by Western Aircraft. Inc. (Western) to review certain facts
and conflicts which have deveroped between it and suez water ldaho, rnc. (suez) since August
l0'h, 2020 over the connection oi regulated utility water service to the new 52,000 square foot
aircraft hanger under construction currently on the South side of the Boise Airport adjacent to the
Gowen Field miliary facility. The issues presenred are described within the eight questions
posed and answered below.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Page -l -
0u
under contract from western, stock Construction Management, TO Engineers and
Brandon Daniels, p.E. designed and approved a site plan drawing for the new hanger between
January and May. 2020. (See Photo I attached showing the new construction area to the South
of the existing West.rn Hanger.) On May 19'h, Suez, via email to TO Engineers, approved a
water utility connection ptan to the new site which utilized a sleeved waterline under a proposed
twe'ty fooi wide enclosed walkway to be createcl between the old and new buildings. (See
photos 2 and 3 attached hereto showing the walkway area looking both East and West.
respectively.) During July of 2020, ttre city of Boise issued Ground and Utilities permit CRD20-
OOO:Z appioving the waterline design. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto)
After an August l0'h accidental breach of a water main by a sewer line excavation crew.
questions arose andliscussions began between Suez and Westem to resolve the placemenl of the
new sewer line because the drawings locating the existing water line had proved to be not
accurate. By August 20,2020T'O' Engineers had proposed.a work-around' revised suez water
pran that met all DE[;;;; "rii,* ii"e rocation and crossing requirements. (see
Exhibit "8" attachedi' ;;;ber of issue' arose and by August 28'h' Suez had issued a
memorandum demanding seven conectiois-to the earlilr plans' (See Summary of the Suez
demands und rerpoir., ii',.r",o in the A;;;;i't email oiBrendon Daniels to Louie Cravelet
al" attached as Exhibit.oc,,). wesr"* r#t,La out to the ldaho public utilities cornmission
(puc) for mediatioi una obtained u s.pi"*uer l',.2020 retter from puc Engineer Michael
Morrison which endorsed the eight in.t, ,t..,.d. pipe design through the covered walkway. witlr
westem giving sr* u aun ug. i.uir., in the.u.nt ora future incidint. (see Exhibit "D") The
recommendations arso incruJed alternatives to accommodate the lawful distance separation of
tlre potable *a ron-p-ooii. rin.r ano timiting the cost to western of this relocation work'
AlthoughSuezhasnottodaterespondedtoPl]C.letter.suezdidsuggestonSeptember
22'd that the project could move forward.'if western could obtain a water line separation variance
from the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) allowing the placement of both
water and sewer lines under the covered walkway. in subsequent communications, DEQ seems
to be open to this ,.rrfr. but indicates that they would requiri a formal letter of agreement from
Suez. I,loweuer. su", indicates through Nathan Crofts, Construction Supervisor, Idaho
operations, that the utility now refuses !o accept a waterline under the walkway and between the
buildings" even if DEQ would issue a waiver approving the same' Subsequently' Suez has been
making preliminary suggestions that it wilt require Weitern, as an altemative, to pay for the
upgrade and emplac.,r!-nt of several hundred ieet of water main lines, at an as yet unspecified
great cost, around the southern and Eastern perimeter of the western property in or adjacent to
the public right of ways. along West Cessna Street ancl North on South lngalls Street past the
point where the covered walkivay line would have simply transected western's own property in a
directly eastward connection. Cunently, at its own cost, Suez is upgrading the water main to a
l2 inch size under South Kennedy Street along the western side of the new hanger construction'
This dispute threatens to impede br delay the $15.000.000 new hanger construction project.
potentiaily causing Westenr significant consequential damages.
Frorn this demand. and Suez' conduct toward western as its utility cuslomer. a series ol'
legal and public regulatory questions arise'
QUESTIONS PRESENTET)
l. Does the pUC document "suez Water lclaho Inc. Rate Schedules" efl'ective January
10. 2020 mandate that customers will pay for water main upgrades. when Suez determines a neu'
construction water supply demand does not meet the water main design needs of the customer?
2. Can Suez Water deny an approval of a pre-approved, Civil-Engineer-designed. neu'
water connection to a commercial building on private property?
3. Can Suez Water require Western to pay fbr the design. upgrade and installation of a
Page -2-
main water line system, based on suez water's desire to upgrade the main water line system?
4. Can Suez impose limits on a water line location' such as between two buildings with
20feetofseparation,basedonthe.ir.desiretoavoidaccesstotheairportoraclaimtonothavea.["t *"*ing area for future possible repairs?
5'CanSuezrequireWesterntohavewater/sewerlineseparationofanewsewerline
which connects to the original sewer tine *t en the originar watei rine did not have the desired
separation?
6. Can Suez restrict water line installation to only Suez pre-approved contractors on
private ProPertY?
7'CanSuezverballythreatennottotumthewateronforanewservice,ifWestenrdoes
not agree to pay for a main line upgrade ?
8.WhatrecoursedoesWestemhavetopursueaclain.ragainstSueztbrcostsanddelays
associated with this matter?
III
Page -3-
RELEVANT AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
A. APPLICABLE STATUTES
As a regulated utility in ldaho, Suez is both permitted and restrained by various statutes'
rules, Ibrms and formats in it interactions with the consuming public and individual customers'
Among the ldaho Code laws and applicable statutes are these:
..61-301 CHARGES JUS'[ AND REASONABLE. All charges made. demanded or
received by any public utility. or by any two (2) or more public utilities, for any product or
commodity furnished o, to b. furnished or any.service rendered or to be rendered shall be just
arrd reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonabte charge made' demanded or received for such
proOr., or commodity or re*i.e is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful'"
..61_302. MAINTENANCL, OF ADEQUATE SERVICE. Every public utility shall
fumish, pruvide and maintain such service, insirumentalities, equipment and facilities as shall
promote the safely, health. comfort and convenience of its patrons. employees and the public' and
as shall be in all respects adequate. efficient. iust ald reasonable"'
."6I-303. RTJT,ES AND REGT]LATIONS JUST AND RE,ASONABLE' AII TUIES ANd
regurations made by a pubric utility affecting or pertaining to its charges or service to thc'public
shall be just and reasonable."
..6I-305. SCHEDI.]LES OF OTHERS THAN COMMON CARRIERS' UNdCT SUCh TUIES
and regulations as the commission may prescribe, every public utility other than a common
carrier shall tile with the commission within such time and in such form as the commission may
designate, and shall print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all rates' tolls'
rentals. charges and classification coilected or enforced, or to be corlected or enforced' together
with all rules. ,.gututionr. contracts. privileges and facilities which in any manner affect or relate
to rates. tolls. rentals, classifications or service'"
..6I.3I5. DISCRIMTNATION AND PREFERENCE PROHIBITED' NO PUbIiC UtiIitY
shall, as to rates. charges, service, facilities or in any other aspect. make or grant any preference
or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice
or disadvantage. No puuti" utility ihall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to
,ut.r. .fru.geiserui... facilities or in any other respect. either as between localities or as between
classes of service. The commission shail have the power to determine any question of fact
arising under this section."
*6I-503. POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND FIX RATES AND REGULATIONS' 'IhC
commission shall hau. power, upon a hearing, had upon its own motion or upon complaint' to
investigate a single rate, fare, toil. rental. charge. classification' rule. regulation, contract or
practice, or any number thereof, or the entire r"h.dul" or schedules of rates, fares. tolls. rentals'
ifr*g.a" classifrcations, rules, regulations. contracts or practices, or any thereof, or any public
utilif,,. and to establish new rates. fares, tolls. rentals, charges, classifications" rules. regulations'
contracts or practices or schedule or schedules in lieu thereol."
..6I.507. POWERS AND DT'TIES OF PUBLIC UTILI'TIES COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. ThC CONTNTiSSiON ShAII PTCSCTibC TUICS
and regulations for the performance of any service or the furnishings of any commodity of the
character fumished or supplied by public utility, and, on proper demand and tender of rates. such
public utility shall furnish such commodity or render such service within the time and upon tlre
conditions provided in such rules."
..6I-520. SERVICE OF ELECTRIC. GAS, AND WA'IER CORPORATIONS
DE.TERMINATION OF STANDARDS. The commission shall have power. after hearing had
upon its own motion or upotl complaint. to ascertain and fix just and reasonable standards.
classifications, regulations, practices, measurements or sen'ice ttl be furnished' imposed'
observed and followed by all electrical. gas and water corporations"'
In summary, Pursuant to these laws:
* Suez must provide and maintain adcquate and eflicient \^'ater service to Western'
* All charges levied upon its customers by Suez fbr connections to water service must he
'Just and reasonable."
Page -4-
* All Suez charges must be consistent with their published schedules'
* Suez c* not prejudice or disadvantage Western by demanding rates or clrarges which
are unfair or discriminate against Western
* Western has the authority to make a complaint about unfhir charges. rates or contract
demands bY Suez to the PUC
* The pUC has the authority to hold a hearing upon such a complaint, to measure the
conduct 6f Suez against the prescribed performance rules and regulations and to order a
remedy for any violations thereof'
B. APPLICABI.E COMMISSION RULES
To further amplif upon the general statutory concepts explained abgve' the PUC has also
adopted Rules under it . iauiro Administrative Procldures Act (IDAPA)' Those are collected
under IDAPA 31.21.01 entitled "customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric and water Public
Utilities." Of particular relevance to the current issues are the following:
..008. ExERCtsE oF RIGHTS By cusroMER (RULE 8). Litilities will not
discriminate against or penalize a customer fbr exercising any right granted by these
rules."
..009. INFORMAL COMPLAINTS AND INTERPRE ATION OF RULES (RULE 9)'
Commission statTmay informally interpret these rules and utility tariffs and investigate
complaints filed with this Commission. The Commission reserves the authority to issue
orders ilterpreting these rules ancl utility tariffs. and resolving formal complaints"'
..30I. EXPLANATION FOR DENIAL OF SERVICE TO APPI.,ICANT (RTJLE 30I ')
01. Explanation to Applicant. If the utility intends to deny service to an applicant under
Rule 302. the utility will notifu the applicant verbally or in writing why the utility rvill
deny service. The utility will advise tire applicant what actions(s) the applicant w'ill take
to receive service. and t-hat if there is a dispute. the applicant may file an informal or
format complaint with the Commission'
02. Written Notice. If service is currently being provided to the premises occupied by arr
applicant. the utility will provide written notice of its refusal to serve pursuant to Rule
312;',
..302. GROI]NDS I-OR DENIAL OR TERMINATION OIT SERVICE WITH PRIOR
NOTICE. (RtJl.E 302)
0l . Reaso,s for Denial or Termination of Service. A utility may deny or terminate
service to a customer or applioant without the customer's or applicant's permission' but
only aller adequate noticehas been given in accordance with these rules. for one )l) or
Page -5-
more of the tbllowing reasons
a.Withrespecttoundisputedpastduebillsthecustomerorapplicant:
c. The customer ", "';;i;irri[a to abide by the terml of a payment alrangement'
d. The utility rru. a"t.r*ined that irfb;;i;provided by the customer or applicant is
materially false or nraterially misrepresents the customer'S or applicant's true status'
e. The customer or applicant denied ot *ilt'ily prevented the utility's access to the
meter.
f.Theutilitydeterminesthatthecustomeriswillfullywastingorinterferingwithservice
to the customers through improper equlpment or otherwise"'
..303.GR0UNDSFoRDENIALoRTERMINATIONoFSERVICEWITH0UT
PRIOR NOTTCE (RULE 303)
A utility may deny o, t"r*inute service without prior notice to the customer or applicant
and without the cuslomer,s or applicant;s fermirrion for one (l ) or more of the following
;Ttfi;*.rous conditions. A condition immediately dangerous or hazardous to life'
physical safety, "r ;;;il, exists. or if necessary to prevent a violation of federal' state or
iocal safetY or health codes"'
..3 10.02 Denial of Service. A utility will not deny service' or notiff an applicant that the
utility will deny tf,. uppii.*t service if' . . . . (it relates to) "the subject of an infonnal or
fot*uf complaint hled with the Commission ' ' ' '"
..400. COMPLAINT TO UTILITY (RULE 4OO)
01. Complaint. A customer or applicant for service may complain at any time to the
utility about any deposit o, written guarantee required as a condition of service' billing'
termination of r"*i'... quality o, u*ilubility or iervice' or any other matter regarding
utility services, policies and practices. The customer or applicant may request a
conference with the utility. but this provision does nol affect any statute of limitation that
might otherwise *ir. iomplaintsto the utility may be made orally or in writing' A
"oilpruint
is "onsideied
filed upon receipt by the utility' In making a complaint or
request for conference, the customer or applicant will state the customer's or applicant's
name'serviceaddress.andthegeneralnatureofthecomplaint'
02. lnvestigation Ly t-ltif ity. Tile utility witl promptly' thoroughly and completely
investigate the complaint. notiff the customer or applicant of the results of the
investigation. and make a good-faith attempt to t.iolu" the complaint' 'fhe oral or written
notification will advise the customer or applicant that thecustomer or applicant may
request the Commission to review the utiiity"s proposed disposition of the complaint'
03.ServiceMaintairrsd.Tlrcutilitywillnottcrnrinateservicebaseduponthesuhjecl
matter of the .o*fiuin, while investigating the complaint or making a good-faith attempt
to resolve the comPlaint"
Page -6-
"401. COMPLAINT TO COMMISSION (RULE 401).
01. Informal Complaint. If a customer or applicant who has complained to a utility is
dissatisfied with a utility's proposed dispsition of the complaint, the customer of
applicant may file an informal complaint with request the Commission. Customers and
applicants are encouraged, but not required, to contact the utility before filing an informal
complaint.
02. Termination of Service - Undisputed Bills. Utility service must not be terminated
nor termination threatened by notice or otherwise while the complaint is pending before
the Commission. The utility may continue to issue bills and request payment from the
customer of any undisputed amounts."
"403. UTILITY RESPONSE TO TNFORMAL COMPLAINTS (RULE 403).
0l . Response to Commission. Within ten ( l0) business days of receiving notification
that an infonnal complaint involving the utility has been filed with the Commission, the
utility must respond verbally or in writing to the Commission. A utility will be granted
an extension of time to prepare its response if it represents that it is making a good faith
effort to resolve the matter in dispute. A full and complete response should be submitted
to the Commission no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of notification from the
Commission."
"601. DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS AND ADVANCE PAYMENTS (RULE 601).
An applicant or customer may be required to pay a deposit or make an advance payment
in accordance with the utility's tarifffiled with the Commission."
..602. GROI"JNDS FOR DENIAL OR TERMINATION OF SERVICE WITH PRIOR
NOTTCE (RULE 602).
A utility may deny or terminate service to an industrial, large commercial or irrigation
customer without its permission, but only after adequate notice has been given in
accordance with these rules, for one ( I ) or more of the following reasons:
01. Any Reason Listed in Rule 302.01.a. Through 302.01.f.
02. Failure to Make Advance Payment or Provide Guarantee. The customer or applicant
failed to make a required advance payment, pay a deposit or provide an acceptable
guarantee, when required by the applicable tariffor contract.
03. Failure to Apply for Service. The customer or applicant failed to apply for service
with the utility."
..700. INFORMATION TO CUSTOMERS
01. Required Information. Each utility will provide the following information to its
customers:
a. A summary of the terms and conditions under which service is provided,
including the conditions under which the utility may request a deposit or deny or
terminate service;
Page -7-
b. A statement that:
i. The utility is willing to make reasonable payment arrangements:
ii. The customer ruy fiI. a complaint with the utility and the Commission and
that termination of service is prohibited while a complaint is pending with the
Commission or with a court in the state of ldaho:
c. A clear and concise explanation of rate schedule(s) applicable to the customer's
class of service."
C. APPLICABLE SUEZ RATE SCHEDULE TEXTS
Suez has updated its.'Rules and Regulations Governing the Rendering of Water Service
and Water Main Extensions" effective January 10,2020 as on file with the PUC. Pursuant to
Sheet 20, paragraph 52 Westem is an "industrial customer" under the rate schedule rules. lt is
not a Residential". ..commercial" or "municipal" customer. Again. certain provisions of that
body of documentation are most pertinent in answering the questions stated above. Those
sections are:
Sheets I 2- I 3, paragraphs 6- 1 2, Rules Governing the Rendering of Water Service in
pertinent part. provide as follows:
..SERVICE CONNECTION
6. Each customer shall be supplied through a separate service line.
7. The Company will make all connections to its existing mains which front the property
to be served and wili fumish, install, and maintain all service lines from the main to and
including the meter box or vault. meters and service setting. The meter box or vault shall be
placed inside the curb line or Company right-of-way. All service lines shall be property of the
bo*puny and shall be accessible to and under its control. In instances where the existing mains
do not front the property to be served, the Applicant shall enter into the appropriate main
extension agreement as provided under Company's Rules and Regulations Governing Main
Extensions.
8. All service lines from the meter box or to the customer's building or place of
consumption shall be approved by the Company as to size, kind of pipe. and installation and shall
be instailed ald kept in good repair by the customer at the customer's expense. All such service
lines within Boise city limits shall be placed in conformance with Boise City code 4'01- I 2. All
such service lines outside Boise City lirnits shall be placed in conformance with Unifornt
Plumbing Code Chapter 6 Section 609.1.
q. No service lines shall be laid in the same trench with the wastewater pipe.
10. When a meter is located within the customer's building. a positive shutoff valve
easily accessible to rhe occupanrs shall be placed in within the building supplied with water'
Such vatve shall be located so that it will be possible to drain the meter and all pipes in the
building. When the Company is requested by customer to shut ofT the water at the meter for
repairsio customer's plumbing, a charge will be made in accordance with Schedule 5.
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges.
Page -8-
I l. The customer shall promptly repair all leaks inside the premises, in sprinkling
systems and in the custonrer's ,ervice line. Failure to repair leakage promptly may result in
termination of service as auowed under the lpuc's Rules and Regurations Governing Customer
Relations.
12. The Company shall, as its own expense. replace or enlarge service connections
whenever it is necessury; change ttre location of any service connection due to relaction or
abandonment of the company.sLains. The company will arso furnish all work and materials
that are necessary to connect to the new service"'
Sheets 23-24 paragraphs 68-73. in pertinent part, state the following:
..EXTENSIONS FOR OT}IER THAN TNDIVIDUAL RESIDENCES
6g. The Applicant(s) tbr a water main extension shall funtish drawing(s) fo suitable scale
showing street(s), lot and/or'building layouts. storm and sanitary sewer facilities' location and
flow capacity of fire hydrants u, ,ruy be required by appropriate fire department or district' and
when requested by the Company contours or other indication of the relative elevation of the
various parts ofthe area to be developed'
69. A water main extension must extend to the extreme property lines of the
development.
70. Each separate water main extension to and/or within a development shall be subject
to a separate agreement.
7l . Applicant(s) shall enter into an agreement of the type attached hereto.and marked as
Exhibit..D,'and deposit with the Cornpany the estimated cost of the required main extension'
including service laierals and meter settings to be installed at the time of the main extension' In
instances. such as Industrial and/or Comrnercial Subdivisions, where size and location of
domestic service laterals cannot be determined at the time the water main is installed. the cost of
such service laterals shall be borne by the Applicant requesting service. The cost shall be based
on the average cost. as determined by the Company, for the requested size of service.
72. TheCompany shall prepare plans, specifications" and cost estimates for proposed
main extensions at its qwn
"*panra. In the event a main extension agreement is not entered into
within 120 days after the Company furnishes plans. specifications.
73. The deposit referred to in paragraph 7l above, shall normally be a cash deposit. Itt
the instance, the company shall provide the material and labor for installation of the project'
However. T'he Applicant may provide the material and/or contract labor for the installation of the
necessary f'aciliries. In this instance, the Applicant shall deposit with the Company an amount
equal to the estimated cost of applicable overheads for the entire project and the estimated direct
labor costs incurred by the Comiany for such items as engineering design. estimating and
inspection. Also, the Applicant shail furnish the Company a certified invoice of suffrcient detail
to show the separate cost, of *uterial and labor for water mains and appurtenances by size.
service laterali by size. meter boxes" meter sertings and fire hyrJraurts. Thc Cornpany shall
specifu the material to be supplied by the Applicant with respect to size and type' In general' the
malerial shall conform to the Company's stanOara material specifications and applicable AWWA
specifications. The Company shali, at Applicant's expense! make all connections to the
Page -9-
Company's existing system if in the Company's opinion the contractor does not have the
.*p"ii.n.. or equifmlnt to meke such connection. Applicants contractor shall comply with
Settion I and Section 2 of Company's Requirements for Labor in Lieu of Cash Contractors. ln
general. areas covered are requirements for inspection, monitoring of construction. acceptance
Ind handling of materials. documentation of costs, correct of faulty installation. insurance.
bonding, license requirements, experience, and equipment availability. The Company may deny
the riglit of Applicant to provide a contractor who has not complied with its requirements in the
past."
Sheet 7, applicable to private Fire Sprinkler Service, contains this language:
"AvailabilitY:
To all customers who have sprinkler systems and/or inside hose connections supplied by
a dedicated service line for fire fighting purposes'
Miscellaneous:
provided that if the installation of a private fire service shall require an extension ol'the
existing mains of the company, the cost of such extension shall be bome by the customer."
-Sh*"t 19. in part ul-rr.or.r, Fire Protection and the Right of Access with paragraphs 43-
46. as follows:
."FIRE PROTECTION
43. Water from fire hydrants or other fire fighting facilities shall be used only for
firefighting purposes and for water sold pursuant to Rule No' 42'- 44. All'private fire services connections from the main to the property line, including all
valves, shall be furnished and installed by the Company. All fire service line connections will be
separate from potable service lines. except that residential fire protection systems confomting ttl
Nfpa l3D standards for flow through usage will be permitted on the meter size range one-inch
or smaller.
45. The Company reserves the right to require at any time, a meter and appropriate
backflow prevention device to be fumished and installed on the customer's fire service
connection. The customer shall be responsible to pay the associated costs of materials.
installation and overheads The meter and required backflow prevention device shall be inspected
and approved bY the ComPanY.
MISCELT,ANEOUS
46. The authorized employees and agents of the Company shall have the right of access"
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and with approval of the
customer. to the premises supplied with water for the purpose ol'reading meters. examining pipes
and fixtures. observing manner of using watcr. and lbr any othcr purPose which is proper and
necessary in the conduct of the Company's business. Such ernployees and agents shall carU
proper ciedentials evidencing their employment by the Cornpany."
Page -10-
Finally, Sheet 2l covers two general provisions applicable here in paragraphs 60-62' in
the context of Water Main Extensions:
.'60. The minimum size of water main to be installed under these rules and regulations
srrall normally be g-inch inside diameter. The compa,y shail determine the size of all water
mains to be extended'
61. The normal routing for water main extensions shall be in dedicated streets' The
Company may. but will not be required to. make extensions under this rule in easements or
rights-of-way where final grades hur. not been established or where street grades have not been
biought to those established by public authority' r i , , - r ^-.62. Company shall design and be the sole judge as to the adequacy of any water maln
extension and appurtenances."
Also appended in the Rules at Sheets 33-42 as Exhibit "D" is a fonn contract approved
and applicable as an'olndustrial water Main Extension Agreement." At page 2. paragraph 33 is a
section which appears to authorize Suez to negotiate a monetary contributiol-fto'n an applicant
for the..estimated cost of installing" any such extension to an "off-site main"'
However. it is understood from the facts recited above that western has not applied to the
utility for any such extension of main water lines Suez itself is proposing this resolution its own
self interest. Nor does the providing of the service to the new hanger require such an extension
of mairr lines on a demonstrable reduction in pressure or flow. reconnection or any other basis'
D. APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN'IAI", QUALI'TY
REGLJLATIONS
Because of the proximity of both old and new buildings and the location of existing and
proposed water, sewer and fire iines within the twenty foot wide enclosed walkway area. ceftain
beQ r.gutations also come inro ptay. Under the title "ldaho Rules for Public Drinking Water
Syslenrs-... IDApA 5g.01.0g.542 iovering "Faciliry and Design Standards - Distrilrution Systems"
contains the following sections:
..07. Separation of Potable. Non-Potable. and Raw Water Pipelines' The requirements
for the protection of potable mains fiom contamination by non-potable pipelines are described in
Subsections 5a2.07.a. through 542.07 .c. For the purposes of Subsectictn 542.A7, the term
..pipeline" applies to both,ouinr and services. Raw water pipelines must be protected fiom
contamination from non-potable pipelines, and must not contaminate potable pipelines' They
shall therefore meet equivalent separation distances shown below frclm either potable or non-
potable pipelines.
a. Parallel installation requirements'
i. Potable mains in relation to non-potable rnains'
( I ) Greater thatr ten ( l0) feet separation: no additional requirements'
(2) Ten (10 feet to six (6) feet separation: design engineer to submit data to the
Page -1 l -
Department fbr review and approval showing that this installation will protect public health and
the environment. non-potable main to be constructed of potable water class pipe. and with the
bottom of the potable main above the top of the non-potable constructed of potable water class
pipe. ana withthe bottom of the potable main above the top of the non-potable main'
(3) Less than six (6) feet separation: design engineer to submit data to the Department for
review and approval showing that ihis installation will protect public health and the environment.
non-potable main to be conJructed of potabte water class pipe. and with the bottom of the
potable main above the top of the non-potable main'
(4) Non-potable mains are prohibited from being located in the same tranch as potable
mains.
(5) pressure wastewater mains or other pressurized mains or lines containing non-potable
fluids shail be no closer horizontally than ten (10) feet fronr potable mains'
ii. New potable services in relation to non-potable services' now potable services in
relation to non-potable mains, and new non-potable services in relation to potable mains'
( I ) Greater than six (6) feet separations: no additional requirements based on separation
distance
(2) Less than six (6) feet separation: design engineer to submit data that this installation
will protect public health and the environment and non-potable service constructed with potable
water class piPe.
(3) New potable services are prohibited from being located in the same trench as non-
potable mains or non-potable services'
b. Requirements for potable water mains or services crossing non-potable water mains or
services.
i. lf there is eighteen ( I 8) or more vertical separation with the potable water pipeline
above the non-potaUte-pipetine, then the potable pipeline joints must be as far as possible from
the non-potable water PiPeline.ii. If there is eighteen (18) inches or more vertical separation with the potable water
pipeline below the non-potable pipeline, then the potable pipeline joints must be as far as
possible from the non-pltubb pipltin.. and the non-potable pipeline must be suppor-ted through
the crossing to Prevent setlling.
iii. Less than eighteen (18) inches vertical separation:
( I ) potable pipeline joint to be as far as possible form the non-potable pipeline: and
either:
(a) Non-potable pipeline constructed with potable water class pipe [or a minimum of ten
(10) fbeieither iiae of pttuble pipeline with a single twenty (20) foot section of potable water
class pipe centered on the crossing; or'
iU) St..re non-potable orlotable pipeline with potable water class pipe for ten (10) feet
either side of crossing. Use of hydraulic cementitious materials such as concrete. controlled
density fill. and conciete slurry encasement is not allowed as a substitute for sleeving.
(2) lf potable pipeline is below non-potable pipeline, the tron-potablc pipeline must alscr
be supported through the crossing to prevent settling'
iv. pressurl wastewater mains or other pressurized mains or lines containing non-potable
fluids shall be no closer vertically than eighteen ( l8) inches from potable mains'
Page -12-
c. Existing potable services in relation to new non-potable mains, existing non-potable
services in relation to new potable mains, and existing potable services in relation to ne non-
potable services shall meet the requirements of Subsection 542.07 .b., where pratical- based on
lost. construction factors. and public health significance. If the Department determines that there
are significant health concems with these services, such as where a large existing service serves
un upirr*rnt building or a shopping center, then the design shall conform with Subsection
542.07.b."
'..1 I Separation from Structures. Water mains shall be separated by at least five (5) feet
fro buildings, industrial facilities, and other permanent structures."
ry.
RESPONSES
QUESTION l. Does the PUC document "suez Water ldaho lnc. Rate Schedules" efl'ective
January 10, 2020 mandate that customers will pay for water main upgrades. when Suez determines
a new construction water supply demand does not meet the water main design needs of the
customer?
ANSWER I : The PUC Rate schedules do generally contemplate that an applicant with "new
construction" which is not adjacent to existing mains or which creates such a water flow need that
the existing mains can not adequately service the demand can be compelled to "extend" a main line
to the point of service with "the cost of such extension shall be borne by the customer. (Sheet 7.
Schedule 3 cited above says so specifically as to private fire sprinkler service) l{owever. neither a
non-adjacency nor an additional flow need is present here. Western's new hanger construction site
is already surrounded on all sites by existing Suez water mains. The additional new fire and potable
water requirements are minimal and can be serviced adequately as to volume from the existing Suez
pipes. The only issues in conflict are the points of connection and location of the on-site access lines
to service water and fire hydrants to the new building. Those solutions are somewhat complicated
by the presence of an existing sewer line tocated in the preferred and previously approved twenty
lbot wide corridor. However. nothing about the resolution of these questions and solutions requires
the upgrading a perimeter of several hundred feet of Suez main lines. It rnay be desired by or
prudenr for Suez to upgrade and enlarge those existing lives at this time, in anticipation of future
airport uses and commercial growth. However, this type of upgrade action would be at Cornpany.
tlot current customer expense. (By analogy see Sheet I 3, Schedule 6, paragraph l2) This conclusion
is further clarified by the last phrase of paragraph 6 on Sheet I 2. which provides that "ln instances
where the existing mains do not front the prooe(v to be served, the Applicant shall enter into the
appropriate main extension agreetnent. (Enlphasis added) Not only should thc additional ncw
optionat upgraded water nrains in question connecting to the SUEZ upgrade now being done at utility
cost under South Kennedy Street also be done at Suez expense" but pursuant to Sheet 21, Rule 6l
above they should also be located off Western property routed, as normal. "in dedicatBd streets."
Page -l 3-
Thissolvesthesewerlineproximityissuesaswellatthatlocation'
QUEsTtoN2.CanSuezWaterdenyanapprovalofapre-approvedCivilEngineerdesigned
newwaterconnectiontoacommercialbuildingonprivateproperty?
ANSWER 2: Suez issued a preliminary approval by email on May 19' 2020 to T'O'
Engineers utilizing,r,. ,i,. plan drawing which located the on-site water line connections within the
20 foot wide coveretl warking between the ord and new hangars. pursuant to sheet r 2' paragraph
6 and Sheet 21, paragraph 62 and Service Connection, Rule
.8. S,., has and retains the stlle right
to review and approve ail cust.mer extensions and connections to its system. Because the sewer line
adjacency irrue suUs.fu.ntty *ose.^ld as the existing water line was not accuaretly located on the
available maps, the prior "informal" ap.proval remains properly under review' .Neither the City of
Boise permit irrr*J. nor the puc Engineer's recommendation lette, have displaced the power and
duty of suez under
-utiuppri"uble
rules and regulations to make a fi.a1. format approval as to the
service line connectton
QUESTION 3. Can Suez water require western-to pay for the design, upgrade' and
installation of a main water rine system" based on Suez water's desiie to upgrade the main water line
system?
ANSWER 3: By statute Suez is required to treat its customers fairly and equitably' charging
onry those fees that ur.i1ur, und ,"urorrubi"." (rdaho code sections 6l -301 and 303 quoted above)
It may only charg. rr.ti rates and tolls as are authorized in its rule filings' (61-305) As to any
claimed cost, it may-not prejudice or disadvantage any customer' (61-315)
while its standard Exhibit "Do' Industrial water Main Agreen'Ient (sheet 34' paragraph 3)
does allow it to dernand that a connection applicant pay the "cost of installing an off'-site main
Extension.,, it may do so only when the fatis and circumstances justiff a compulsi,n fur the
customer in so doing. Ru dir.*sed, in Answer l, above, that is not the case here' The water mains
do. in fact. already tiont Westem's property on four sides'
Similar issues in conrparable cases have been litigated before the PUC on various occasions'
Attached is a decision memorandum dated February 28, zotg discussing a comparable fornral
conrplaint aisputing-ch*g., claimecl by Intermountain Gas. (Exhibit "E'as attached)
Accordingly,l conclude that a demand by Suez that Western pay for several hundred feet of
perimeter main waier rine upgrades *oulJ appear to be unjust and unreasonable on its tace . without
some substanriar ,io*ing';i fact by sueiitrat the mere one building water connecrion sought
compels the upgrade of ttre entire water main system loop of several hundred feet' it would violate
the ldaho C'ode equity to customer requircmeuts'
QUEST'ION 4. Can Suez impose limits on a water line location' such as between trvo
buirdings with 20 f'"., of ,.puration" based on their desire to avoid access to the airporr or a claim
Page -14-
to not have a clear working area for future possible repairs'l
ANSWER 4: Sheet l g, Miscellaneous. paragraph 46 specified that the employees and agents
for the Company "shall have right of access bei*een the hours of 8:00 a'm' and 4:30 p'm'" Monday
through Friday: ..with the appr:oval of the customer." to a users service line. Nothing in the rules
gives suez the right to dernand unreasonably or specifically wide rights of way to accommodate such
access. The DEe rules which prohibit a water main fr<lm running under a building would seem to
be distinguishable from our situation. as to a 20 footwide covered walkway' (See Answer 5 below)
Thus. Sulz may insist on access. but here again may not impose excessive requirements'
QTJESTION 5. Can Suez require weStem to have water/sewer line separation of a new sew'er
line which connects to the original i"*.r line when the original water line did not have the desired
separation?
ANSWER 5: Suez has indicated to Western that it prefers to upgrade the existing northem
main and service tine which provides potable water and fire connections for westem. into a
connection to an upgraded main line loop ending on South Kennedy Street. Western needs new
service lines for water and Frre to the new construction. In doing either. suez hasboth the right and
the obligation to protect its potable water system from contamination by non-potable water sources'
including leahing or breached sewer pipes. For that reason, the rule requiring that discovery of the
adjacent. not properly mapped water and sewer lines do require them and us to reach a solution to
rnake any new lines DEQ regulation conrplaint'
However. Suez should not have a unique and arbitrary authority. at the cost of a customer to
reroute a proposed mainline extension entirely around three sides of a customer's property. where
a direct c-rsing service or main line exists and an extension can be accomplished at lesser cost and
in full compliance with all applicable regulations. (See DEQ Rules 58.01.08'542.07 and .l I above)
Assuming that a combination of vertical (deeper) placement and horizontal separation or
sleeving within t[e available twenty foot wide right of way can achieve the required ten foot. six fool
or fewer potable-non potable line distances. the iost of participation in this solution should cap and
limit the expense to Western for service line connection to the new construction at its northern
frontage. wiitrin and adjacenr ro the walkway space. The DEQ Rule 58.01 .08.542.1 I minimum five
loot distance from a t,uitOing also should be iasily achievable. I find no regulation which would
define such an access site. even il used as a walkway and covered and enclosed. as a "building."
'his point is particularly strong where the existing. former Boeing Street main line runs through the
walkway area alreadY.
eLJESTION 6. Can Suez restrict water line installation to only Suez pre-approved
contractors on private property'?
ANSWER 6: Because service line connections and service line design and operation can have
an impact on adjacent supply lines and thus the entire system, the PUC has given the utilit.v the right
Page -l 5-
to use its own agents or suggest and approve contractors who will interact with its water lines' (see
sheet 24. puagraph 73 abi-ve) This regulation does give wesrern the right to seek approval t'rorrt
iu., of p.poied-private contractors to be employed by the customer'
Suez also has the right to "approve" all customer service lines themselves "as to size' kind
of pipe and insta[ation,, .i"n thrcugh they are installed and maintained at the user's expense.
(Seivice Connection, Rule 8 above)'
QUEsTloNT.Cansuezverballythreatennottoturnthewateronforanewserrice'iI.
Western does not agree to pay for a main line upgrade?
ANSWERT:oralo.threats'.havenoplaceinthisprocess"althouglrSuezmaynotifyus
verbally of its initial opinions and positions. (Rule 301 . I references "verbal" discussions) Ilowever'
once we make written application for a water service connection, the actions of Suez are govemed
by the statutory, r.;;i;,;;;d rate.card fro...t*.t. (See Rules 602 and 700 above)' Allsuch plan
responses should u. in *riting and include cost estimates and explanations of reasoning. (See again
Rule 301 .I above). We should expedite fresenting ourspecific requests and proposals for a solution
to the utility and ask Suez to cost those out and agree thlreto. tf the plan attached as Exhibit "F" is
finar, it shourd be utilized. If they disagree. their counterproposal must rikewise be written, specific
and explained. we then can file ou, puc Compraint ii the response contains unreasonable.
discriminatory tenns. (Also in Rule 301.1) of note, sheet 23, Schedule 6. Rules Governing water
Main Extensions, paragraph 72 does proviie that "The Company shall preparc plTt'specilications'
and cost estimates for" proporea main extensions at its own expense''o To the extent that any
mainline expansion threat proposed to shift such preliminary costs to westem it is contrary to Suez's
own obligations.
eUESTION g. What recourse does Westem have to pursue a claint against Suez for costs
and delays associated with this matter?
ANSWER 8: As illustrated by the case sg David Robens. Complainant v. Ohio Water
service company, lggT wL 1465 t S+ iOtrio P.u.c.). western can likewise incorporate claims o1'
t"rpp*prt"t. d"ty and escalating costs as related to the new construction into a set of allegations
before the pUC. R.opy is attach;d hereto as Exhibit "G." Mr. Roberts used those issues to assert
the unreasonableness of utility's demands and to seek zur immediate hearing and relief before the
regulator. A decision by the PUC against Suez would be a necessary prerequisite to winning a
damage suit in the districi court. in my opinion. However, a demand letter warning suez of the daily
c.st issues occasioned by its failur. io upprore and allow our application for connection would be
entirely appropriate and could help set ui u rr...rsful lawsuit to recover those quantified damages.
if ttre utitity's conduct is adjudgecl to be unreasonable and without merit'
IV
CONCT.USION
Page -16-
As explained above, the Suez threat or demand to require Western to apy for several hundred
feet of main line water extensions as a condition of connecting service to the new hanger is
unreasonable and unlawful. This is especially evident where the construction site already'ofronts"
the existing mains on all four sides..
Likewise, the DEQ rules provide many possible work-around solutions and standards for co-
locating sewer? fire and potable water lines within the 20 foot walkway space. No regulation
precludes that result, including the DEQ rule that no waterline may be closer than 5 feet to a
|uilding. I recommend that we make formal application for the service connection within the
walkway with specific engineering solutions attached and require Suez to reply in writing with either
an acceptance or their costed out alternatives. Thereaftern if necessary, Western should make a
formal Complaint to the PUC.
David H. Leroy,at Law
Page -l 7-
Planning & DeveloPment Seruices
p.o. Box soo I goise, ID 83701-0500 | TDD/TTY [phone] | (208) 38+3802
Schedule lnspections
online: www.cityofboise.org/pds I smartphone: scan PDS Mobile code
GRADING PERMIT
PermitNo.: GRD2O'00037
Site Address: 4416 S KENNEDY ST
Subdivlsion: SEC 29 3N 2E
LoB 0 Block: 0
Assessor's Parccl 1{o.: 51029120615
Valuauon: $.100,000.00
Applied torz 051 1412020
Issued onz 071L512020
Expires on: 11/09/2020
proiect Descraption: (WESTERN AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANS) Grading permit to excavate, grade and compact site earth
matirials in preparation ior a nen, office building to be constructed unoei ato2o-01457 . All work to be performed as approved by
the public Wbrks Department. Separate (electriial and/or pluming) permit is required for site underground utilities. No buildings or
(Dcccrtpdon lamtt d to 3llnB)
Responsible Party
Generat Contractor: STOCI( CONSTRUCIION MANAGEMENT StOCl( CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2990 WISE VyY BOISE, ID 83716
Fe€s
D.d q., I ls I 2020' 11,454'oo F...(rqd: t&a5rt.09 Tot l P.ldr t2,464.0O t lanc!: 10,00
*rt
EXHIBIT
CondiUons Attached' Separate Report
Ttl€ undersigned hereby applies for a permit for the work herein indicated or as shovvn and approved in the accompanying plans ard sp€cifications and agreQs to
call for the required inspections when ihe work is ready. lt is understood by the undersigned' ihat this permit is issued subJect to all applicable Boise ow codes
and ordinances. lt is hereby agreed that th€ work called for herein smll be done in comlliance with said city codes and ordinances. Thls permit will become null
and void if the buitding or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within one calendar year from the date of issuance of such permit, or if ttr€ building
or work authorized uy sucn permitls rr.p"nieO or ibandoned at any tim€ after the work ls commenced for a period of 180 calendar days'
A
Vo*-,8{E
Print Applicant or Owner's Name Applicant or O/vner's Signature AuiliiiqAaa4y'
ncq rlo, Amo$ntD.tGPd cod. Dcrcrlrdon
Tlrslzozo
Pd Dcocrlption BGc. f,o. tunount
GRO Finat & Audit Prmt Fe€r9201000000000l{r035 i2,464,09
Cod.
Gl20
Please think lwice before pdnting this email
From: Brendon Daniels <bdaniels@to'engineers.com>
Sent Thursday, August 20,2020 10:12 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Dillon Barresi<[e-mail]>;'Louie Gravel'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brooks, Russell <[e-mail]>; Justin Bilbrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air
Nate -
Sorry I wasn't able to make the call on Tuesday. Dillon and I have been coordinating on the discussion held Tuesday and
the existing site conditions that have been encountered since the other utility excavation began.
We have prepared a revised SUEZ water plan that meets all DEQ regulations under the current existing conditions in
order to move the project forward. Here is break down of the adjustments;
North side - extend SUEZ line sleeving to get under and past the sewer and fire line crossings. We made some
slight adjustments to the alignment to increase separation.
South side - sleeve and relocate SUEZ line under sewer crossing, move south for separation from sewer/storm
service lines.
West side'my understanding is that SUEZ has field inspected the existing line and all clearances meet
requirements along Kennedy.
4" seryice line to Fire tank - sounds like we don't have much room to move here now that the actual location
has been determined, I would propose that we install a backflow device/valve on this service line just off of
Kennedy, that way we would classifu the service line from Kennedy to the fire tank as non-potable and make it
apart of the fire system and eliminate clearance requirements. We did not show this on the SUEZ plan attached,
I figured it would not be in SUEZ scope of work. lncluded a civil plan mark up for reference.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or redlines on the plan so we can get the work moving ahead.
Thanks for your help and coordination on thisl
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (tD, NV) | ProiectMonager
T.O ENEINEEFIS
a
a
o
o
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208-433-1900 I C 208-631-s851
www.to-engineers.com EXHIBIT
N B,
on.o
From: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August L8,2O2O 5:20 PM
To: Dillon Barresi <[e-mail]>; Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>; 'Louie Gravel'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brooks, Russell <russ. [e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Western Air
2
]4.
#Xf-*;ffi$3
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
From:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]> - r r
Friday, August 28,202011:33 AM F -l-l I SUee
Dillon Barresi; Louie Gravel; 'Mike Stock';Justin Bilbrey
'Casey Calico'
RE:Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Follow up
Flagged
c,ll
EXHIBIT
OC"
f(ll'lJ
"rdlc.ff'"&
All - Below are responses in red to the issues brought up by SUEZ. I am available for a call any time this afternoon
1. The Breezeway was changed to an air-conditioned structure. Suez interprets the rules for an occupied/air
conditioned structure to be more stringent than for a simple breezeway. Under Suez's interpretation of IDAPA
rules: Refer to email dated Sl2O/zOLg- the structure was described as a "covered/enclosed walkway", tlris was a very
preliminary meeting to determine if this was feasible design layout. Following our in person meeting and follow up
email, SUEZ accepted this approach via email on 6/a/2079'
a. The pipe can't be placed under an occupied structure, even with a pipe sleeve.
b. There is now a keep-out requirement that doesn't allow suez to get within 5' of the structure.
This should have been disclosed in May/June 2019 for the team to pursue alternative design.
2. According to Suez, changes to the plan also changed access, so that Suez would now need to access the pipe from the
runway side. Per emailfrom 5/2012019, the walkway was always to be "enclosed". Need for access should have been
disclosed to the design team.
3. According to Suez, the changes also included non-potable lines that weren't in the original plan. This is part of the
design process and these issues should have been worked out starting with the first plan submittalin October 201"9.
4. According to Suez, the new plans include a fire hydrant that wasn't included in the city review. They believe that this
is an "issue if trying to sleeve." Correct, during the formal city plan review two additional fire hydrants were
required. We started our submittals with SUEZ well in advance of the City subnrittal because past project experience has
taught us this process can take up to a year regardless of conrplexity.
5. According to Suez, the new plans include a fire sprinkler. They believe that this is an "issue if trying to
sleeve." Original project did not plan to impact the portion of the line with the fire service. Since SUEZ engaged in tltis
project starting in July 2020, the scope of work and project extents has beett ever changing and growing. We have ortly
received 1 set of formal redlines ori the plans, and several emails indicating that "changes are needed" br"rt tto detailed
information.
G. According to Suez, the new plans include a sewer that doesn't conform with the Suez's notes on the drawing. Sewer
inverts on the project are controllecl on both ends o{ the site. SUEZ's lines were rtot accurately rJrawn on the maps
provided to the engineer and could not be field located since they clon't have locate wire ott thent due to tl)e aB,e of tlte
pipes. water line adjustments are needed to lower and nreet IDAPA requirements. This is a field condition change that
could not be designed for,
7. According to Suez, the new plans include a non-potable 14" fire sprinkler line that wasn't part of the original drawing,
and that doesn't conform with Suez's notes on the drawing. This portiun of tlre project developecl through the design
Louie Gravel
process. Engineer understood that the water lines were both potable, therefore IDAPA separation standards were not
applied. since suEZ did not engage in the project until July 2020, this conflict was not identified. The separation
requirements have been met in revised plans'
Thanks!
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | Prolect Manoger
T.Cl ENGiINEEFIS
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208433-1900 I c 208-631-5851
www.to-enqineers.com
OEO
From: Dillon Barresi <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 28,2020 9:48 AM
To: ,Louie Gravel'<[e-mail]>; 'Mike stock'<[e-mail]>; Brendon Daniels <bdaniels@to-
engineers.com>; Justin Bilbrey <jbilbrey@to-engineers'com>
Cc:'Casey Calico' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Brendon,
can you respond to the claims from suez in the below email. I have read through them and they seem pretty straight
forward as far as being able to respond. Let me know if you need anything from my end.
Tha'r*vyow,
Dil),twBa"rre*it
Stook/Ct'45
208-378-47 79
From: Louie Gravel Imailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 28,2O2O 9:18 AM
To: Mike Stock <[e-mail]>; 'Dillon Barresi' <[e-mail]>; Brendon Daniels <bdaniels@to.:
enpineers.com>
Subject: FW: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
please review the line items below of Suez claims. lt looks like the same line items we may have addressed with the
revised water plan submitted. I would like to get this addressed this afternoon. can we have a conferences call after
2PM ?
Louie Gravet
Western Aircraft lnc.
o | 208-338'1826
M | 208-871"6863
F | 208-338-1887
louteo(Awestarr cotn
2
lta
@ \fdesternAircraft
www.westai[.cin]l4300sKenrredyStreetlEorsellrtr:t70iig{l4?l-r'1'fi:r
and ail coflies
a orcfljrfr.,t atlloonou, cortll,,
From: Mike Morrison < M ike. Mo rriso n @ p uc' ida ho'gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2020 5:53 PM
To: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westair.com>
Cc: Chris Hecht <Chris. [e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Thanks
From: Louie Gravel <LouieG@westa ir.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2OZO 5:26 PM
To: M ike Morrison <M i ke. Mo rrison @ puc. ida ho.eov>
Cc: Chris Hecht <Chris,[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Thanks Mike, I witl run thru the Suez claims with our team in the am. Thanks again for staying on top of it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 27,2020, at 17:15, Mike Morrison <Mike'[e-mail]> wrote
Here's my understanding of Suez's issues. Let me know if this is your understanding. lf I have gotten
something wrong, or if this doesn't reflect your understanding of Suez's position, please correct me.
According to Suez, Western made some substantive changes to the drawings after it received approval
from Suez. According to Suez, they did not approve the current plan:
1. The Breezeway was changed to an air-conditioned structure. Suez interprets the rules for an
occupied/air conditioned structure to be more stringent than for a simple breezeway. Under Suez's
interpretation of IDAPA rules:
a. The pipe can't be placed under an occupied structure, even with a pipe sleeve.
b. There is now a keep-out requirement that doesn't allow Suez to get within 5' of the
structure.
2. According to Suez, changes to the plan also changed access, so that Suez would now need to access
the pipe from the runway side.
3. According to Suez, the changes also included non-potable lines that weren't in the original plan.
3
4. According to suez, the new plans include a fire hydrant that wasn't included in the city review. They
believe that this is an "issue if trying to sleeve."
5. According to Suez, the new plans include a fire sprinkler. They believe that this is an "issue if trying to
sleeve."
6. According to Suez, the new plans include a sewer that doesn't conform with the Suez's notes on the
drawing.
7. According to Suez, the new plans include a non-potable 14" fire sprinkler line that wasn't part of the
original drawing, and that doesn't conform with Suez's notes on the drawing.
From: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westair.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 27,2O2O 10:22 AM
To: M ike Morrison <M i ke. M orrison (o p uc' ida ho.sov>
Subiect: RE: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
No, The walkway has always been shown in the same location and size.
Louie Gravel
Western Aircraft lnc.
o | 208-33E-1826
M I 208-87 1"6863
F i 208-338-1887
loulea@westair com
<image001.jpg>
<image002.png>
www weslair.cont I {300 S Kerrnedy titreel I Boise lO 83705 I 800 :t-tl :"14::
COltftdeJ)tialOrDlhLrwtSUpr0te0l€rlfr(,rr,.1rlJ a,Sirr,-'[]r'iSsrIl,rl;,i r,, {j,!rr,rill,',r,,':llJ!l'j '''r rrlr r' ''r'rrr' r' a'
lf votr have recarve,:l lhrs e r]'lall rlr ellot (Jcsirar! lhe ollQrrr:il "rersr'je ,in{l iill i::rJ rr'r
,,. ).:
From: Mike Morrison <M ike. Mo rrison @ puc. ida ho.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2O2O 9:33 AM
To: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westair.com>
Cc: Chris Hecht <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Hi Louie:
Chris and I haven't forgotten about you. We're discussing the documents you sent with Suez.
I have a clarifying question for you: Has Western changed the location of the buildine or walkway since
Suez approved the plan on June 4th? lf so, what was the reason?
Mike
From: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westa ir.corn>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26,2A20 5:55 PM
4
To: Mike Morrison <M ike.Morrison@ puc.ida ho'gov>
Subiect: FW: Western Air'SUEZ Coordination
FYI
Louie Gravel
Western Aircraft lnc
o I 208 338-1826
M I 208-871-6863
F i 2oB-338-1887
louie€r@westau conr
<image001.jpg>
<image002.png>
www.westair.com | 4300 S Kertnedy Slreet I Brrrse l[r B.ii05 I lJoU J'-t:" 'i'1di
It vDU hav€ recerved ttrrs e.mall ilr arrot ile$lrot lhe orrqrllal r'lutis;jiit: arro 3ii (,of)ir;is
From: Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26,2020 4:30 PM
To: Louie Gravel <LouieG@ stair.com>
cc: Justin Bilbrey <ibilbrev@to-engineers'com>; Dillon Barresi <dbarresi@stockcms'com>
Subject: Western Air - SUEZ Coordination
Louie -
Attached are the pertinent emails of coordination between T-O Engineers and SUEZ dating back to May
of 2019. I have added the dates to the front of the file name so you can follow the sequence of
communication. Here is a rough timeline for reference:
May 2019 - met with SUEZ, received email approval to proceed with sleeved waterline under the
enclosed walkway
Oct 2019 - Submitted the first water plan to SUEZ for review
Jan 2020 - Followed up on plan review, no comments to date
Feb 2020 - Followed up on plan review, no comments to date
July 2020 - Submitted revised water plan based on City of Boise comments for additional fire hydrants
July/Aug 2O2O - started receiving coordination from SUEZ on project design
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information from us.
Thanks!
<image008.png>
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | ProTectMonager
<image009.png>
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208-433-1900 | C 208-631-s8s1
www.to-engineers.com
<image0l0.png>
<imageOl l.png>
5
<image0l2.png>
Disclaimer
The information contalned in this communication from the sender is confidential' It is intended solely for use by the
recipient and others uutiorirJ io receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, oistriuuiion or taking action in relation of the contents of this infonnation is strictlv prohibited
and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast
ita-, in in"oritor in son rai. ir " service (saas) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for vortr
[r-"n generated Oata. ipeciaiiiing in; Security, archiving anrl compliance, To find out nlore Click Herq'
6
ldaho Public Utilities Commission Bnd Covctnor
PO Eor 83720, Bobt, lD 83?20{t071 Prul l(ldlrndr. Gcntriltrlonrr
Krlr0nr Rrpor, Coormlnloncr
Erlc Andrrrm, Coormlulonrr
Sepembcr l,2OZ0
Louie Gravel
Westcrn Aircraft, Inc.
4300 S. Kennedy Street
Boise,Idaho 83705
(208) 338-r826
Nate Cnofts
Construction Supervisor, Idaho Operations
Sucz
8248 W. Victory Road
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208)36L7329
Cathy Cooper, P.E.
Director of Engineering, Idatro Operations
Suez
8248 W. Victory Road
Boise,Idaho 83709
(208) 81G,0516
re: Western Aircraft Expansion
Dear [,ouie, Nate, and Cathy:
I would like to make the following proposals as starting points for continued discussions
regarding Westcrn Aircraft' s expansion project.
Regarding the Covered Walkway:
l. That the covered walkway be built according to the current design, and that the 8"
pipe be slcevcd per the currcnt design.
2. That Westem provide a waiver indemnifying Suez from damage to the walkway
or adjacent structures in the event that Suez can't access the pipe using the sleeve.
11331 W. Chlnden tlvd., tulldlng 8 Sultc 2o1-A Soba lD
81714 Talcphonc: (2081 334'0100 frcslmllc: (Xt8l 13{.3762
EXHIBIT
-D.
louie Gravel, Nate Crofts, and Cathy Cooper
September 1,2020
Page 2
Regarding Separation between Potable and Non-Potable Lines:
3. That Westem work with Suez to deepen the 8" pipe. Western would pay for this
work.
4. An altemative to deepening the 8" pipe would be to abandon this pipc and upsize
the pipe on Cessna Street. Westem would be responsible for paying a
contribution in aid of construction (CIAC) equal to the cost of deepening the 8"
line as describcd in itcm 3.
5. Another alternative to deepening the 8" pipe would be to install the non-potable
lines in accordance with IDAPA 58.0l.08.542.07 "Separarion of Porable, Non-
Potable, and Raw Water Pipelines."
Please let me know if thesc proposals would be acceptable. If not, please explain your
concerns and proposc an alternative. If you have questions, please contacr me at [phone]
or mike, rnorrison @ puc. idaho.eov.
Sincerely,
Ph.D., P.E
Engi
e-mail: LouicG @ westair.com
nate.cro.ft s @ suc z.com
c.at hy.coope r @ s ue z, c g.ru
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:BEVERLY BARKER
FEBnUARY 28,2019I)ATE:
SUBJECT: FOR]VIAL COMPLAINT OF RAUL MENDEZ AGAINST
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
On January 25,2019, Raul Mendez filed a formal Complaint, Attachment A herelo,
against Intermountain Cas Company (the Company). Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to order
the Company to:
( I ) Refund a $ 14.00 Account Initiation Clharge, plus accumulated interest applied to
his account in October 201 8;
(2) Pay costs of $72.00 incurred in the drafting of his Complaint;
(3) Bar the Company from charging fees for voluntarily disconnecting service,
especially if the reason for requesting disconnection is due to financial hardship;
(4) Warn the Company that they must comply with the Conrrnission's rules;and
(5) Warn the Company "about manipulation of fees to the detriment of ldaho
customers."
Sec Cornplaint at l0-l L
Mr. Mendez {iled his Corrrplainl afler becoming unsatisfied with the oulcome of informal
proceedings. FIis formal Complaint thus asks the Commission for "more accountability and
transparency of the IPUC complaint process and to wam staff of not giving the appearance of
bias."
EXHIBIT
rr t"
DECISION MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 28. 20I9
BACKGROI.JND
Mr. Mendez contacted Commission Staff several times about the Company's rates and
charges and his bills. In this particular instance, Mr. Mendez objects that the Company charged
him an Account Initiation Charge after he tried to save money by having the Company
disconnect his service in the summer and then reconnect service at the same address before
winter. Mr. Mendez questions whether the Account Initiation Charge is "a valid charge on an
already existing account" and whether a customer "can disconnect gas service without incurring
additional fees such as an initiation fee ibr restarting service." .See Complaint at l. StafTnotes
that the Commission has authorized the Company to assess an Account Initiation Charge
whenever an account is opened. S'ee Intermountain Gas' Tariff, Section A, Sheet No. 6, Section
9.4, and Auachment B hereto. Mr. Mendez also questions the amounts billed by the Company in
the past during the summer, when he believes no gas was consumed. See Complaint at l.
Mr. Mendez also alleges that Commission Staffviolated his right to due process during
informal proceedings. Specifically, he complains thal Staff insufficiently explained the
Commission's rules and the Company's rates and charges. See Complaint at 7, 9 and I0.
Finally, Mr. Mendez's Complaint refers to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
llorvever, it is unclear which specific collection practices of the Company he disputes and horv
this federal law might apply under the circumstances. See Complaint at 9 and 10.
STA I.'F RECOMMEN DATI ONS
Staff recommends that the Commission issue a summons to Intermountain Gas and direct
it to file a response to the Complaint.
Further, given that Mr. Mendez has identified several issues that are more appropriately
addressed by Stafl Staffrequests thal il also be allowed to respond to the Complaint.
Staff recontmends the Clommission allow the Company and Staff to file their responses
rvithin 2l days after the Commission issues the summons.
Stafl'recommends that the Commission then allow Mr. Mendez l4 days after the
rcsponsc deadline to file a reply.
Finally, Staff recommends that the Comrnission direct the Company. Staffand Mr.
Mendez to meet within 30 days after Mr. Mendez's reply deadline to explore whether they rnight
DECISION MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 28,20192
resolve some or all of the issues. Staffthen would update the Commission within 14 days about
settlement efforts in order to allow the Commission to make a decision.
COMMISSION DECISIONS
Does the Commission wish to:
(l) Accept Mr, Mendez's formal Complaint?
(2) Issue a summons to Intermountain Gas, giving the Company 2l days to respond
after the summons issues?
(3) Allow Staffto respond to the Complaint within 2l days after the summons issues?
(4) Allow Mr. Mendez to reply within 14 days of the response deadline?
(5) Direct the Company, Staff and Mr. Mendez to meet and confer within 30 days of
the reply deadline, with Staff to report to the Commission within 14 days on the
outcome of the meeting or with further process recommendations?
UdmcmoJDccision Mcmo Mmdcz scllbbrsv
JDECISION MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 28,20I9
ATTACHMEIYTA
RaulMendez
2712 N. Goldeneye Way
Meridian, lD 83646
PH (208)860-s037
Raulmendez2002@gmai l.com
RAUL MENDEZ,
Complainanl,
VS
IN"TERMOUNI'AIN GAS COMPANY,
Respondent.
BEFORETHE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE No
rI
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT
NOW COMES RAUL MENDEZ, complainant charges as follow:
Mr. Mendez complains against the above utility company providing gas for ldaho residents. Mr, Mendez
notes that most o[his communications over the past 1,5 years have been with staffat the ldaho Public
Urilities Commission thru the lnformal complaint procedure, Rule 402 0l; IDAPA 31.2L01, He has
received lirtle conespondence from Respondenl because they indicated that they don't respond to email
even when their rvebsite indicate that it is one of the means to contact them. Mr. Mendez charges that
the staffwith the ldaho Public Utilities Commission violated his Due Process rights and Intermountain
Gas violated his rights under the Fair Debt collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
rssuEs
I ) ls an sscount initiation fee of$14 dollars a valid charge on an already existing account?
2) Should the charges be consistently the same over the summer on an account that shows no use of gas?
i) c&n a cuslomer disconnect gas service without incurring additional fees sush as zur initiation fee for
r€starting service?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
an 7ft12017, Mr. Mendez contacted respondent questioning why he had becn charged $7'41 for July
201 7 when on July 2016 and over the entire summer of 20 t 6 the eharge had been $5.34' Mr' Mendez
indicafed that he does not use gas over the summer including heating for water' He questioned why there
was an increase of Z.A7 from the previous summer when it should be identical since there is no gas usage'
Furthermore, he indicated that for mflny years it had been $5'34 over the summer months when he does
not use g,as.
aa717t20l1, Respondent explained that the difference in the bill from 2016 summer to 20l? summer is
due to the customer charge going from $2.50 to $5.50 as af 5lll20l'1.
en 7l:,:5ll0lT, Mr. Mendez catled urility to ask how to disconnect servicc over the summer since there is
no usagc of gas and to save money for the winter. He was told by Sydney in customer service that there
would be a l4 dollar rcconnect t'ee to restart service in the winter'
On 7t3012017, Mr. Mendez contacted respondent via email and told customer service that he has not
heing able to frnd on their website anlhing in regards to a l4-dollar reconneclion Fcc'
On g/3/20 I 7, Mr, Mcndcz requestcd rcspondent send to him the information where it says that there is a
l4 dollar reconnecl fec.
On gl4/2017, Respondent exptained to Mr. Mendez that the $ l4 fee is nol a reconnecl fee but initiation
fee for starting service. He was directed the FAQS on the company's wcbsite' see exhibit l'
On g/4O0li, Mr. Mendez replied ro respondent pointing out that an initiation fee is entirely different than
a reconnect fee. I alreadv have the service on. tlrcrefore the l4-dollar charBe does not aPPlv' -
f,,,thennore. I see that you do indeed charge a reconnect fee only if the service has been disconnect€d due-
to non-pa.vment. The company's websire indicate that an initiation fee is charged on each account opened
with lntermountain gas. see exhibit l,
On gl9l20l Z, Mr. Mendez contacted respondent stating that if there is no usage then lhere should be the
same fee every statement during summer whether it's $5.J4 or $7.41 , How is it possible that the coil of
gss per terms and the distribution costs varies liom July 201? to August 2017 when there is no gas usage'
see erhibit l.
On gtZ4DAfi, Curtis Thaden with the IPUC handled lhe infsrmal conrplaint. He indicated thsl when the
customer places a request to reconnect a $t4 'account initiation charge' is assessed to open I new account'
l{e further indicated that the account number in the new account rvill be the sante as the closed out
account, He stated that if an account is closetJ lbr longer than l0 days and a requsst is made to reconnecl
service the utility company will consider that person an applicant and not a customer. Mr. Thaden
indicated that though your firrnace is not operating in the summer months "l'herm usage is being recorded
More than likcb, the recorded usage is from a pilot lisht of the fumace and hot water hcater and gas is
being used to heat the waler. This explanation was provided even when Mendez made it clear that no
gas ls being used at all during summer including heating for rvaler and when for many years the per
therms and distribution costs have been the samc during summer months when thcre has been no use. see
erhibit l.
An 911212017, Mr. Mendez questioned respondent if the fees arc being manipulatcd. lt was 4 therms
summer 201 6 as well when there was no gas usage. However, it was $2.06 and $7.08 in 20 l5 when the
customer charge was $2.50. It is still 4 therms summer 201 7 bul because the customer charge is now
S5.50, it appears rhat tntermountain Gas has lowered the same 4therms to $ 1.86 and $0.69. it was $5.34
summer 201 6 and it is $8.05 summer 201 7. No gas is being used at all during summer. Comparison
between prior years and 20 t 7 summer show a consistent 4 therms but somehow the statements for this
year ends up being 3 dollars more, He got no resPoDse. see erhibit 1.
An 4/3012A18, Mr. Mcndez contacted respondenl again regarding a seasonal shut off over the summer
since he does not use gas during warm wealher, He noted in August 2017 that there was no poinl in
disconnccting service that tate since it would have to be restarted in October but he would plan on the
seasonal disconnect in 201E.
On 512f2018, Respondent talked to Mr. Mendez on ths phone and provided him with Order
No2738941026 and indicated there would be a $14 initiation fee to restart service.
On 514/20 t 8, Mr. Mendez told respondent that the $ l4 fee is for new accounts but his accounl has been
openforl5ycars.
On 5/4/2018, Respondent told Mr, Mendez that once your accounl is closed for l0 days you're no longer a
customer. So, the $14 initiation fee for a new account rvould apply when you slart service in the fall.
see exhibit l.
On 5ll2120 t 8, Mr. Mendez asked respondent to provide the exact location on the policies where it states
that the utilities can eharge the l4dollar initiation fee on an already existing accounl. see erhibit l.
On 5/ I 8/20 t 8, Mr. Mendez told respondent thal his account has bcen opened for I5 years and that they
are trying to charge I4 dotlars to restart lhe service on an exisling account rvhich is current and not
stopped due to non-paymenl. see erhibit 1.
On 6/7 /2018, Mr, Mendez contacted Mr. Thaden with the IPUC regarding the ongoiflg issues with
respondent. Mr. Mendez rold Mr. 'Ihaden that the IPUC has approved a t4-dollar initiation fee on a new
account but not on existing Eccounts that have been temporarily disconnected'
on 6/g/20 I g, Mr. Thaden rold Mr. Iv{endez that secrion 9.4 of the approved tariff allows intermountsin
gas to charge a fee of$t4 or $40 whenever a customer requests service, evcn ifthe requestor previously
had an active account. If a cuslomer requests disconnection of service, seryicc is disconnected and the
account is closed, The account is no longer active and the former customer is no longer classil'ied as a
customer. see exbibit l.
An 611412018, Mr, Mendez told Mr, T'haden that he had not being able to find anywhere where it
specifically states that an existing account becomes a new account after it has becn closed for morc than
l0 days.
on 6/ tg/201 g, Mr. Thaden told Mr. Mendez rhat the word existing is causing confusion and that existing
impties that something is current. when a customer closcs out thsir account, the accounl is no longer an
existing account and that person is no longer a customer of the utiliry. Only aclive accounts arc existing
accounts. A customer is defined by the Urility Customer Re tation Rules as someone who is receiving
service from a utility or has receivcd service within the past ten calendar days prior lo termination bv the
Utility. see erhibit l.
On.ll20t:z0lt, Mr. Mendez totd Mr. Thaden that undcr section 9.4 of thc tariff and under the fee policy
(approved by rhe IPUC) there was nothing in the language indicating that "when s customer closes out
their account, lhe account is no longer an existing aecount and fhat person is no tonger a customer ofthe
utility. lf he/she, at a later date decides to become a customer again, and requests service be established,
an account is opcned."
On Bl2DAlB, Mr. Thaden indicared again rhat if a customer voluntarily disconnect service and then
dccides to reconngct service again an account initiarion charge is assessed' Qften. IG will issue the same
account number gs previoui[ issued as a courtesv to a customcr for the purpose of ]ill pay and automalic
withdrawat from the jndividuals banking-asqgunl see exhihit l'
On g/2/?0 t g, Mr. Mendez replied to Mr. Thaden that if the same aocount number is "issued" for the
purposes of billing, then any reasonable person would conclude that it was an existing custorner with an
existing account with an existing billing informution that is having the service restarted' ln other words'
it is not a new applicant for service,
On B/3tr01 B, Mr. Thaden told Mr. Mendez that the customer definition specific to "has received service
within the past l0 calendar days prior to terminstion by the utility." Termination by the utility refers lo
any conditiol that brousht about thc te,Urination of service which includes customer reQuests. see
exhibit I.
On 8/ I 5/201 g, Mr. Mendez told Mr. Thaden that he could not find anything on the IPUC rules regarding
[o ',any condition that brought aboul the termination of service which includes customer requests."
On l0/9/20tE, Mr. Mendezcontacted rcspondent noting that he raceived thc bill for l0/2018 for which l4
doltars had been charged as an initiarion fee on an existing account which now showed as being active.
On l0l t8/20 18, Mr. Thaden rold Mr. Mendez that if you file a formal complaint and the Commissioners
accept the complaint, lG will respond to the commission. see erbibit l.
An $t25/2018, Mr. Mendez attached a link from the ldaho Supreme Court tbr Mr. Thaden revie*. The
link is a guide regarding the IPUC and utilities in ldaho. tt asks the question: my utitity chsrged me a
deposir before the.v rurned on my service. Can they do that? Usually. no. Howcver. a uti[iU ma]
char[e a deposit when they turn on your scrvice if you had your service terminated for nonPaYment at
plgvjoug-addru The link indicated too rhat IPUC rules opplied to the water utility like Suez. yet. Sucz
does nol charge am'initiation' fce for restading service after temporary disconnections. Arcn't the rules
the same for all three utilities? see erhibit l.
On I t/612018, respondent told Mr Mendez that thc l4-dollar initiation fee as well as the interests on the
past due balance is allowed, and evcn mandated by our tariff that is approved by the IPUC' see crhibit
t.
On I l/6/2018, Mr. 'l'haden told Mr. Mendez thal if the Commissioners were to rule in your favor I am
certain that lnternrountain Gas rvould be ordered to remove thc $14 fce and interest charges from your
accounl. The I 4-dollar initiation fee is allowed per each company tariff and is not a vinlation of any rule.
Also, keep in mind 1hat both Intermountain Gas and ldaho Power incur costs when having lo reconnect
sen'ice and those cosls are not recovered in rates. see erhibit l'
On I I /8/20 I B, Mr. Mendez rold Mr. Thaden that basically, the l4-dollar charge that is in dispute is for
sending somcone to turn on service on an exisling account, it's just that lG are nol saying that it is a fee
connected with sending someone to turn il on; instead they claim it is an initiation fee on a new account'
What aboul Suez? many people request seasonal disconnects during winter if they 8re away from home
to avoid frozen pipes. They don't charge an initiation f'ee on exisling eccounts, aren't the IPUC rules the
same for the utilities?
on 12/412018. Mr. Thaden told Mr. Mendez thal when you called lG to start service again an accounl was
opened; often the compsny will issue the same aceount number as previously used for a custome/s
convenience for etectronic payment purposes. tG assesses a $ l4 account initiation fee when a request for
service to be cstablished is requested' For servicc to be estabtished an account has to be opened' ln
gccount. Suez water does not charge an initiation fee Each utility sompany has its own set of
I do not believe
the commission witt waive a fee that has previously been approved by the commission' sct exhlbit l.
ARGUMENT
Mr, Mendez has only included cmail conespon{ence on exhibit I for organizational purposcs of this
complaint. He refers to some links/attachments in the above concspondence that will be included as
separate exhibiB. He will rcfcr to Pertinent Rules and he witt also refer to K'l/ v' Idaho Deparlmenl of
Heullh und we{ore, stue d ldoho. case No I:t2'cv'00022, A uS District court of ldaho case
invotving violations of due process rights' He willrcfer to the FDCPA'
on 5/18/2018, Mr. Mendez attached a picture for respondcnt of his lG accounl showing as the service
being stopped. see exhibit 2. On I0/9/201 8, Mr. Mendez attached a picture for respondent of the samc
account number with the same account name fur the same address showing as the servicc being active'
see exhibil 3. On l0/g/201g, Mr, Mendez also atrached a picture of respondent's website showing the
fees approved by the ldaho Public utilities commission. rrc trhibit 4' Respondent and Mr' Thaden
frequently refler on the above emails to 9.4 under 16 rariff. ste erhibit 5' on l0/25201 I' Mr' Mendez
attachcd a link from the ldaho Supremc Courr website to help peoptc with questions about utilities' see
erhibil 6.
Rulc 5 of IDApA 3l.Zt.ol defines an applicant as any pelguia! cuslomer who aoplies for service'
Defines customer as any pcrson who has applied [or, has been aeccpted by the utility and is: receiving
service from a ufility or has received service within lhe past ten days prior to te-rminatign by the utilir'v'
defines utitity as any public utility providing gas, electric or water service subject by taw to lhe
Qom m iss ion' s j urisdict ion'
IDAPA 31.21.01, Rute l0l.0l states that no utility shalldemand or hold a deposit from any currenl
residential customer or applicant for residential servicE without prootthat the custonter or applicant is
likely to bc a credit risk or damagc to Property of rhe utility' A utility shall not demand or hold a deposit
under this rule as a condilion of service from a residenf ial customer or applicant Unlgss one or more of the
followine criteria aPplies: a) the customer or appticant has outstanding a prior residential service sccount
wirh the utitity that accrued within the last four vears and ar the time of application for service remains
unpaid and not in dispute. b) the customer's or appricanr's seryice from the utirity has becn terminated
within the last four ],ears for one or more of the following reasons: i. nonpayment of any undisputed
delinquenf bill; ii. misrepresentation of the customer's or applicant's identity for the purpose of obtaining
utility service, d) the applicant did not have service with the utility for a period of at least l2 consccutive
months during the lasl four years and does not Pass an objective credit screen'
IDAPA 31.21.01, Rule 104 states thar if the utility requires a cash deposit as a condition of providing
service, then it shslt immediately provide an explanation to thc applicant or customer stating the precise
reasons why a dcposit is required. The applieant or customer shatl be given an opPortunitv to rebut those
reasons.
IDAPA 31.21.01, Rule 107.02 states that the utility shallpromplly retum the dcposit (with accrucd
interesr) by either crediring the existing customer's current sccount or issuing a refund' Rule 107'03 states
thar the utility shalt pay interest at the annual rates established in R'ule 106 for the entire period over
which the deposit was held'
IDAPA 31.01,01, Rutc 2l states that the commission may provide that informal proceedings may
precedeformalproceedingsintheconsiderationofarulemakingorscase.
Mr. Mendez has atready spent a significant amount of rime conesponding with Mr' Thaden in regards to
his complaint againsf lntermountain Gas. The informal complaint has resulted in a violation of Mr'
Mendez righr to Due Process as Mr, Thaden has provided information thal conflicts or overshadows the
tanguage of the IPUC rules, or just misrepresentcd information to Mr' Mendez' ln the Federal Casc K'W
v, Idaho Deparlment o{Heatth and wefare, sllote o! tdaho, case No t:12-cv'00022" Judge winmill
explained that the first Notice reducing benelits to disabled participants failed to provide due process
becausc it made it difficult for a participanl to detcrmine why his budget had been reduced and left him
unable to effectivety chapenge the reduction. A second proposed notice failed to properly notifo
parricipants of the reasons for IDHW's actions. Judge Winmill stated that one of those procedural
protections is thc establishment of clear asccrtainable standards that "insure fairness and "'avoid the risk
of arbitrary decision making." citing carey v. Quern, s&E F zil 230, 2t2 (gth Cir' I97E) '
The explanations provided by Mr, Thaden thru the informal complaint violate Due Process because they
make it difficult for people to determine why Respondenr/utilities undcr tPUC Jurisdiction are charging
$14 to restart service and the conflicting information makcs it difficult to challcnge the charge. Mr.
Thaden explanations failed to properly inform the public why utililies like 16 charge an initialion fee on
existing ascounts. Judge Winmill ruled against the IDHW in violations of Due process precisely because
the lack of clear ascertainabte standards to avoid the risk of arbitrary decision making.
For example: Mr. Thadeo stated that the l4-dollar initiation charge is assessed to open a new account
and if the account had been ctosed for tonger than l0 days and requesl is made to reconnect that the utilig"
witl consider the person an applicant and not a customer. Mr. Thaden also slated that Section 9.4 of the
tariffallowed lC to charge the l4 dollar whencver a customer requests service even if the requestor
previously had an active account. Mr. Thaden stated that the customer definition specific to "has
received scrvice within the past l0 calcndar days prior to termination by the utility; termination by the
utility refers to any condition that brought about the termination of service includes cuslomer r8quests.
Mr. Thaden stated that if the Commissioners were to rule in your favor I Am certain lhat lG would be
ordered to remove the $ l4 fee and intsrcst charges. Mr. Tbaden stated that Suez does not charge an
initiation fee and each utility company has its own set of guidelines, business praclices and rate design so
policy rvill vary from utiliry to utility and he atso noted on his lasl email that he now did not believe the
commission witt waive a fee that has previously been approved,
IDAPA 31.21.01 Rule 5 defines utility as any public utility providing gas, electric or water service
subject by law to the Commissioner's jurisdiction. I'he Utility questions under the the ldaho Supreme
Courl site to help peopte show that the IPUC adopts rules thal apply to residentiat cuslomers of
investor-owned utilities such as ldaho Power, tntermountain Gas and Suez water. Mr. Mendez has seen
nothing in the IPUC rules to indicate that Suez has a different set of rules than other utilities under IPUC
jurisdiction in regards to the 'initiation fes.'
IDAPA 31.21.01, Rule l0l.0l clearly stale thal a utility shall not demand or hold a deposit unless: l) the
cusromer or applicant has an outslanding prior accounl with the utility that accrued within tlre last four
years and at rhe time of apptication of service remains unpaid and not in dispute, 2) the curtomer's or
applicant's senrices from the utility has been terminated within the last four years for i. nonpayment of
any undisputcd delinquent bill, ii, misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining utility service,3) the
applicant did not have service with the utility for at least l2 consecutive ntonths during the last four years
anrJ,Jocs not pass an objective credil scrccn. lt is cleu that the l4-dollar initiation fee on Mr. Mendez
case became a deposit lhat respondent charged (to restart servicc) lo an existing account that did not met
anyof theabovecritcriaundertherule. Resporrrtentwouldnothavebeenabletoassessthc l4-dollarfee
if there was no accounl on file even if the applicanrcustomcr was delinquent for four years or if the
applicanf did nol have service with lG for l2 consecutive months during the last four years' Mr' Mendez
account was already opened and was temporarily disconnected by the customer NOT the utility'
Mr., Thaden stated thar "has received service wirlrin the past l0 calendar days prior to termination by the
utility"; termination by the utility refers to any condition fhat broughl about the termination of service
inctudes customer requests. However, that is nor what rhe rule statss' rDArA 3l'21'01 Rule 5 defines
a cuslomer as any person who has gPplied for, has been acceptcd by the utility and is: receiving service
from a uriliry or has reccived service within thc past tcn days prior to termination bY thc utilitv' Due
process requires that the rule specifically state rhat "termination by the utility refers to any condition that
brought about the termination of service including customer requests"' Otherwise' there is no clearly
ascerrainable standards. Due process requires thal the 9,4'l'ariffactually stare that Respondent is allowed
to charge the l4 dollar whenever a customer requests service even if the rcguestor prcviousl.v had an
active account. otherwise, there is no clearly ascertainable standards' Due process requires that IPUC
staff don't toy with people when Mr. Thaden first, statc that "that if the Commissioners were to rulc in
your favor I Am certain that lG would be ordercd to remove lhe $ l4 fee and interest charges"' then later
on he tclls peoplc thal "l do not believe the commission will waive a fee that has prcviously been
approved.,, tt gives the appearance of arbitrary decision making and an snempl lo discourage/prcjudicc
people.
The Fair Debt cotlections Practices Act is a Federal consumer Protection Law intendcd to shield the
public from the menace of unscrupulous and dishonest debt collectors' Among other provisions' l'he
I.DCpA mskes ir illcgalro: collect charges nol permirted by law (15 u's'c' 1692f(l)); falsely represent
the character. amounl or legal status of the debr ( 1692e(2XA)); falsely rcpresenl the compensation
tawfully permitted for services ( 1692e(2XB)); threaten to take any action that cannot legatly be taken or
that is not intcnded to be taken (1692e(5)); use false representations or deceptive mcans to collect or
attempt to collect the debr ( I 692e( I 0)), and threatcn to take nonjudicial action to effect dispossession of
the prop€rty (16921(5)).
Respondent never answtred Mr. Mendez concerns with the charges bcing manipulated since there is no
gas usage over the summsr including no heating for water means that it should be consistently the same
every month over the entire Summer. ln fact, Mr' Mendez poinfed out that prior to the Summer 0f 2017
it hsd been a consistent $5.34 every single monrh of the Summer for years' lt was 4 lherms summer
2016 as well when tltere was no gas usage. However, it was $2'06 and $7'08 in 20 l6 when the customer
chargc was $2.50. lt is still 4 therms summer 2017 but because the customer charge is now $5'50' it
appcars that Intermountain Gas has lorvered the same 4therms to $ I 'E6 and $0'69' it was $5'34 summel
2016 and ir is $8.05 summer 201?. No gas is being uscd at all during summer' Comparison between
prior years and 2017 summ€r show a consistent 4 therms but somehow the statements for 2017 year cnds
up being 3 dollars more. whilc Mr. Mendez got no resPonse fiom Respondent; Mr' Thaden told Mr'
Mendez that the difference was atlributed to a "pilot light of the fumace and hot water healer and gas is
being used to heal the wator." NOTE: Mr. Thaden provided this explanation even when told that there is
no gas being used to heat water and when the readings showed a consistent 4 therms during Summer for
many ye8rs, precisely because ofthe no usage'
IDAPA 31.21.01, Rule t04 slatcs thst if the utility requires a cash deposit as a condition of providing
servicc, then it shall immediatety provide an exPlanation to the applicanl or cuslomer stating the precise
rcasons why a deposit is required. The appticanl or customer shatl be liven an opporrunit'v to rebut thsse
reasons. The assessing of the l4-dollar inifiation fee to an existing account to restart scrvice is an
exampte of "collect charges not permined by law (15 U.S,C. 1692(l))" anrt since Due proccss protections
requires the establishment of ctear ascertainable standards that "insure faimess and "'avoid the risk of
arbitrary decision making." carcy v. Quern, 58E F.zd 230,232 (gth cir' t97E)' Having discussed
extensively how the IPUC informal comptaint violated Mr. Mendez Due proccss' then stands to reason
that the same explanations given by respondent are in violation of Law inctuding the aforementioned
FDCPA.
CONCLUSION
l) Mr. Mendez asks the commission that rhe l4 dollar "initiation" fee assessed to his existing account in
ordertorestartserviceon l0/20 lEbercfundedalongwithlnterestsaccruedsince l0/2018'
2) Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to Order Respondent to pay costs incuned in the drafting of this
Utitity complaint, Mr. Mendez has incurred costs of Gas/mileage in traveling to the Law library to do
research and for printing/copies. His Costs total 72 dollars'
3) Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to issue an Order baning RespOndent from charginB' customer's
fees for voluntrarily disconnecting service. Espccially if the rcasons for disconnect are due to financial
hardship.
4) Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to issue an Order warning Respondent that lhey mu$ comply with
the IPUC Rules.
5) Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to issue an Order waming Respondent about ntanipulation of fces
to the detriment of ldaho customers'
6) Mr. Mendez asks the Commission for more accountability and transparency of the IPUC complaint
process and to warn staff of not giving the appearance of biss,
Dated: January 25,2019
(r^, h^'-- 'r-i
Raul Mendcz
FW: Last submittal for Boeing Street approval
Subiect: FW: Last submittal for Boeing Street approval
From: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westair.com>
Date: t21912O20, 8:42 AM
To: "dave@d leroy.com" <dave@d leroy.com>
Attached is the requested information and our General contractor has stated that mid'February 2021 is the point
that the project will stal! and or delay in getting the certificate of occupancy for the hangar. our expectation is to
be able to perform airffaft maintenance in the hangar in March while the office and shop space are stillbeing
constructed.
Louie Gravel
Woatem Alroraft lnc.
o
M
F
208-338''1826
208-871-6863
208-338-l 887
o WbstemAircraft
J,.!':., i-l ,i,:S1.,1, !--'f
Let me know if you need anything else
Thanksl EXHIBIT.F-
confidentislity l{ole: This e-rnail ts intended only ior the person or entity to which lt as addresssd and may conlain infortnation lhal is prlvileged' confidential or
otherwisa protectsd from dtsctcsuro. Disserinauon, distiiuution or copiing of lhis e-rrtsil or the information herein by anyone olher than the intended recipient ior
the intended purpose. o, an errploy"" or agent r$poflsible lor dellviiing ttre nessage to tlre intended recipisnt. is prohibited. I you have received this e-mail in
error. destroy he original message and all copies.
^ aurt rallQ,t ,l.ffi,o4.tz cor"{rt
lit{-s!$l:1 '!1g | 4300 S. Kennedy Streot I Boise lD. 83705 I 8@'333-3442
From: Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December7,2020 3:59 PM
To: Louie Gravel <LouieG @westair.com>
Subjecfi RE: Last submittal for Boeing Street approval
Hey Louie -
Attached is the last "olhcial" waterline plan that we sent to suEZ. There were still some discussion around this
plan, but we never received comments or revised after this point. I have also attached the email I sent with it
outlining the setbacks and how we addressed everything.
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | ProFct Monoger
lZ/9/2020,8:50 A1of 2
I
I
e
TI{
It*I
zIa,z
ILxuz
t0-Ire.o lrJt=
E
it
t
l{ir
tt
a
E
iltt
E
E
{
kiii
a
T
E
H3
$
E
EtI
g
t
h
i!
lU
hT
I
I
I*
EII
P
T
EI
E
I
IeIlE
II
il
ttIiat
EI
rtrt
H
EI
Ii
TI'I
iI
ri
iEi
il
IH
1
I
I
I
!!ii[i*ii,l
I
II
t
7uE
rl
I
E
l
;t
[I
r!
65
II
1E
ot
E
EIt!
.l
!'
:l*),
--J
.*:
dt
qi
ttE
rrlAllAflEE
rc*EtrgIf,EEt
-t-.---r--.-'r---t-'- -'t-'.:{.-
a-
*
-cil
IIL!
it
T
T
I
II
I
i
t
I
i'
i
i
i
:..
txgr
lE: Western Air
l of 3
Subiect: RE: Western Air
From: Brendon Daniels <bdaniels@to-engineers'com>
Date: 812012020, 10:12 AM
To: ,,crofts, Nathan', <[e-mail]>, Dillon Barresi <dbarresi@stockcms'corn>,'Louie
G ravel' <[e-mail]>
CC: ,,Brooks, Russell" <[e-mail]>, Justin Bilbrey <jbilbrey@to-engineers'com>
Nate -
sorry I wasn,t able to make the call on Tuesday. Dillon and I have been coordinating on the discussion held
Tuesday and the existing site conditions that have been encountered since the other utility excavation began'
we have prepared a revised suEZ water plan that meets all DEQ regulations under the current existing conditions
in order to move the proiect forward. Here is break down of the adjustments;
r North side - extend SUEZ line sleeving to get under and past the sewer and fire line crossings' we made
someslightadjustmentstothealignmenttoincreaseseparation'r South side - sleeve and relocate suEZ line under sewer crossing, move south for separation from
sewer/storm service lines.
r west side - my understanding is that suEZ has field inspected the existing line and all clearances meet
requirements along KennedY'
e 4,, service line to Fire tank - sounds like we don't have much room to move here now that the actual
location has been determined, I would propose that we install a backflow device/valve on this service line
just off of Kennedy, that way we would classify the service line from Kennedy to the fire tank as non-potable
and make it apart of the fire system and etiminate clearance requirements' We did not show this on the
SUEZ plan attached, I figured it would not be in SUEZ scope of work. lncluded a civil plan mark up for
reference.
please let me know if you have any questions, comments or redlines on the plan so we can get the work moving
ahead.
Thanks for your help and coordination on this!
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | Project Monager
T.El ENGINEEFIS
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208-433-1900 | C 208-631-58s1
Eil
From: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Sent: TuesdaY, August 18, 2020 5:20 PM
To: Dillon Barresi <[e-mail]>; Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>; 'Louie Gravel'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brooks, Russell <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Western Air
Dillon,
72/9/20?0,8:5r t
ttI
RE: Western Air
Below are some calculations for one of the solutions we can talk about tomorrow
Thanks,
Nate Crofis
Conslruclfrrn SuPewisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:20&362-7329
SUEA
Ptaase think twice befote prlnting this smail'
Frum : Broo ks, R usse I I <russ. broQtl@lug!,ggn0>
Sent: Tuesday, August L8,ZO2O 5:13 PM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; TuCker, Brian <brian.tuCker@Suez'cOm>
SubiecB FW: Western Air
I revised the flows to capture the fire flow coming from the west (Kennedy Street) or east (lngalls street) to the
existing hanger, see below.
Russ
From: Brooks, Russell
Sant: Tuesday, August L8,2020 1l:55 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Tucker, Brian <brian.tucker@suez'Com>
Sublect Western Air
Nate and Brian,
I ran the fire flow model for different pipe sizes in the \l\testern Air area. specifically for the existing hanger just north
of the new construction and fire nyoiant #1298 east of the development. The results are as bllows:
Eristlng Hanger (Kennody rest connecllon)
Cunent available FF = 2402
Flow coming rrom west erirling 6" in Kennedy and without the 8" connection between existing and new hangers =
1614
Flow coming hom the west with new 12" line in Kennedy = 2379
Kennedy wost connectlon rffoctl Hydrant 1298
Cunent available FF = 1754
Without the 8" between existing and new hangers = 1587
\Mth new 12'line on Cessna and 8'line on lngalls'1774
Erioting Hanger (lngallr eagt connectlon)
Cunent available FF = 2402
Flow coming trom east existing 6" in lngalls and without the 8',connection between existing and new hangers =
1388
Flow coming from the east with new '12' line in Cessna, lngalls and new 12'service line = 2692
lngella elst connoctlon affecta Hydnnt 0013335
Current available FF = 1714
Wthout the 8'between existing and new hangers = 1538
L2/9/2020,8:51A
? of3
RE: Western Air
Wth new 12" line on Kennedy = 1763
I hope this helps with decision making Let me know if there is anything else I can do
Thank you
Russ Brooks, PE
Senior Prgect Engineer
ldaho Operations
suEz
8248 W. Victory Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
Tel. 208-401{760
Russ.Brooks@suez eeCI
@suee
Please think twice before printing this email.
Before printing o copy of this emoil, please consider the environment. This email ond any
ottochments ore confidentiol and intended for the named recipient or entity to which it is
oddressed only. lf you ore not the intended recipienl you ore hereby notified that ony review, re-
tronsmission, or conversian to hord copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any
ottachments is strictly prohibited. Whilst all elforts ore made to sofeguard their content, emoils ore
not secure ond SUEZ cannot guarontee thot ottochments ore virus free or compatible with your
systems ond does not accept liobility in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. SUEZ
reserves the right to monitor oll emoil communications through its internal ond externol networks
Attachments:
image004jpg
image005.png
0 bytes
0 bytes
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
imageO11.jpg
image012.png
image001.png
19023 l-Weste rn Aircraft SU EZ PLAN-8. 20.20. pdf
C3.0_UTILITY PLAN.pdf
0 bytes
0 bytes
0 bytes
0 bytes
0 bytes
0 bytes
0 bytes
6.2 MB
1.5 MB
3of3 12191202a,8:51A
ln the Matter of the complaint of David B. Roberts,..., 1987 wL 1465154..
1987WL 1465154 (Ohio P.U.C.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of David B. Roberts, Complainant, v. Ohio Water Service
Company, ResPondent.
Case No. 87-781-WW-CSS
Ohio Public Utilities Commission
August 26, tg87
ENTRY
ftfe pUSt tC UTILITTES COMMISSION OF OHTOSSSlgtature2By: Sandra K. Williams, Attorney Examiner
* t The Attomey Examiner, pursuant to the authority granted by Rule 4901'l- 14 Ohio Administrative Code, finds:
t) On May ZO,lgtl, OariA g. Roberts filed a compleint with the Commission against the Ohio lrlYater Service Company
(Ohio Water). Mr. Roberts explains that in August of 19E6, he made application to Ohio lVater for the installation of a
water mlin extension to serve a parcel of hnd on which he is constructing some twenty-two condominium units for
residential use, The complainant maintains that the company proposed that tre mrin extensior be eight inches in diameter
and stretch 146 feet beyond the point where the service connection is to be made to the last building. [n addition' the
respondent has proposed drat three fire hydrants be placed along the main exlenrion. ohio lVrter hasn according to the
complainant, demanded advance payment of the estimated total cort of installing the main ertcnsion and the fire hydrants
before work willbegin on the project. The complainant claims that use of the eight inch main ertension is excessive' as is
the lengthening of tlie main exieniloo 146 feel and the placement of three fire hydrants- The complainant contendsrhat only
a six inch main extersion is necessary; 0rat tlre msiu cxtension need only reach the last building being provided- service,
instead of the extra 146 feet to rhe end of the prope(y line; and that only two fire hydrants, not three, are required' Mr.
Roberts has asked that the Commission order Ohio Water to construct &e watcr m*in ertension in conformance with these
specifications.
2) Along with his complrint, Mr. Roberts filed a motion for immediate interim relief. The complainant clairned that due to
the disagreement oonceming the instaltation of the wrter mein extcncion, the installation of other utility lines, such as gas
and eleclic, had been delayed, as had the paving of the street and sidewalks in the development. The complainanl therefore
requested that the Commisiion direct the respondent to construct the water main extension immediately and provide water
service to the parcel of land in question, allowing the issue of who should pay for the disputed facilities to b€ determined at a
later date, through the hearing process.
3 ) Ohio Water filed its answers to the complaint and the motion for interim relief on June 17, 1987, generally denying the
ailegations of both filings and s6ting that, to avoid damage to his building project, all Mr. Roberts needed to do was advance
to tie company the esti-mated cost of the e*tension and related facilities as designed by Ohio Water, pending resolution of
the dispute. Tire respondent submits that neither of the filings set forth reasonable grounds for compleint and, therefore.
should be dismissed.
4) After several weeks of discussion, the parties notified the Attorney Examiner that an agreement had been reached which
resulted in &e construction of the wrter mein extension and, therefore, rendered moot the motion for interim relief. Mr.
Roberts is, however, still pursuing his original compleint.
5) Reasonable grounds for compteint have been stated as required by Section I lllegible'I'ext ], Revised Code, and Rule
490 l-9-01 . Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.).
6) This matter is in proper form for public hearing and, therefore, hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 14. 1987' at
lb:00 a.m,, at the offrcgs of the Commission, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio.
7) the secretary of this commission should cause publication of the following legal notice to appear once not less than
fifteen nor more than thirty days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Mahoning County:
, ' \: :')'EXHIBIT.G.,
ln the Matter of the Complaint of David B. Roberts,"., 1987 WL 1465154.
LECAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a complaint has been filed with the Public Utilities Commission of ohio by David Robets against
the Ohio Water Service Company alleging that the company has been unreasonable in its dealings with the complainant
conceming the construction of a wateimain extension. This matte( Case No.87-781-WW-CSS, has been scheduled for
public heiring on Wednesday, October 14, 1987, at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of the Commission, 180 East Broad Steet,
bolumbus, Otrio. eny interested person may obtain further information by directing an inquiry to the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573.
7) In Commission proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint. At the hearing, it
shall be the complainant's responsibility to app€ff and to present evidence in support of the complaint.
8) Any party intending to present direct expert testimony should comply with Rule 4901:l-29(A)(lXi), O.A.C., which
requires ihat all such testimony to be offered in this type of proceeding be filed and served upon all parties no laterthan five
days prior to the commencement of the hearing.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED, That this case be set for hearing and legal notice be published in accordance with Findings (6) and (7) above. lt
is, further,
ORDERED, That allparties intending to present direct expert testimony comply with Rule 4901-l-29(A)(lXit. O.A.C. lt is.
further,
ORDERED. That copies of this Entry be served upon David Roberts and his counsel; Ohio Water Service Company and its
counsel; and all other interested persons ofrecord.
Entered in the Journal
AUG 26 1987
A True Copy
<<Signature>>
Nanry L. Wolpe
Secretary
I trrl ul llrt tttttt ttt , .){!lll lltililtr(Irll\ulrt. \.r',i,trIrlrrL,ill]iliill \ ti,\!iIillLtil\\,trl
| : ,,. -,'?
"iittldlt
.i[t {&}
"ir.
t"
)
i.ili
.:1.
,,,&
t
*
It
[Anb^t
GtvnNS PunsLEY,,"
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
60l w BonnockSh€el
PO Bor 2720
8ohe, lD 83701
Ielcptlons:283&1200
Foelrntre:2G38&130
w.glv6ruP(,sbY'com
Presion N. Coder
oaeslsrctrls€gtuaroPskgy.corn' 20&]PfJ-1z12
Gory G. Allen
Chdfe S. Bo!€r
ChGloPhgl J Beeson
Joron J. Bbkley
Cllnl R. Bo{ndd
J€ll w.oow€t
Pratlon N. Corler
Jserry C. Chou
MbhoelC. CleorYlol
Ambor N. Dlncl
Brod€y J. Db(on
IhorEs E. Dvdol
Deboto kistetl5n C*olhom
Donold L GroY
Alex J. Gw
Sdon J. Holldon
KsliH. K€nn€dy
NoolA. Ko6kello
MichoelP. LowEnce
ftonkln G. le€
Dovid R, Lon$ord
KlmHy D. Mol)ney
Kgnnslh R. Mcch.re
KelV Ci€€n€ tvtcconnoll
AIrx P. [lclouslhfn
,li€lodb A. McQuode
Ch.blopher H. MoY€r
t. Ed\flord Mill6r
Juchon 0, MontgoncrY
Ooboroh E.l'lobon
w. HWh O'R'Erdon. LL'M.
Somuel f. PorY
Rdndoil A. Pelemron
Jock w. Relt
Bloke W. Ring€r
Mchod O. Roo
Corn€ron O, Wor
Rqb€rt B. Whne
tvlbho€l V. woodhouie
willlrm C- Cob (Ol CounEU
Kenneth L. PuGl€Y I I ?4&20 I 5)
Jon€e A. Mcclus (i92{-201 I I
Royrpnd O. Gvens ll9l7-2008)
December 30,2020
VIA EMAIL
Louie Cravel, Project Manager
Western Aircraft, Inc.
4300 S. KennedY Street
Boise, ID 83705
Email : [e-mail]
Re: Suez Water Plan
' This Rule provides, "Water matns shall be seParated by at least five (5)fea from buildings, industrial facilities'
and other Pernanent structures." The proposed Project does not comPlY with other rules, as well, including the
Dear Mr. Gravel:
I write today on behalf of SUEZ Water tdaho, Inc. ("SUEZ") in response to your
December 16,zLzlletter, which states that western Aircraft will file a formal complaint with
the ldaho Public Utilities commission ("IPUC'or "commission") if suEZ does not provi!9
,.final approval of [western Aircraft's] revised submitted water plan by December 30' 2020'"
Attached to your December l, 2020 letter is a document entitled "Memorandum - Legal
Opinion," *},i.t appears to be a legalanalysis prepared by David H' Leroy'
As you know, on numerous occasions suEZ has engaged with lestern Aircraft' T-O
Engineering (Westem Aircraft's engineering consultants), Commission Staff' and personnel
from rhe ldaho Department of Enviionr"ntit Quality ('iorQ) regarding lvestgm Aircraft's
proposed hangar r*p-rion project. The. crux of the issue is that western Aircraft proposes to
construct a buildingJffiinr"iry, a fully enclosed, walkway with conditioned air and fire
protection--directly oul, *n exijting water main. tDEQ rutes prohibit water mains within five
feet of buildings or other permanent shuctures. IDAPA58.0l.b8.542' l I 'r Western Aircraft's
prnposed project does not comply with this requiremenl' FtfrlllEllT ,, D{EXHIBIT'B
required distances between potable and non-Potable water lines. This letter focuses on Rule 524. I l, which aPPears
Louie Gravel, Project Manager
Westem Aircraft, Inc.
December 30. 2020
Page 2
SUEZ has provided feedback on Western Aircraft's proposal on a number of occasions.
Most recently, on September 10,2020, T-O Engineers submitted a narrative description of
revisions to the project designed to address SUEZ's concerns. On September 23,2020, T-O
Engineers requested that IDEQ waive the five-foot setback requirement. IDEQ responded on
October 7 ,2020, indicating that it would not approve the waiver as requested. On October 2 I ,
2020, SUEZheld a virtual meeting with Western Aircrafl, T-O Engineers, and IPUC Staffto
discuss SUEZ's remaining concerns. SUEZ has not received a response or a revised plan from
T-O Engineers or Western Aircraft that addresses those concerns.
Your December l, 2020 letter demands "final approval of the revised submitted water
plan" by December 30,2020. However, while SUEZ, Westem Aircraft, IPUC Stafl and IDEQ
personnel have held numerous meetings and exchanged numerous correspondences, Western
Aircraft has never provided a plan that responds to the contents of those discussions or that
complies with IDEQ rules. As such, SUEZ has not been provided with a plan that is eligible for
approval by December 30,2020.
The legal opinion submitted with your December l,2020letter appears to be based on
incomplete or inaccurate information. For example, the legal opinion refers to SUEZ's water
main extension policy. However, SUEZ has never taken the position that the water main
extension policy applies. SUEZ has indicated that Western Aircraft could comply with IDEQ
rules by abandoning the existing water main and upgrading the water mains on the eastern,
southern, and western perimeters of the property. This would allow Western Aircraft to construct
the new structure in its proposed location, comply with IDEQ rules, and maintain the same level
of service to other customers. This option is not, and never has been. a demand from SUEZ; it is
one way to complete the project in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Nor is it
based on the main extension tariff.2
To be clear. Western Airmaft has several options to build the project in accordance with
rules and regulations. It can move the location of the proposed building; it can revert to the
original proposal to build a covered, but not fully enclosed, walkway; it can abandon the existing
main and upgrade the mains around the perimeter of the property; or it can scale back the size of
the expansion to avoid building on top of the existing water main. SUEZ is open ro alternatives,
to be the |argest area of disagreemenl. Westem Aircraft's project must ultimately comply with all rules and
regulations.
? The legal opinion appears to be based on incomplete or inaccurate facts in other respects, as well. For example, the
opinion purports to analyze an "oral threat" by SUEZ to not serve the project. ln reality, Westem Aircraft asked
SUEZ what SUEZ would do if Westem Aircraft constructed the project in violation of IDEQ rules. ln response,
SUEZ indicated that it would not provide water service to a project that did not comply with the rules. Hardly a
threat. In addition, the legal opinion states that a "walkway" will be constructed on top of the water main. However,
the "walkway" is, in reality, a lirlly enclosed, roofed, walled, structrrre with conditioned air and fire prolecrion Such
a structure is both a "building" and a "permanent structure," neither of which can be constructed on top of a water
main. See IDAPA 58.01 .08.54?. I I ("Water mains shall be separated by at least five (5) feet from buildings,
industrial facilities, and other petmanenl struclures." (emphasis added)). IDEQ agrees with this interpretation, as
evidenced by T-O Engineer's request br, and IDEQ's denial oi, a waiver of the setback requirement. A discussion
between the parties and their respective legal counsel might facilitate a fully informed resolution to this matter.
Louie Gravel, Project Manager
Westem Aircraft,lnc.
December 3A,2024
Page 2
so long as they comply with applicable rules and regulations, and so long as they allow SUEZ-
the owner and operator of the water systern*to access, maintain, and repair the water main
without harm ing customers or surround ing infrastructure.
In light of the technical nature of the project and the extensive factual background, SUEZ
submig that it may be beneficial to hold a discussion between Westem Aircraft, SUEZ, and their
respective legal counsel to ensure that both parties understand each other's positions. Please let
me know if you would like to schedule this discussion.
Sincerely,
./ *-----*.2-4*^
Preston N. Carter
PNCIKIh
cc: David H. Leroy
I 54552?t*3.docx [30-2 14]
SUEZ Water ldaho, lnc.'s Response to Western Aircraft's Notice ...
Subiect: SUEZ Water ldaho, lnc.'s Response to Western Aircraft's Notice [IWOV-
GPDMS.FlD1041575l
From : " Preston N. Carter" <prestonca rter@ givenspu rsley.com>
Date: L213012020, 2:30 PM
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
cc: "Thompson, Marshall" <[e-mail]>, "'cooper, catherine"'
<[e-mail]>, Kendra Hoffma n <[e-mail]>
Mr. Gravel,
On behalf of SUEZ Water ldaho, lnc., attached please find a response to your December 1G, 2020 letter regarding
Western Aircraft 's ha nga r expa nsio n construction project.
I have attached the December 16 letter for your reference.
Please let me know if you have questions or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss.
Thank you,
Preston
PRrsrcu N. Canrrn
Gtvrns PuRsr.sy urp
601 West Bannock Street, Boise, lDB3TO?
direct 208-388- 122? / matn 208-388- I 200
pnc88imnspursla!,com / www.givens*urslgy.ca,
coNFIDItNTIALITY NorlcE: This communication is confidential and may.contain privileged informarion. lfyou have received it in error, pleaseadvise the sender by reply email and immediatelydelete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosingthe contents. Thank you.
Attachments:
2420-L2-30 PNC to Western Aircraft re Notice.pDF
L5454884_1_Suez Notice Letter. PDF
348 KB
25.s KB
L/5/?021,,3:55 PMof1
@ WesternAircraft
I d,tl,lir*tC{ firoCro{l O+rf^r,
January 5, 2021
Suez Water
Attn:
8248 West Vlctory Rd
Bolse,ldaho 83709
To Whom lt May Concern,
On December 30, 2020 I recelved a letter from the offlce of Glvens Pursley ldentlfled as "Suez Water
Plan".
Thank you for responding as asked by the requested date. The recelved letter does not provide Flnal
Approval as requested to prevent Western Alrcraft ("WAf') from pursulng a complalnt to the IPUC. Your
response does ask to agaln meet and resolve the WAI/Suez Water Plan dlsagreement. WAI ls wllllng to
brlng our teams to8ether and negotlate a path moving forward, but ln order to do that, we wlll need
answers to the following questlons that Western has been asklng unsuccessfully for months now:
o What ls the cost of the TO Englneered Water Plan as prevlously provlded?o Can the Suez Water plan be completed by the end of February ZOZL?
By answerlng the above questlons, WAlcan effectlvely work with Suez Water to reach a final resolutlon
whlle standing on the Tarlff schedule requirements as referenced ln the Memorandum from David H.
Leroy.
Should we not have a path movlng forward post the next scheduled meetlng, WAI wlll execute a format
complalnt to the IPUC.
Gravel
ProJect Manager
cc: Austln Shontz, VP/GeneralManager, Western Alrcraft, lnc.
John F. Kohler, Chlef Legal Counsel, Greenwich AeroGroup, lnc.
Davld H. Leroy LegalCounsel
Preston N. Carter. Glvens Pursley
EXHIBIT'c'
GtvnNS PunsLEY,,,,
?*,'h
r-,:::^,Attorneys and Counselors at Law
601 $f. Eonnock Skeet
POOot2T?o
8oiie. lD 83701
Iobphone: 20&38& !200
f ocsimle: 208-388- I 300
M.gtY€nspLrgey.com
Proslm N. Coris
p.6stoncorter{ibivenspwCey.com2&Wtzn
Gory G. Allen
Chorlb S,8os
Chlttophs J. Beesfl
Joton J, Blokley
Clhl R. Bdinder
Jetl lV. Bou/er
Preslon N. Coire,
Jorenry C. Chou
Mlchoel C, c'eorBr
Amber N, Dlno
&odk y J. Dkon
thomo! E. Dvtrok
Debo.o KrtlenBn Cro3hom
Dorcld Z, Groy
Alex J. G(ois
B*rn J. Holl€ron
(€rsli H. xennody
N6ol A. Kosketo
Michoel P. LowEnc€
Fronk{n G. Loe
Dovi, R- Lmbodi
Kimb€rly O. Moloney
(emeth R. tr,tccl$e
(€lly geeno Mcconrcll
Alex F. ltcloughlin
Melodl€ A, McQuod€
Chrttophd H. Mrya
t. Edworcl t\4f,|o{
Judon g. rr,lonrgornery
O€bdoh E. tlaleo
w. HL,gh O'Rbrdon. lL-M.
Sorucl f. Poiy
lmk W. Rell
Blr:k€ W. Ringd
MlchoolO, Roe
ConEron D. Won
Robsrt B. whlle
Michoel v. Woodhoule
wllilom C. Cole {Of CounEll
r€nn€th t. P(nl€y llr4G20l5,
Jom3 A. Mcclw€ 11924-201 l)
Roymond D. Ciivenr (1917-206i
January 12,2021
VIA EMAIL
l-ouie Cravel, Project Manager
Western Aircraft, Inc.
4300 S. Kennedy Street
Boise, ID 83705
Email : [e-mail]
Re: Suez Water Plan
Dear Mr. Gravel:
Thank you for providing your letter dated January 5,2021. ln that letter, you
indicated a willingness to continue working towards potential resolution of a
disagreement between Western Aircraft and SUEZ Water ldaho, Inc. ("SI"JEZ") regarding
Western Aircraft's proposed hangar expansion.
As a condition to a path working forward, you asked for a response to two
questions, namely:
l) What is the cost of the TO Engineered Water Plan as previously provided?
2) Can the SUEZ Water plan be completed by the end of February 2AZl?
SUEZ remains committed to ultimately resolving this issue. However, some
clarification of these two questions is needed. lt may be more efficient and productive to
schedule a call or virtual meeting to discuss.
To be sure we are working on the same factual basis, SI"JEZ assumes that the "TO
Engineered Water Plan as previously provided" refers to the plan submitted by T-O
Engineers to SUEZ Water on August 20,2020. As SUEZ previously indicated, that plan
proposes to construct a building directly on top of a water main, which would violate the
five-foot setback requirement contained in ldaho Department of Environmental Quality
Louie Gravel, Project Manager
Western Aircraft,lnc.
January 12,2021
Page 2
("IDEQ') rules.l SUEZ cannot approve a plan that will place its water system out of
compliance with IDEQ regulations.
To be abundantly clear, while SUEZ is willing to work with Western Aircraft in
many respects, it is ultimately Western Aircraft's responsibility to design, imptement, andpay for a plan that complies with IDEQ rules and either avoids or mitigates impacts toSUEZ's water system.
SUEZ has provided Western Aircraft with a number of options that would allowconstruction and comply with IDEQ's rules. It is Western Aircraft's responsibility to
make a business decision regarding which option it would tike to pursue.
As for the second question, suEZ has not been provided with a plan that
complies with IDEQ regulations. Because SUEZ does not know how Western Aircraftintends to construct the hangar expansion in compliance with IDEQ rules, SUEZ cannotestimate how long any proposed plan will take.
I would also note some confusion regarding your reference to a "SUEZ Waterplan." As previously.discussed, the hangar e*pansion is Westem Aircraft's project. WhilesUEz has indicated how Western Aircraft's plan does not comply with appiicible rules,and suggested some options, SUEZ water has not provided unyitring that could accurateiy
be described as a *SUEZ Water plan."
There also appears to be some confusion regarding the respective roles of the Cityof Boise and SUEZ Water in this matter. As I undeistandlt, the City of Boise and/or theFire Department may have issued building permits or otherwise approved theconstruction. However, as I understand it, those approvals predated' the discovery of thewater main over which Western Aircraft intends to Uuita. In any case, SUEZ's approvalof Western Aircraft's plans is separate and independent from the City of Boise
"nd th"Fire Department's,
I hope this letter helps clarify the circumstances. Please tet me know if you wouldlike to set up a call or virtual meeting with you and your counsel to discuss.
Sincerely,
./ *"--*2- z-**-
Preston N. Carter
PNC/klh
cc: David H. Leroy
I 5483 I 79-l docx [30-214]
| "Water mains shall be separated by at least five (5) feet from buildings, industrial facilities, and otherpermanent structures." IDAPA 58.01.08.542. I l. As noted in SUEZ's December 30, 2020 letler, WesternAircraft's proposal does not comply with several IDEQ rules. This correspondence focuses on the five-foot
setback requirement in IDAPA 58.01.0E.542.1 I because it appears to be tir" largest obstacle at this time.
L
rn
January l9'h.2021
Preston Carter, A at Law
Oivens Pursley, LLP
P.O. Box 2720
Boise.ldaho 83701
RE: Suez Water's Continuing Failure to Provide Required
Cost Estimates As Requested by Western Aircraft, lnc.
Dear Preston:
Your letter of January l5'h on behalf of Suez Water ldaho, Inc., is received and reviewed
by my client Western Aircraft, Inc., and its Project Manager l,ouis Gravel. Either we or your
client have failed to adequately communicate what is demanded. expected and required of Suez
at this point, prepatory to either the meeting which you have suggested or to our issuing a Public
Utilities Commission complaint which we must lodge if your client will not respond to us. We
are not askirg Suez to give final approval or even reconfirm the tentative prior approval which
they gave to the first plan back on May l9'h. 2020. lnstead, we are simply demanding from Suez
alternative cost data for two theoretical constructions:
l. What would be the cost of replacing and emplacing the water main with connections
to Western's new construction within the former Boeing Street right of way. including
repositioning of a conforming the sleeved line consistent with the offered DEQ waiver for
that alternative?
2. What would be the cost of upgrading and re-emplacing the water mains around the
perimeter of the Western Propcrg', east under West Cessna Street from South Kennedy
Street, thence North under South Ingalls Street, and with connections to Westem's new
construction.
Plcrue providc thcse conccpt cost cstimalcs imtncdiatcly. It is acknow'ledged by Western
l. Providing this data does not commit Suez to the approval of any particular plan or
variation thereof.
that
EXHIBIT"D.
En t 1 il t tt si :,i n g, ( ri t n i nt I De.le n x, T't' i ul s un d (i r tt't' tntnen t lttts'
P.o. lltt.t 19.1, Rilise. lthtlttt 8.1701 (2os) -t4)'lxx,o F'AX l20tt) -112''120o
Preston Carter, Attomey at Law
January 19n,2021
Page - 2
2. The estimates are merely best available projections and commit neither party to final
numbers.
If, as the text of your letter suggests, "Suez is willing to work with Western in many
r€spects," then please let this be the first such "respect." Without these numbers we can not
design, propose or pursue any option. Without these members, no meeting to discuss alternatives
or settlement can be productive. Hopefully, as these can be "ball park" numbeq they might be
available as early as Friday, January 25*, so as not to
construction by the end of February.
our proposed completion of
David H. Leroy, Attorney at Law
cc: Louie Gravel, Western Aircraft,Inc.
RE: Emailing: Westerns response letter.pdf/ SUEZ WATER !DAHU...
Subiect: RE: Emaiting: Westerns response letter.pdf/ SUEZ WATER IDAHO IIWOV'
GPDMS.FrD1041575l
From : " Preston N. Ca rter" <prestonca rter@ givenspu rsley. com>
Date: L/22|2AZL, 8:10 AM
To:'Dave Leroy' <[e-mail]>
CC: Louie Gravel <[e-mail]>
Dave,
you are correct in that SUEZ does not intend to provide the cost information requested by your client. As noted,
this is consistent with SUEZ practice. lt's particularly important that a developer obtain their own cost estimates in
this environment; with the large amount of construction activity, costs, availability of contractors, and other
factors can change drastically and frequently. And the developer has the best lnformation regarding thelr intent
and plans for a particular project.
That said, SUEZ is open to further discussions and will provide feedback once Western Aircraft settles on a
proposal that complies with IDEQ and other applicable rules and regulations. SUEZ is also open to scheduling a call
or other discussion with attorneys and clients. lt might also be usefulto involve Commission Staff.
I will also note that your most recent letter refers to an 'bffered DEq waiver." My understanding is that Western
Aircraft requested a waiver from IDEQ, but IDEQ denied the request on the basis that the request did not contain
sufficient information, and that, because SUEZ's system would be impacted, SUEZ would need to approve any
waiver. As previously expressed, SUEZ cannot agree to a project that will not comply with IDEQ rules. SUEZ is
therefore not inclined to agree to a waiver: As such, my understanding is that there is no offered IDEQ waiver.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.
Thank you,
Preston
From: Dave Leroy <dave@d leroy.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2l,2O2t 11:15 AM
To: Preston N. Ca rter < prestonca [e-mail]>
Cc: Louie G ravel <louieG @westa ir.com>
Subject: Re: Emailing: Westerns response letter.pdf/ SUEZ WATER IDAHO IWOV-GPDMS.FlD1041575J
PRESTON: TO BE CLEAR" IS THIS THE ONLY RESPONSE WHICH SUEZ WILL BE
PROVIDINC TO MY REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE COST
DATA?......REGARDS, DAVE
An ll2l/2021 8:58 AM, Preston N. Carter wrote:
Dave,
I am in receipt of your letter: which I shared with SUEZ.
To be clear, it is not SUEZ's practice to provide cost or timing estimates for proiects that
impact SUEZ's water system. The responsibility of obtaining any cost estimates lies with
Western Aircraft. Developers commonly have an engineer work up drawings and request
1 of2 ll2Zl2O21,11:14 Al