20210827Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

David M. Fogg (ISBN 7610)
ELC Legal Services,LLc
3142 W. Belltower Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83646
Telephone: [phone]
IN THE MATTER OF SUEZ WATER
IDAHO INC.'s APPLICATION FOR
AMMENDMENT OF ITS CERTIFICATE
OF PTIBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY
i, , ; i glllt.r,-.:1:ill.(:u
..,: . -- '':nt(,v'i t
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMN{ISSION
)
)
)
)
)
cAsE NO. SUZ-W-21-02
ORDER NO. 35130
ATOVA,INC.',S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW Stephen Barbey, Laurie Barbey, and Atova, Inc. (collectively, "Atova"),
pursuant to Idaho Code $ 6l-626 with the following petition for reconsideration and clarification
of Order No. 35130.
On April 2,2021, SUEZ Water Idaho,Inc. ("SUEZ") appliedto amend its certified service
territory and remove an approximate 520-acre area in unincorporated Ada County. On August 9,
2021, the Commission approved this application based on their assessment that the City of Eagle
(the "City") would serve customers in the area if it is no longer in SUEZ's certified area.
While Atova does not contest the Commission's request that the City and SUEZ plan
cooperatively for future water service to the unincorporated area, it is our position that this Order
fails to recognize the potential to leave future customers with no options for service, as neither the
City nor SUEZ would be obligated to extend service to the area.
For Reconsideration: Amendment to Certilicate No. 143 which removed approximatelv 520-
acres from SUEZ's certified service territorv.
While both the City and SUEZ both assert that they are able to expand infrastructure and
extend service to the unincorporated area in Ada County, neither are obligated to do so. Atova is
in the early stages of development of a 540-acre county subdivision in the area, which will require
water service to the buildable lots. Without an obligation to provide service, Atova has been
advised that both companies could potentially deny a service request and not include the area in
their expansion.
If the Order were to remain in effect as is, future developers, such as Atova, would be left
with the option of requesting service from SUEZ, which could be denied, or requesting service
from the City, which requires annexation. Without submitting to the City's request for annexation,
futr:re developments are unable to receive water service from the City. This requirement directly
contradicts the City's representations in the Order that it will serve customers in the are if it is no
longer in SUEZ's certified area.
Atova requests that the Commission reconsider the amendment to Certificate No. 143
which removed the unincorporated area from SUEZ's certified service territory. A reconsideration
would obligate SUEZ to include the area in their expansion of the area and provide service to
Atova and future developers.
Dated this 27tr day of Augustz}2l.
Respectfully Submiued,
David M.for Atova, Inc.