20230413Answers to Summons.pdf

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
lt
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Peter Richardson, ISB # 3195
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) e38-7901
peter@richardsonadams. com
Attorneys for Respondent
Motor Coach Village HOA
CDS STONERIDGE UTILITIES, LLC
COMPLAINANT,
vs.
THE MOTOR COACH VILLAGE HOA,
RESPONDENT.
HOA c/o Mr. Gerald Massy
@
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLIC TJTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No.: SWS-W-23-01
com and Mr. Rich Hunter
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER
COMES NOW, Motor Coach Village HOA, (hereinafter the "HOA") and pursuant to
that Summons issued by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter "Commission" or
"IPUC") and lodges its Answer to the CDS StoneRidge Utilities, LLC's (hereinafter the "Utility'
or "StoneRidge") Complaint in the above captioned matter.
Please provide all communications related to this matter to Mr. Richardson at the address
noted above (electronic mail is preferred) with electronic only copies to the Motor Home Village
I.
GBNBRAL DENIAL
For the reasons noted below, the HOA questions whether the nomenclature of
"complaint" is properly applied to StoneRidge's pleading and thus whether it is even properly
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - I
RECEIVED
Thursday, April 13, 2023 2:51:53 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
t3
l4
l5
l6
l7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
before the Commission as such. That said, and in an abundance of caution, the HOA hereby
denies each and every element of StoneRidge's 'complaint' that alleges wrongdoing on the
HOA's part. The HOA further affirmatively pleads that it has complied in good faith with all
applicable regulations, orders, requirements, laws and other mandates of the Idaho Public
Utilities Code and this Commission's orders.
II.
STONERIDGE'S COMPLAINT IS SUBSTANTIVBLY AND
JURISDICITIONALLY FLAWBD
A. STONERIDGE'S PLEADING FAILS TO MEET THE SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENT IN THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO SUSTAIN A COMPLAINT
This Complaint docket was initiated by the Commission's issuance of a formal summons
to the HOA asserting that a "complaint has been filed with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission" by StoneRidge. However, the Commission's Rules of Procedure provide that a
complaint must:
Fully state the facts constituting the acts or omissions of the utility or person against
whom the complaint is filed and the dates when the acts or omission occurred.l
StoneRidge's 'Complaint' fails to make any allegation of an act or omission committed by the
HOA. StoneRidge's'Complaint' alleges no wrongdoing by the HOA, but rather is merely
seeking directional guidance from the Commission. According to the StoneRidge pleading:
StoneRidge Utilities, LLC would like to clarifu that we are going to be waiting to
complete a "final Reconciliation of Acct. #247" until we have clear direction from IPUC
Staff and/or Commissioners regarding the length of time we are able to "rebill" on this
account." Are we limited to going back six (6) months from November - i.e. May 2021
or can we go fuither back to a maximum of 3 years. ..2
I IPUC Rules of Procedure, Rule 054.02.
2 StoneRidge Complaint, cover letter dated February 2l ,2023, addressed to Ms. Noriyuki and Ms. Carlock
from Teresa Zamora.
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 2
I
2
-)
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
lt
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
l7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Indeed, the very essence of StoneRidge's pleading is to attempt to correct for its (the Utility's)
failure to properly and timely bill its customers as required by the Commission's rules. Thus,
"acts or omissions" being complained of are in fact acts and omissions of the Utility in its failure
to abide by the Commission's rules requiring timely and consistent billing practices.3 Although
the Utility states that its reconciliation of meter account #247 is not completed, it is the HOA's
understanding that the amount in controversy that the Utility seeks rebilling authority for is
$57,301.54. StoneRidge admits in its 'Complaint' that it (the Utility) is the entity that has
"committed acts or omissions" in violation of the Commission's Customer Relations Rules
requiring regular billings by utilities. StoneRidge has made no allegation that the HOA is,
likewise, in violation of any public utility law or Commission order.
StoneRidge makes the spurious implication that it is somehow the HOA's fault that
StoneRidge has failed to comply with its tariffs:
While usage was regularly charged on this account, the monthly minimum was only
billed for a short period
customers
fair share of the Minimum Monthly Charges for a Six -lnch (6") water meter for any
reconnection charges each spring as called for in the appropriate, in place, IPUC Tariff.a
[Emphasis provided.]
If the Utility is, in fact, not billing for services it provides, then obviously it will have reduced
revenues from what it would otherwise have received. That fact alone, however, does not
support the Utility's asseftion that its other customers have experienced an "unequitable burden.'
3IPUC Customer Relations Rules, Rule 20 l.
a StoneRidge Complaint at Exhibit'D', page T, "Summary of Underbilling on Account#24'7 from2006-
20 17 ." Emphasis provided.
MOTOR COACH VILLACE'S ANSWER - 3
of time in200612007. This fact has no doubt resulted in the
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In this case, StoneRidge's other customers have been indifferent to the fact that the Utility has
been negligent in its billing practices. This is true because the Utility has not had a general rate
case since 2006.s Under- or over-recoveries of Commission approved revenue requirements
between general rate cases are simply absorbed by the Utility's shareholders/owners and are not
the responsibility of the general body of ratepayers.
Furthermore, past revenue shortfalls caused by poor billing practices are not the
responsibility of future ratepayers due to the general prohibition against retroactive ratemaking.
It is blackletter law in Idaho that the IPUC does not have the "authority to grant utilities
surcharges to make up past deficits." Utah Power & Lieht Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 107
Idaho 47 " 53 , 685 P .2d 27 6 (1984\. Thus, if StoneRidge experienced a revenue shortfall due to
its negligent underbilling practices, its ratepayers have not been harmed. One could also
legitimately posit that its owners/shareholders have not been harmed either. After all, this
negligent Utility, if it were in fact experiencing a revenue shortfall, always had the option to seek
rate relief at any time over the last seventeen years. In all likelihood, this utility has been, in fact
over-earning by a sufficient amount in order for its shareholders/owners to seemlessly absorb the
costs associated with its negligent billing practices -- without the need for rate relief for the last
two decades.
il
il
5 Case No. SWS-W-06-01. The Commission's website labeled Case No. SWS-W-20-01 as a
"General Rate Case." However, that case only addressed the Utility's hook-up fees and was not a general revenue
requirement proceed ing.
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 4
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l1
l8
t9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. IDAHO UTILITIES ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO FILE, AND THIS COMMISSION
HAS NO JURISDICITON TO ENTERTAIN, COMPLAINTS BY UTILITIES AGAINST
THEIR RATEPAYERS
The Idaho Public Utility Code does not allow for the frling of a complaint against any
entity other than a utility, as such is defined in Chapter I of Title 61. The HOA is not a utility
and, hence, is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. That the Commission has no
jurisdiction over non-utilities is axiomatic, the ldaho Public Utility Code only grants the
Commission jurisdiction over complaints aeainst utilities. See specihcally ldaho Code $$ 61-
612 - 61-616, "Complaint against utility." The Commission has no jurisdiction over complaints
by utilities against their ratepayers/customers.
THUS, although (A) StoneRidge's pleading has been denominated as a complaint -- it is
more akin to a petition for declaratory ruling or for clarification, and (B) although the
Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a utility against one of its
customers; in the interests of economic use of the Commission's time and resources the HOA
will address the actual issue at hand: to wit:
May StoneRidge make up for its negligent failure to bill its customers, and if so, J'or how
long o/'a period of time may it retroactively bill its customers.
II.
STONERIDGE HAS WAIVED ANY RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE HAD TO
RETORACTIVELY BILL THE HOA TO MAKE UP FOR ITS NEGLIGENT BILLING
PRACTICES
StoneRidge specifrcally asks the Commission for authority to back bill for the time
period November 201 8 through Novemb er 2021. In the alternative, StoneRidge suggests that, at
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 5
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
l2
l3
l4
l5
l6
ll
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a minimum, it should be allowed to back bill for the six months ending November 2021.6
ln support of its claims, StoneRidge cites to IPUC Utility Customer Relations Rule No
203.01. That rule provides, in its entirety:
Billing Errors - Failure to Bill. Whenever the billing for utility service was not
accurately determined for reasons such as a meter malfunction or failure, incorrect
installation or programming of metering equipment, or errors in preparation of bills, the
utility will prepare a corrected billing. If the utility has failed to bill a customer for
service provided, the utility will prepare a bill for the period during which service was
provided and the customer was not billed. At its discretion, the utility may waive
rebilling for undercharges.
StoneRidge and the HOA were aware of the Utility's failure to bill for the monthly minimums
contained in the Utility's Tariffls as far back as at least 2017 . On November 15, 2017, the
Utility and the HOA entered into an agreement (the "Waiver Agreement") that addressed
StoneRidge's underbilling's and its failure to bill for the monthly minimums on Meter Account
#247 . A copy of the Waiver Agreement is attached hereto as HOA Exhibit No. l. In relevant
part, the Wavier Agreement provides that for Meter 247 (the meter billing at issue herein):
Meter 247 wlll have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge (currently $1,536) imposei
during the months that water usage IS detected, normally the irrigation months of May
through September (a hve-month period).
Meter 247 will not have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge imposed during the
months that water usate is NOT detected, normally October through April (a seven-
month period).
Meter 247 will have no seasonal re-connect fee (currently $4,160) imposed in April.T
6stoneRidge 'Complaint' at p. l.TUOR Exhibit l, at page l. Capitalization in original
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 6
I
2
J
4
5
6
1
8
9
l0
lt
l2
l3
l4
l5
t6
l1
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, of course, the Utility is waiving any rights it may have had to recover underbillings related
to its otherwise mandatory Minimum Monthly Customer Charge or for its seasonal re-connect
fee. The Commission's Customer Relations Rules specifically allow a utility to do just that:
At its discretion, the utility may waive rebillingJ'or undercharges.s
The Waiver Agreement has never been formally filed with, nor approved by, the Commission.
However, Rule 201.01 does not require Commission supervision of a utility's decision to waive
rebilling for undercharges. That decision is specifically "at [the utility'sJ discretion." Rule
203.01does not require the utility's waiver of its underbillings to be in writing or made via any
speciflrc declaration or averrnent. In addition to the Waiver Agreement specifically waving
underbillings related to Meter 247, this Utility has an established course of dealing over the past
six years that is consistent with the terms of its Waiver Agreement. The HOA has reasonably
relied on the Utility's Waiver Agreement - both as to its express waiver and as to its implied
waiver through a consistent course of dealing.
StoneRidge is not entitled to any back billing rights because it has expressly, as well as
impliedly by course of dealing, waived any rights it may have otherwise had to do so as it is
specifically allowed to do, at its discretion pursuant to IPUC Customer Relations Rule No.
203.01.
s lPUC Utility Customer Relations Rules, Rule 201.01
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 7
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
il
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
l1
t8
l9
20
2l
22
.L)
24
25
26
27
28
III.
THE HOA'S RELIANCE ON THE WAVIER BY STONRIDGE WAS RBASONABLB
AND SPECIFICALLY INVITED BY THE UTILITY ITSELF
Of course, as discussed in the immediately preceding section, it is reasonable for the
HOA to have relied on the Utility's contractual waiver of its purported right to rebill via the
Waiver Agreement. However further underpinning the HOA's reliance upon the Utility's
Waiver Agreement is a letter from the Utility dated March 26,2020. In that short letter, (the
"All Accounts Are Current Letter") the Utility informs the HOA that:
AII water and sewer accounts owed to StoneRidge utilities is [sicJ current as of January
30th 2020. If you have any questions, pleasefeel.free to call the o.fficee.
The letter, upon which the HOA has reasonably relied, is signed by Ms. Becca Loughnan, Office
Manager and Utilities Administrator.
Commission Utility Customer Relations Rule No. 203.03(c) provides a'safe harbor' of
just a six-month period for back billings unless a "reasonable person should have known of the
inaccurate billing." Specifically, that Rule provides:
If the time when the billing problem can be reasonably determined and the utility
determines the customer was undercharged, the utility may rebill frtr a period of six (6)
months unless a reasonable person should heve known of the inaccurate billing, in which
case the rebilling may be extendedfor a period not to exceed three (3) yeors. Utilities
must implement procedures designed to monitor and identify customers who have not
been billed or who have been inaccurately billed.
On its face, the All Accounts Are Current Letter is a document upon which any reasonable
person would rely. The HOA is no exception. The reasonableness of the HOA's reliance is
e StoneRidge 'Complaint' attached to Exhibit H, unpaginated. A copy of the
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 8
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
l7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
z)
24
25
26
21
28
reinforced by the Utility's execution, and adherence to, the Waiver Agreement back in
November 2017. Combined, the Waiver Agreement and the All Accounts Are Current Letter,
present irrefutable evidence of the reasonableness of the HOA's reliance on the Utility's billing
practices up to and including the month of January 2020.
In its 'Complaint' the Utility's attempts to impeach its own Ofhce Manager / Utility
Administrator's competence by asserting that she was "very knew [sic] in her role as billing
manager" and that she "had no prior experience nor education and had to 'learn on the fly."'
The Utility's after-the-fact attempt to question Ms. Loughnan's fitness for the job it entrusted her
with is, at worst transparent historic revisionism, or at best further indicia of the Utility's
negligent management of its own internal affairs. Regardless, however, the HOA's reasonable
reliance on the All Accounts Are Current Letter, is not defeated by whatever the Utility's owners
secretly thought of its management's abilities.
IV.
SUMMARY
The Utility makes several attempts to paint the HOA as the bad guy by claiming, falsely,
that the HOA hasn't paid its "fair share" and that the HOA wants to "shuffle" costs off to less
fortunate ratepayers. As noted above, in this instance the Utility's failure to bill only impacts its
shareholders' pocketbooks. The other ratepayers on this water utility's system are indifferent to
whether or not the HOA has been billed properly by the Utility because there have been no
general rate cases during the time period in question. In between general rate cases, lost
revenues (assuming there are lost revenues) only impact the owners of the utility and not the
utility's other ratepayers. There is simply no equitable argument in favor of the Utility's request
to back bill. To the contrary, the equitable arguments (if there are any) weigh against back
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - 9
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
16
l7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
billing due to the fact that it is the Utility's negligence that resulted in its failure to properly bill
in the first place.
Denying the Utility's request to back bill will have no impact on the other ratepayers
(either benefrcial or detrimental). Allowing the Utility's request to back bill, on the other hand,
will unjustly reward the owners for their failure to follow this Commission's billing and
customer accounting requirements. The Utility specifically waived its back billing 'rights' in the
Waiver Agreement.t0 It also ratified that wavier in the January 30,2020, All Accounts Are
Current Letter.
v.
RELIEF REQEUSTED
The Utility's request for back billing authority should be denied in its entirety due to its
discretionary waiver of its back billing rights as specifically provided for pursuant to IPUC
Customer Relations Rule No. 203.01.
In the alternative, the Commission should invoke the six-month safe harbor rule from
IPUC Customer Relations Rule No. 203.03(c) due to the HOA's Utility-induced and justified
reliance on the All Accounts Are Current Letter and the operation of the Waiver Agreement.
Dated this 13th day of Ãpri|2023.
Peter J n, ISB #3195
Counsel for Motor Coach Village HOA
t/
il
r0 See the discussion, supra, a utility may waive back billing rights at its discretion.
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER. IO
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
il
il
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of April2023,I served a true and correct copy
of The Motor Coach Village HOA's Answer to the Commission's Summons upon the following
by the method indicted below and addressed to the following:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan.noriuki@puc. idaho. gov
CDS StoneRidge Utilities,
Attn : Teres a Zamora, Utilities Administrator
P. O. Box 298
Blanchard,ID 83804
[e-mail] ¡--
0
MOTOR COACH VILLAGE'S ANSWER - I I
CDS STONERIDGE UTILITIES, LLC
COMPLAINANT,
vs.
THE MOTOR COACH VILLAGE HOA,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLTC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No.: SWS-W-23-01
HOA EXHIBIT NO. I
ì.
SroruERrDcE
í'.o. e.r, zeo
364 5rC'NËRTDGE RoÀD
Ar ÀNCrr^Rû. IDATJO 838()rl
PHoNL 2OE-437'3148
trÁx 2o8"43'7-3O48
STON ERIDGEIDAHO,COM
November 3.5,20L7
Mr. Lloyd Holloway
President: Motor Coach Village at Stoneridge
Blanchard, lD 83804
RE: Agreement and Understanding on Water Meter 357 and lnland Power Refund Request
It is agreed that, by entering into this Agreement, neither Stoneridge Land, LC, Stoneridge
Utilities, LC, Bridge lnvestment Group or any of its Employees nor Motor Coach Village at
Stoneridge or its Board of Directors make any admission of any failing or wrongdoing' The
parties merely have agreed to resolve amicably all disputes regarding Water Meter 357 and the
lnland Power Refund Request. This document will serve as an agreement to recti{y any
inequality and as an agreerïent of procedure from this date forward.
Stoneridge Utilities agrees to credit Motor Coach Village at Stoneridge $3,363.38 (Three
Thousand Three þlundred Sixty Three Dollars and Thirty Ëight Cents) for water usage billed to
Motor Coach Village over the past five years. Stoneridge Utilities also agrees to credit Motor
Coach Village at Stoneridge 53,¿t3.q0 (Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen Dollars and
Forty Cents) for Meter Fees associated with meter 357 over the past five years.
It is agreecl upon that beginning with the September 2017 water bill which will not be subject to
late fees if paicl on or before December 1.,2A!7, charges associated with Meler 357 will be split
in the following manner: Monthly Minimum Customer Charge willbe 1/3 Motor Coach Village
at Stoneridge, 1/3 Stoneridgg Utilities, l./3 Stoneridge Storage Condominiums' Water usage
charges of Meter 357 will be split 55% Motor Coach Village at Stoneridge,40Yo Stoneridge
Utilities, 5% Stonericlge Storage Condominiums. Rates will be current IPUC rates {subject to
change in accordance with the ldaho Public Utility Commission) of $170.67 for the Minimum
Monthly Customer Charge, and the Commodity (or water usage) Charge will be $0.79 per 1]OOO
gallons used.
It is also agreed upon that Motor Coae h Village at Stoneridge will continue to be billed for two
additional water meters, as follows:
Meter 247 (a six-inch meter used for lots and ir-ligAtion)
Meter 247 will have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge {currently S1,536) imposed during
the months that water usage l5 detected, normally the irrigation months of May through
September (a five-month period).
Meter 247 will not have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge imposed during the months
that water usage is NOT detected, normally October through April (a seven-r'nonth period).
Meter 247 will have no seasonalre-connect fee (currently $4,160)imposed in April.
Meter 338 (a two-inch meter used for l-ots.and irrisation)
Meter 338 will NOT have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge imposed during the months
that the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge is imposed on Meter 247.
Meter 338 WILL have the Minimum Monthly Customer Charge irnposed only during those
months when water flow is detected on Meter 338 but NOT on Meter 247, typically the months
of Apriland October.
The following chart outlines this understanding concerning the Minimum Monthly Customer
Charges:
No MeterCharge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
Meter Charge if there is
usage on 338 only
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
Meter Charge if there is usage
on 338 ortlY
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
No Meter Charge
Meter Charge if there is
Meter Charge if there is
usage
No Meter ChargeNo Meter Charge
No Meter No Meter Charge No Meter
ln additíon, it is agreed upon that Stoneridge Land will credat Motor Coach Village at Stoneridge
52,5L5.22 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen Dollars and Twenty lwo Cents) for lnland
Meter 357 Spllt Three
inch meter Meter 247Mete¡ 338 inch
No.Meter Charge
No Meter €harge
No Meter
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
power Refund Request dated May 5th, 2017. This agreement will end all further claims by the
'Motor boacn Village. As part of the agreement Stoneridge Land, LC agrees to ass¡st the Motor
Coach Village at Stoneridge in collecting lnland Power charges from both the JMBCA and any
índividual listed on the Refund Reqgest Document.
Brad
G,M. Stoneri Golf &onalCommunity
Lloyd
President Motor Village at Stoneri
()-/