20240702Interlocutory_Order_No_36247.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 2,2024
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CDS STONERIDGE ) CASE NO. SWS-W-24-01
UTILITIES, LLC'S APPLICATION FOR )
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES ) ORDER NO. 36247
AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN )
THE STATE OF IDAHO )
On February 28, 2024, CDS Stoneridge Utilities, LLC ("Company" or "Stoneridge")
applied for authorization to increase its rates and charges for water service ("Application"). The
Company made a separate supplemental filing requesting an April 1, 2024, effective date.l
On March 13, 2024, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") issued a
Notice of Application, Notice of Intervention Deadline, and Notice of Suspension of Proposed
Effective Date. Order No. 36116. The Stoneridge Property Owners Association, Inc. ("SPOA"),
the Stoneridge Recreational Club Condominium Owners Association, Inc. ("SRCCOA"), and an
individual, Randolph Garrison, pro se, petitioned to intervene (collectively the "Intervenors").
Order Nos. 36144 and 36163.
On May 28, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure establishing
public comment and Company reply deadlines and Notice of Public Workshops. Order No. 36192.
The Commission Staff("Staff') held two public workshops on June 4, 2024, in Blanchard, Idaho
that were well attended by the Company's customers.
On June 10,2024,Mr. Garrison filed two motions. The first requested that the Commission
order the Company (or the Commission Secretary should the Company fail to promptly comply)
to provide the Intervenors with discovery responses in this case. Mr. Garrison's second motion
asked the Commission to process this case via a technical hearing rather than by modified
procedure.2
On June 13, 2024, Staff filed a Motion to Suspend This Matter and Vacate Comment
Deadlines ("Motion"). Staff notified the Parties it planned to file the Motion and requested
expeditious consideration of its Motion pursuant to Commission's Rule of Procedure 256. IDAPA
31.01.01.256.03. The Motion stated that the Company is not represented by an attorney and has
1 In its Application the Company initially requested a July 1,2024,effective date. See Application Attachment G.
2 No Motions filed by the Intervenors requested expeditious consideration pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure
256.IDAPA 31.01.01.256.
ORDER NO. 36247 1

not provided adequate discovery to the Intervenors. Accordingly, Staff discussed the legal
representation requirements outlined in procedural Rule 43, IDAPA 31.01.01.43.02, and
recommended that the Commission find good cause to suspend this case for an additional sixty
(60)days pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-622(4). Staff also recommended that the Commission order
the Company to file a Notice of Representation in this case within thirty(30) days of the issuance
of the requested order—with the case to be automatically dismissed upon non-compliance.
Relatedly, Staff recommended that the public comment and Company reply deadlines previously
imposed in Order No. 36192 be vacated and a new procedural schedule be determined if the
Company can secure counsel to avoid dismissal.
On June 13, 2024, Mr. Garrison filed a motion requesting that the Commission dismiss the
Company's Application due to its failure to have an attorney represent it in this case.
On June 14, 2024, Mr. Garrison filed an Attempt to Confer Exhibit—Intervenor Motion to
Compel Discovery as well as certain related filings. On this same date, Mr. Garrison filed a
Response in Opposition to Motion to Suspend. Mr. Garrison's motion in opposition to Staff s
Motion was subsequently joined by SPOA and SCRCOA. SPOA also filed its own Protest to
Modified Procedure, and SRCCOA filed certain correspondence to the casefile.3
Staffs Motion was presented to the Commission at its June 18, 2024, Decision Meeting at
which time the Commission made the following determinations as discussed below.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over Stoneridge and the issues in this case under Title 61
of the Idaho Code. Specifically, the Commission regulates "public utilities," including "water
corporations" that serve the public or some portion thereof for compensation. See Idaho Code §§
61-125, -129, -501, -502, -503, -507, -523, and-622.
The Commission previously suspended the Company's proposed effective date for 30 days
plus five months, finding that the Company's proposed date did not provide adequate time for
Staff or interested persons to evaluate the Company's proposal. Order No. 36116 at 4. Due to
inactions of the Company the Commission is now forced to consider whether it should suspend
the effective date again or dismiss this case.
s At the Commission's June 18, 2024,Decision Meeting Staff s counsel indicated that he had received a letter from
Chan Karupiah, the owner of the Company, which indicated that Mr. Karupiah was seeking legal counsel and
expressed Mr.Karupiah's desire that the case not be dismissed.
ORDER NO. 36247 2

Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-622(4)the Commission may extend the suspension period for
an additional sixty (60) days (beyond the initial suspension period of 30 days plus five months
established in Order No. 36116) after a showing of good cause on the record. Staff s Motion
asserted that the inability to proceed without the Company being represented by licensed counsel
provides good cause to extend the suspension. Staff represented because the Company has not
retained counsel the progress of this case "has slowed or restricted the Intervenors' access to
discovery." Motion at 4. Staff argued that due to the Intervenors having "received no discovery
responses—or woefully inadequate responses—only highlights the good cause for an additional
sixty(60) day suspension."Id. Of course,these delays and omissions by the Company also weigh
in favor of other remedies, like dismissal, as advocated for by the Intervenors.
After considering Staff s Motion and the Intervenors' filings the Commission reluctantly
finds good cause to extend the initial suspension period. First, the Commission is required by
statute to consider certain matters which weigh against dismissal of this case now.See Idaho Code
§ 61-502. Like other general rate cases where the public utility is alleging that its rates and charges
are insufficient, the Company makes a similar argument. If the public utility's rates and charges
are insufficient the impact on the public utility's finances could materially impact its requirement
to maintain safe and adequate service to its customers. See Idaho Code § 61-302. In this case, the
issue of whether the Company's rates are insufficient is squarely before the Commission, and the
Commission must carefully review that issue considering the asserted needs of the Company and
its customers who have filed numerous written comments.4 Second, dismissal may not ensure the
Company's rates are sufficient to meet its requirement to provide safe and reliable service or
prevent the Company from filing a new general rate case. Staff, Intervenors and customers of the
Company have invested their time and effort and resources in this case which should not go wasted.
As mentioned above, Staff has already held two informational public workshops in Blanchard,
Idaho that were well attended by the customers of the Company. The Commission has also
received over 200 public comments. The Commission finds that dismissal at this time would be
an inefficient use of resources and may increase costs for all involved if a new general rate case
application was subsequently filed. However, we cannot ignore the frustrations expressed by the
a The Commission must also determine if the rates and charges proposed in this general rate case are fair,just and
reasonable,are non-preferential and non-discriminatory.See Idaho Code§ 61-502.
ORDER NO. 36247 3

Intervenors due to the Company's failures to respond adequately to the discovery requests and its
failure thus far to retain licensed counsel for this case.
In abundance of caution, and to preserve the investments of time and effort and resources
already made, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to give this case more time so that
the Commission has an opportunity to render a final decision on the Company's present
Application.We hope that the direction and deadlines established in this Order will move this case
forward productively for all parties. For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds good
cause to suspend the effective date imposed in Order No. 36116 for an additional sixty(60)days—
making the new effective date November 30, 2024. This additional suspension shall not be used
by the Company to further delay the processing of this case. The Company is required to act within
thirty(30) days of the issuance of this Order to remedy its omissions,preferably earlier.
First, the Company must retain licensed legal counsel to represent it in this case. Counsel
amongst other matters, should ensure that the discovery process, and other aspects of this case, are
adequately addressed. To Comply with the first requirement, the Company must submit a Notice
of Representation to the Commission,within thirty(30)days of issuance of this Order, confirming
that a licensed attorney represents it. See IDAPA 31.01.01.43.02.
The Company must also address the discovery issues raised by the Intervenors quickly and
in good faith. This must start now whether counsel has been retained or not. To date,the Company
has not filed objections to any discovery requests and as such has a duty to respond in good faith
with or without counsel. In responding to discovery requests the Company must serve its discovery
responses on all Parties, as required by the Commission's Rules of Procedure. See generally
IDAPA 31.01.01.063. We remind the Company that it is not the Commission's or the Commission
Secretary's responsibility to provide the Intervenors with discovery responses made by the
Company. Nor is it the Commission Secretary's duty to determine the confidentiality of the
Company's discovery responses should a proper claim of confidentiality be raised. The Company
must immediately begin to resolve its discovery response failures after issuance of this Order,
including but not limited to providing adequate responses to requests and listing who prepared
such responses. The responses must be easily accessible by the Parties, including being provided
in a format that can be reviewed electronically. Failure to meet any of these requirements would
be a violation of this Order and could lead to further remedial actions being imposed on it or
dismissal. The Commission is hesitant to fulfill the Company's responsibilities by directing the
ORDER NO. 36247 4

Commission Secretary to provide the Parties with discovery responses that the Company may have
provided already. Notwithstanding, Staff through its counsel or the Commission Secretary, may
help facilitate the delivery of discovery responses made by the Company to the Intervenors if it
aids in the processing of this case.
Staff requested that the case be dismissed automatically if the Company fails to provide
proof it has retained counsel within thirty(30)days of the issuance of this Order. The Commission
notes that it will closely consider the motions for dismissal of this case if the Company fails to file
a Notice of Representation. Additionally, even if the Company retains counsel, if the Company
continues to fail, delay, or inadequately respond to discovery requests after the Commission's
requirements to do so in this Order, Mr. Garrison's motions to compel, including a new one filed
on June 27, 2024, will be reviewed and decided upon by the Commission. To date the Company
has not filed a response on the record to any of Mr. Garrison's motions to compel. Timely
responses are required and failure to do so will weigh against the Company.
The Intervenors have also requested an order for a technical hearing rather than proceed
via Modified Procedure. As part of this Order the Commission vacates the comment deadlines
previously established in accordance with Staff s request; however, given the possibility that this
case may be dismissed if the Company fails to comply with any of the Commission's mandates
described above, the Commission believes that it is premature to set a new procedural schedule at
this time and will consider the Intervenors' requests for a technical hearing and the parties motions
to dismiss(if they still are advocating for that relief) if the Company retains counsel and fulfills its
obligations to respond to discovery propounded by the Parties.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is suspended for an additional sixty (60) days
beyond the suspension previously imposed in Order No. 36116. The new effective date for any
changes to rates and charges, if approved, is suspended until November 30, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company must file a Notice of Representation with
the Commission Secretary within thirty(30) days of the issuance of this Order demonstrating that
the Company has retained licensed counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company is ordered to immediately begin
responding to all outstanding discovery requests that have been either unanswered or inadequately
ORDER NO. 36247 5

answered and, in a format, accessible to the Parties. The Company must serve its discovery
responses directly on all parties in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the comment deadlines previously set in Order No.
36192 are hereby vacated.
THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER rather than a final and appealable Order of the
Commission.While the Commission may review, stay,or clarify an interlocutory order,the period
of reconsideration will not begin until the Final Order is issued.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 2nd day of
July 2024.
&-4-1 a=nm--
ERIC A ERS , PRESIDENT
J R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
G
EDWARD LODGE, COM6ASSIONER
ATTEST:
I jj 9,6 VQ�
Mo ica harlfte-§a4hez
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\WATER\S W S-W-24-01_rates\orders\SWSW2401_Susp_Interloc_md.docx
ORDER NO. 36247 6