20251223Final_Order_No_36883.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 23,2025
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
INVESTIGATION INTO SYRINGA ) CASE NO. SWI-W-24-02
WATER INC.'S RATES AND CHARGES )
FOR WATER SERVICE ) ORDER NO. 36883
On September 6, 2024, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") issued
Order No. 36317, directing Commission Staff("Staff') to investigate the service rates of Syringa
Water Inc. ("Company") and recommend further action, if necessary. Since that time, Staff has
propounded production requests upon the Company and conducted an on-site evaluation of the
Company's current rates and reviewed its rate structure, billing statements, operating expenses,
lease agreements, and infrastructure investment.
On December 30, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Workshop, scheduling
an in-person public workshop in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, on January 25, 2025.
On July 2, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure, establishing a
public comment deadline and a Company reply deadline. Order No. 36664. Staff and nine of the
Company's customers filed comments. The Company did not reply.
On November 14, 2025, the Commission issued Order No. 36846, finding that the
Company's current rates, together with a few newly authorized non-recurring charges, generate
sufficient revenue for the Company to cover expenses and provide a reasonable opportunity for a
fair return on its capital investments. Additionally, the Commission directed the Company to
submit an updated tariff reflecting certain non-recurring charges omitted from the Company's
tariff.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 5, 2025, Robert Ferrell, a customer of the Company, sent an email to the
Commission Secretary in reference to this case("Petition").' Although the subject line of the email
stated "Final Order 36846 Comments," the body of the email claimed that it was a petition for
reconsideration.
' A copy of that document is attached to this Order as Exhibit A.
ORDER NO. 36883 1

Mr. Ferrell raised two issues in his Petition. First, he claimed that the Company had failed
to correct billing errors that allegedly occurred throughout all of 2024, as it allegedly had agreed
to do.According to Mr.Ferrell,the Company overbilled him$395.80 during 2024,including some
months prior to the Company formally coming under Commission jurisdiction. Although Staff
noted in its comments that the Company had agreed to correct its billing for all of 2024,Mr. Ferrell
alleges that the Company has not reimbursed him this alleged overbilled amount.
Second, Mr. Ferrell faults Order No. 36846 for failing to address alleged inadequacies in
the fire flow protection the Company provides. The Commission noted fire flow deficiencies in
the Company's water system upon formally recognizing it as a public utility, directing it to take
steps to mitigate the issue. See Order No. 36290 at 4. Mr. Ferrell alleges that the Company has not
kept customers updated regarding steps taken to address deficiencies in fire flow protection.
Because Order No. 36846 mentions public comments alleging continued issues with fire flow,Mr.
Ferrell reasoned that he can seek redress of alleged fire flow issues identified in a prior order(e.g.,
Order No. 36290) issued in a separate case (Case No. SWI-W-24-01) that has become final. Mr.
Ferrell requests that Staff initiate a proactive plan to monitor and publicly report progress related
to fire flow improvements.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
Under Idaho Code§ 61-626,the Commission may abrogate or change one of its orders that
it determines after reconsideration is unjust, unwarranted, or should be changed. This permits the
Commission to correct any errors in the original order before appellate review. See Washington
Water Power Co. a Kootenai Env't All., 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). Although
the Letter is not expressly styled as a petition seeking reconsideration under Idaho Code § 61-626,
we find it reasonable to deem the Letter to be a petition for reconsideration and analyze it according
to the standards applicable to such petitions.
The Commission finds that the Letter does not meet the substantive requirements for a
petition for reconsideration. Rule 331 provides:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why
the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will
offer if reconsideration is granted.
ORDER NO. 36883 2

IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01 (emphasis added). Further, "the petition . . . must state whether the
petitioner . . . requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or
interrogatories."IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03.
In this case, Mr. Ferrell has failed to articulate how any issue decided in Order No. 36846
is unreasonable,unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Indeed,the two issues Mr.
Ferrell raises in his email were not decided in Order No. 36846. Although the summary of Staff's
comments in Order No. 36846 mentioned the Company's alleged agreement to correct billing
errors for all of 2024, the Commission did not order the Company to refund any amounts to
customers. Rather, the Commission only cautioned the Company to comply "with the
Commission's Utility Customer Relations Rules (see, e.g., IDAPA 31.21.01.203) as it corrects
billing errors that occurred after coming under Commission regulation." Order No. 36846.
Similarly, despite mentioning public comments raising issues associated with inadequate fire
protection in passing, Order No. 36846 did not direct the Company to take any action related to
fire flow protection.
The absence of any decisions related to refunds or fire flow protection in Order No. 36846
is unsurprising. This proceeding was initiated to investigate whether the rates the Company was
charging for water service are fair, just, and reasonable. Staff conducted that investigation and
determined that the Company's current rates are sufficient to cover the Company's expenses and
provide a reasonable return on capital investments in the water system. Despite passing mention
of other matters that arose during this investigation, the Commission's decisions and directives in
Order No. 36846 focused on the issue of rates without addressing the matters raised in Mr.Ferrell's
email. Accordingly, Mr. Ferrell's Petition must be denied.
Although Mr. Ferrell's Petition is denied, the allegations it raises are nonetheless
concerning. Accordingly, we find it reasonable to direct Staff and the Company to undertake the
following additional actions. With respect to Mr. Ferrell's allegations of overbilling, Staff is
directed to conduct an informal investigation to determine whether the Company has corrected any
overbilling that may have occurred since it came under Commission jurisdiction on August 14,
2024. If Staff determines that further Commission action is warranted, it should seek to open a
separate docket to address the matter. In addition, the Company is directed to submit a report
detailing the steps it has taken to remedy fire flow deficiencies in its water system since the
issuance of Order No. 36290 on August 14, 2024, in Case No. SWI-W-24-01, and in this case.
ORDER NO. 36883 3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ferrell's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Staff shall informally investigate Mr. Ferrell's
allegations of overbilling to determine whether the Company has corrected any overbilling that
may have occurred since it came under Commission jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall submit a report detailing the steps it
has taken to remedy fire flow deficiencies in its water system since the issuance of Order No.
36290 on August 14, 2024, in Case No. SWI-W-24-01, and in this case.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or
interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho under
the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 23rd day of
December 2025.
YDGE, RE I ENT
HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
HARDI , COM SSIONER
ATTEST:
AZ,4.-�PA
L a Calderon Robles
Interim Commission Secretary
IALegal\WATER\S WI-W-24-02_Invest\orders\S WIW2402_recon_at.docx
ORDER NO. 36883 4

From: rdoublef(cbaol.com
To: secretary
Subject: Final Order 36846 Comments
Date: Friday,December 5,2025 3:38:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments
BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency
service desk with any concerns.
PUC Commission Secretary
05 Dec 2025
Submitted by Robert Ferrell
E-mail [e-mail]
[phone]
1913 S. Scharelant Ln
Coeur d' Alene, ID 83814
Name of Utility: Syringa Water Co.
Case No. SWI-W-24-02
I, Robert Ferrell, submit the following comments concerning the above referenced
Final Order 36846:
Case # SWI-W-24-02
This complaint is filed as a result of FINAL ORDER No. 36846 issued by the
Commission on 11/14/2025. The nature of this complaint is twofold: (1) that I, and
possibly many other customers, have not received a corrected billing or proper credit
for 2024 and (2) PUC has not taken appropriate action to address the issue of
inadequate fire protection that has been raised continuously by numerous customers
for the past two years. Therefore, this case should remain open for item #1 and a new
case opened if necessary for item # 2. The basis of my complaint is as follows:
ITEM 1
On 07/01/2025 STAFF COMMENTS were issued by PUC after a yearlong
investigation of numerous issues, including the rates charged, and more specifically,
how those rates were applied to the usage of each customer. On page 5 of the Staff
Comments it states
"During the audit, Staff found that the Company did not consistently apply its tiered
rates. In some cases, customers with usage in multiple tiers were charged the highest
tier rate for all consumption rather than the correct rate per tier. This error resulted in
customer overcharges. Upon notification, the Company agreed to correct the billing
Exhibit A
SWI-W-24-02
Order No. 36883

for all of 2024 (emphasis added) and apply appropriate credits to customer accounts
in October 2024."
In October 2024 my invoice was for $73.44 but the line items for tier charges added
up to $131.44, a difference of $58.00, with no explanation of why nor any statement
about a credit due. It appeared to simply be an addition error which is common with
SWC. Keep in mind that the customers did not have knowledge of any corrected
billing requirement or credit due until 07/01/2025. Upon seeing the 07/01/2025 Staff
Comments I took the effort to prepare a spread sheet (my exhibit "A" dated 7/10/2025
as an attachment to my public comment dated 7/13/2025 and submitted to both PUC
and SWC on 7/14/2025) to tabulate, month by month, the actual amount billed by and
paid to SWC vs the proper calculations for a corrected billing as identified by PUC
Staff for all of 2024 (emphasis added). The result was a total credit of $395.80. I
have never received this credit. I suspect there are numerous other customers with
usage in multiple tiers have also never received a proper credit.
After receiving no reply from PUC Staff after my 07/14/2025 Public Comment, I tried
to call our point of contact at Staff on 10/23/2025 in which I was sent to voice mail, so
I left a message but have never received a return phone call from Staff. This is not
serving the public very well. Simultaneously in September and October 2025 there
were several emails back & forth between myself and Jennifer at SWC in which she
denied that I was due any credit and referred to June and July 2024 emails that she
believed settled all matters. Jennifer also challenged that the PUC Staff Comment
required a credit for all of 2024, by stating in her email dated Oct 15,2025
"The statement made wasn't a statement of affirmative that the water company would
but part of a bigger conversation of what 1PUC required us to do. In the end IPUC
stated, according to their requirements, we only needed to adjust billings as of the
date of their regulated approval, which we have already done, and explained in the
chain of emails I had forwarded to you recently."
This raises many questions. What "date of regulated approval" is Jennifer referring
to? Does that mean that SWC is no longer agreeing to credits for all of 2024
(emphasis added), and if so, why has PUC failed to publish and/or clarify this? Do the
words "the Company agreed to correct the billing for all of 2024" have no meaning?
Did PUC Staff change their position on the 2024 correction of billings without making
it a part of the public record, if so, how can that be? Is PUC Staff telling SWC one
thing and the public another? If that is the case then PUC has created an atmosphere
of distrust and hard feelings between SWC and myself/the public that should never
have come about. In FINAL ORDER No. 36846 dated 11/14/2025, paragraph IV.
Revenues, (page 3 and 4) the Commission repeated almost verbatim the language
previously quoted in the PUC STAFF COMMENTS concerning the 2024 billings and
stated in part
"the Company agreed to correct all 2024 billing errors and issue account credits in
October 2024".
This would indicate that PUC has not changed its position. If this statement is no
longer applicable then why is it in the FINAL ORDER No. 36846 dated 11/14/2025.
Exhibit A
SWI-W-24-02
Order No. 36883

Either SWC or I just don't understand what is required and PUC Staff has done
nothing to straighten this mess out. I, and many other customers that I have talked to,
have never received a corrected billing or credit for all of 2024 (emphasis added) and
PUC Staff has accepted SWC at their word for having done so with no
documentation, tabulations or explanations ever provided to the public to prove up
that position. As a rebuttal to SWC saying they have issued corrective billings and
credits, I for one can say, no they have NOT if you follow the words as stated in
STAFF COMMENTS dated 07/01/2025 and FINAL ORDER No. 36846 dated
11/14/2025. As I have requested in several emails; "review my tabulation for all of
2024 (exhibit "A") and show me where you disagree or think I'm in error. PUC hasn't
done that. SWC hasn't done that. Prove me wrong and this issue goes away.
On November 2, 2025 Jennifer at SWC emailed me saying she was going to do an
end of the year review for 2024 and 2025, in which I replied I thought that was a good
idea and I requested once again that SWC review my tabulation for 2024 (exhibit "A").
Copies of these emails between SWC and myself since 7/14/2025 were furnished to
PUC Staff, yet they have never replied to help settle this dispute. Once again not
serving the public well. Once Jennifer completes her review in January 2026 hopefully
her figures will correspond with my exhibit "A" and resolve this issue to the
satisfaction of both parties. However, because that is no guarantee I am compelled to
file this petition for reconsideration within 21 days of 11/14/2025 in order to protect my
interest. I cannot speak for the other 77 customers but it seems reasonable that PUC
should have the obligation to review and confirm the accuracy of SWC corrected
billings to ensure fairness to the public as a whole. To rely on SWC's word of saying
"they took care of it" has proven in the past to not be totally effective.
ITEM 2
On page 8 of FINAL ORDER No. 36846 the Commission acknowledges in the first
paragraph they have received nine official public comments from customers raising
issues, including but not limited to inadequate fire protection (emphasis added).
This has been an issue of great concern since day one when both customers and two
HOA's reached out to PUC for help. However, the Commission findings, decisions
and orders on page 8 and 9 are totally silent and do not address the issue of
inadequate fire protection (emphasis added). The issue in item #1 for credits pales in
comparison to the seriousness of item #2 for inadequate fire protection. How can
the Commission totally ignore the inadequate fire protection problem and not order
some type of corrective action and direct Staff to monitor progress on a semi-annual
basis and publish those findings in the public record? In Case No. SWI-W-24-01 on
page 5 of FINAL ORDER No. 36290 on 8/14/2024 the Commission ordered
"that the Company shall take appropriate steps to mitigate the fire flow, transfer
pump and flow meter deficiencies discussed above and notify Staff once each issue
is resolved".
That order is the equivalent to telling the Fox to quit eating the chickens and let us
Exhibit A
SWI-W-24-02
Order No. 36883

know when you do stop. The public deserves to be better informed. Customers have
heard rumors that the transfer pump situation has been rectified but nothing has ever
been published in the public record to keep the customers informed as to progress
overall, and in particular to fire flow. Communication is the key to eliminate distrust
and to alleviate the fears of the public. Logic would dictate that the fact that FINAL
ORDER No. 36846 acknowledges there is still an inadequate fire protection
problem as of 11/14/2025 requires a more proactive plan of action by Staff to monitor
and publicly report progress concerning fire protection. The excuse that nothing more
is to be done by PUC because FINAL ORDER No. 36290 is closed doesn't stand the
test of scrutiny in light of the fact that the Commission acknowledged the issue still
exists in FINAL ORDER No. 36846 dated 11/14/2025.
In the simplest of terms the PUC needs to stay on top of the inadequate fire
protection problem until completion of corrective actions and keep the public
informed. Heaven forbids there ever be a catastrophic fire in our subdivision, but if
there is, the PUC and the State of Idaho will have some serious explaining to do if
they ignore my concerns and those of the customer base as a whole.
There is a private agreement between SWC and Bennett Bay Apartments LLC for
SWC to provide 10 additional hookups for water and in turn Bennett Bay will provide
funding for the expansion of the existing water storage tank plus a new additional tank
to bring the system up to the required standards. This would resolve the concerns of
customers on the system that have existed for almost 20 years. However, because
this is a private agreement the customers/public have no way to monitor progress,
changes or any other details that effect if and when we will ever get adequate fire
protection. No one wishes to interfere with the private dealings of these two
companies but we deserve to know what progress is being made as it effects our life
and property. PUC is our only hope and avenue for information.
Please protect the public interest by following up and taking action on the two items of
concern as described above.
Exhibit A
SWI-W-24-02
Order No. 36883