20230502Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 1

Paul B. Rippel, Esq. ISBN 2762
Austin O. Allen, Esq. ISBN 10076
HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT
HANSEN & HOOPES, PLLC
428 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Applicant Donald Sorrells

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Applicant,

vs.

SUNNYSIDE PARK UTILITIES, INC., an
Idaho Corporation,

Case No. GNR-U-22-03

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Applicant, Donald Sorrells submits his Petition for Reconsideration of ORDER
NO. 35737 (and earlier interlocutory Orders) on the following grounds and for the
following reasons.
This action began when the District Court in Bonneville County, Idaho, ruled
that disputes between Donald Sorrells and SPU were within the jurisdiction of the IPUC
and must be resolved in that forum, not the District Court. See attached Memorandum
Decision of March 2, 2022 citing IDAPA regulations, etc.
RECEIVED
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:35:15 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 2
1.(a). When this action began, Sunnyside Park Utilities, Inc. (“SPU”) was a
water corporation subject to the jurisdiction and orders of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“IPUC”). That fact was found by the IPUC and proved by SPU’s own
admissions. See Declaration of Counsel in Response to Petition for Review of
Interlocutory Order and Petition for Stay and Petition to Designate Order as Final
(submitting letter from SPU acknowledging those facts) (received by the IPUC on
February 9, 2023, Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary). Also see ORDER NO. 35737,
p. 5, lines 1-2. “SPU argued that it was entitled to the full due process rights afforded
under the Commission’s Rules and Regulations.”
1.(b). That fact and finding was also made by the IPUC. “June 13, 2022, . . .
SPU represented that it was in the process of taking the necessary steps to qualify for
exemption from the Commission’s regulatory authority.” ORDER NO. 35513, p. 7
(second full paragraph). “The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and the
issues in this case under Title 61 of Idaho Code.” ORDER NO. 35513, p. 7
(Commission Findings and Decision, first sentence). “The Commission finds that the
Company is a public utility and subject to regulation by the Commission.” “Specifically,
at the time of the initial Complaint, SPU was not recorded as a not-for-profit or non-
profit organization with the Secretary of State.”
2. Mr. Sorrells demands that his due process rights as the Applicant be
honored.
2.(a). It is obvious from a reading of each of the ORDERS issued by the IPUC in
this matter, that Mr. Sorrells’ rights have been ignored and denied. First, the ORDERS
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 3
recite numerous ex parte contacts between the Commission “staff” and the
“Company.”
2.(b). The ORDERS and Staff comments but do not even acknowledge
evidence submitted by Mr. Sorrells other than quoting the Notice of Compliance he
filed. That filing was supported by the Declaration of Don Sorrells filed with the IPUC on
July 5, 2022. It attests to the following: 1. All invoices received from SPU for water and
sewer services have been paid; 2. The Water meter is accessible; 3. The Lock was
removed; 4. The Frost-free hydrant was capped; and, 5. The Toilet leak was fixed by a
professional plumber (replacement of the entire toilet). Nevertheless, the Staff
continued to recommend a determination that Mr. Sorrells had not cured what SPU
alleged as past problems upon which the Company could base a denial of water
service. A copy of the Declaration and Exhibits is attached hereto, though there is one
in your file.
As stated in the Notice of Compliance, each of the criteria given by your Staff
which would result in an Order determining that, while the IPUC had jurisdiction over
the dispute raised by Mr. Sorrells, he was entitled to such a determination upon proper
proof – proof that was supplied but ignored, perhaps due to all the ex parte
communications with “the Company.”
3. When Mr. Sorrells filed his Application with the IPUC, he invoked its role
and powers as an adjudicatory body over a disputed claim. In no other forum of an
adjudicatory body is the ex parte communication allowed between a body (or any of its
staff) and only one party. Each time there were ex parte communications between SPU
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 4
and the Commission or any of its staff, Mr. Sorrells was denied due process – the right
to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
4. Due to actions by SPU, which in any other forum would be “gaming the
system,” the Commission found that it no longer had jurisdiction over SPU. That does
not change the fact that the IPUC did rightly have jurisdiction over SPU and over the
question of whether Mr. Sorrells’ past actions would allow SPU to terminate the water
service to his commercial property.
5, Reconsideration is necessary to remedy the lack of due process and to
apply the law – the IPUC regulations governing whether SPU, before its conversion to a
bona fide non-profit corporation, could use those past actions as justification to
terminate the Sorrells water service. Mr. Sorrells is entitled to reconsideration of the
manner in which the IPUC disposed of this matter. That is, the IPUC should assess the
sworn evidence Mr. Sorrells submitted against mere allegations by SPU, and issue an
ORDER that determines any attempts to terminate the Sorrells water service based on
past actions that were under IPUC jurisdiction, would be prohibited, i. e. unlawful.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2023.
HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT
HANSEN & HOOPES, PLLC

By ____________________________
Paul B. Rippel, Esq.
Attorneys for Don Sorrells

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served upon the person(s) named below as indicated.

DATED this 2nd day of May 2023.

_______________________________
Beth Humphrey

Mark R. Fuller Via email: [e-mail]
Daniel R. Beck
Paul L. Fuller
FULLER & BECK
410 Memorial Drive, Suite 201
Idaho Falls, ID 83405