305 P.3d 1152
Wyo.2013Background
- Gosar’s Unlimited, Inc., a private corporation, owns and operates two mobile home parks in Rock Springs and historically paid city water charges and included them in rent.
- In 2000 Gosar’s installed individual water meters on each lot and began billing tenants for water separately, and created an informal billing entity called Gosar’s Unlimited Water Service.
- In 2008 the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) investigated after a tenant complaint and concluded Gosar’s was a "public utility" subject to PSC regulation.
- Gosar’s sought judicial review; the district court affirmed the PSC, concluding Gosar’s furnished metered water "to or for the public" and thus fell within the statutory definition of a public utility.
- Gosar’s appealed, arguing it only served private tenants (not the public) and that PSC treatment violated equal protection; the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and agency fact findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gosar’s is a "public utility" under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-101 and subject to PSC regulation | Gosar’s: not a public utility because it only furnished water to private tenants and historically passed water costs through rent | PSC: statute treats a person who meters or directly sells utility water to tenants as a public utility; statute should be read literally | Court: Held Gosar’s is a public utility — the statutory exemption for tenant water does not apply to metered or direct sales to tenants |
| Whether PSC’s regulation of Gosar’s violates equal protection by treating Gosar’s differently than other mobile home parks | Gosar’s: PSC singled it out while other parks are not regulated | PSC: treatment depends on whether tenants are separately metered; separate metering brings an entity within PSC jurisdiction | Court: Rejected Gosar’s equal protection claim — Gosar’s failed to show disparate treatment of similarly situated entities and rational basis exists (distinction: pass-through in rent vs. separate metering) |
Key Cases Cited
- Krenning v. Heart Mt. Irr. Dist., 200 P.3d 774 (Wyo. 2009) (interpreting scope of "public utility" definition for an irrigation district)
- Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Wyo., 161 P.3d 495 (Wyo. 2007) (statutes should be read in pari materia when construing utility regulation)
- PacifiCorp v. Public Service Comm’n of Wyo., 103 P.3d 862 (Wyo. 2004) (PSC must give paramount consideration to the public interest in regulating utilities)
- Newport Int’l Univ., Inc. v. State, 186 P.3d 382 (Wyo. 2008) (framework for equal protection analysis and levels of scrutiny)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wyo. 2008) (standard — substantial evidence review of agency findings)
- Camilleri v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 244 P.3d 52 (Wyo. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence and de novo review of questions of law)