Docket Number	Docket Name	Company
UW 209	SUNSTONE WATER ET AL REQUEST FOR A GENERAL RATE REVISION	SUNSTONE WATER LLC (DBA HILAND)

Created Date	Comment Type	First Name	Last Name	Comment
1/14/2026 1:47:19 PM	Oppose Docket	William	La Follette	THE REUESTED RATE INCREASE PER ABOVE DOCKE REPRESENTS A 50% INCREASE IN OUR BILL. WHY SO HIGH. WHAT ARE THEY SW LLC GOING TO DO FOR SUCH A HIGH RATE INCREASE? THE PROPOSAL FOR OUR COMMUNITY WESTWOOD VILLAGE GOES FROM $48 TO $70. IS THIS TO IMPROVE QALITY, REDUCE THE SEDIMENT ETC. NO ONE ACTUALLY DRINKS THE WATER IN OUR AREA. i HAD TOO INSTALL AWHOLE HOUSE FILTER TO GET THE QUALITY TO A FIT TO DRINK LEVEL. mY PRE FILTER TURNS BRON AFTER ONLY A SHORT TIME PERIOD. THE LETTER WE RECEIVED DOES NOT INDICATE WHAT THE INCREASE WILL BE USED FOR. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS INCREASE.
1/18/2026 10:14:26 AM	General (Docket-Specific)			I am a customer of the Illahe Water system operated by Sunstone Water, LLC, and I am submitting this public comment regarding the proposed general rate increase. While I recognize that utilities must recover reasonable operating and capital costs, I am concerned that the proposed increase represents a very large percentage increase for customers without corresponding improvements to system reliability, public safety protections, or water quality oversight. The Illahe Water system does not appear to have backup power for its pump or other critical infrastructure. Power outages occur several times per year in this area, and when power is lost, water service is interrupted. As an essential utility, water service should remain available during foreseeable outages. In addition to drinking water and sanitation concerns, the lack of backup power raises serious fire-safety concerns. Continuous water availability is critical during wildfire season and emergency response situations, and interruption of water service during power outages presents a clear public safety risk. I am also requesting that the Commission consider water quality monitoring and transparency as part of this filing. Customers should have confidence that water quality is regularly monitored and independently verified. Municipal systems such as the City of Salem provide routine third-party testing and public reporting, and similar oversight should be expected when private utilities request substantial rate increases. I respectfully request that the Commission closely review whether the proposed rates are reasonable in light of current system performance, and whether approval should be conditioned on: • Required installation of backup power or equivalent reliability measures • Independent third-party water quality testing with regular annual reporting • Demonstrated capital improvements tied to service reliability and safety • Phased-in rate increases rather than immediate, full implementation Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.
1/18/2026 11:29:32 AM	Oppose Docket	Zane	Selbak	This water rate increase of 2X to 4X for 5/8” and 1” residential lines is absurd. The inflation and increases on consumer goods has been hard enough on families the last 5 years, but certainly not double or quadruple the price of essentials in one increase. Water is essential to survival and this money grab of an increase is disgusting. Our neighborhood is very frustrated by the letter and this filing. There should be a limit to annual increases on water rates.
1/19/2026 12:33:16 AM	General Comment			I strongly ask that this request for the exorbitant increase in water fees be denied. Our Illahe water rates increased 90% approximately 5 yrs ago and now they’re asking for an increase from $40.07 to $83.59. I have observed the company employees looking for the same water/sewer lids 5X on our property and each time they were unaware that anyone else had been here, all within a 2 month span. Please look at their proposed increases for each of the different categories and stop it from being approved. It is unreasonable. Thank you for your time. Sue Rende Customer on Illahe water Sent from my iPhone
1/19/2026 12:33:19 AM	General Comment			kanetenpas@packagingcorp.com. Dear PUC, I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed large rate hike for Sunstone Utilities water services. The increase outlined in the January 12th, 2026 notification would place an undue financial burden on residents and businesses who depend on affordable and reliable water access. It is important to prioritize the economic impact on the community rather than the profits of utility providers. Raising rates due to NW Natural’s consolidation of water utilities and their decision to raise rates uniformly across districts seems unfair and potentially unlawful. The Public Utility Commission should protect citizens from such actions. The proposed annual revenue increase of $1,482,941 represents a 57.7% jump. The previous water district, Hiland Water, managed to provide water services while maintaining reasonable costs. Whereas some increase is understandable given rising expenses, a 5% increase would be more reasonable. Proposed hikes exceeding 18% appear excessive and driven by greed. NW Natural acquired these districts fully aware of their financials and now wields more influence than smaller districts had. I urge the commission to carefully consider the consequences of approving this rate hike and explore alternative solutions that balance infrastructure investment with water affordability. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Kane Ten Pas
1/19/2026 1:11:38 PM	Oppose Docket	theresa	Swearingen	We are opposed to the rate increase as asked for by Sunstone Water LLC in the Docket #UW 209. Our water system is Helton Tracts. The OPUC approved a rate increase that started in 2023 under Docket #UW-190. Under this increase rate it was an increase of 57% for 2023 for us. From a flat base to a base plus usage. The request was for Infrastructure upgrades, however when the ice storm hit in 2024 we were out of water for a week, and no water was supplied by the utility. The current request is now for another increase for infrastructure upgrades, resulting in a revenue increase to 51%. However, nowhere in the docket am I seeing estimated cost for repairs. Just listing issues with each system. The increase request should have a timeline and which repairs, and estimated cost of repairs, not just a give them a blank check. In looking over the operating expenses, we see salaries and wages seem a bit high, as we only see 2 employees listed and the rest is outsourced. An increase of 170% for Contract Svs-Mgmt fees??? - over a 1000% increase in Federal income tax, as well as 400% for Oregon income tax. A 51% increase in revenue results in this much increase in taxes???? If granted our water system will increase 17% for just the base rate. We all know prices are going up, and it is hard to keep up with the increases, when wages and Social Security do not. We feel this large increase is unreasonable. Yes, they supply us with water, so what else can we do. We do hope that OPCU takes our concerns and the prior increase for our system into consideration. There needs to be some type of regulation to the % they are allowed to increase the rates to the users.
1/20/2026 1:24:21 PM	Oppose Docket	Dan	Bridges	They are raising rates to pay for acquisition. If they can't afford to pay for the company outright they should not have bought it.
1/23/2026 2:50:23 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Mark	Mendonca	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
1/26/2026 11:53:10 AM	Oppose Docket	Thelma	Hall	We are renters at this current college park address, we have lived here since 2014. Since then our rates have gone from 35.00 (that may not be correct but close) to what we now pay at 62.50 a month. Most of these increases have been in the last 5 years. The last one to 62.50 was to facilitate building a new pump house, if I am remembering correctly. The water has a high level of manganese and causes buildup around the faucets, in the toilet tanks, in the dishwasher, and washing machine. We drink filtered water. Long story short, many increases have not resulted in better water, or service. We have had to boil water twice in the last two or three months and water pressure fluctuation is the norm. Now another increase? How does Sunstone justify another MAJOR increase?
1/26/2026 3:37:15 PM	Oppose Docket	David	Fiskum	In response to the water rate increase proposals imbedded in Oregon Public Utility Commission docket UW 209, I write to express strong opposition to such a huge increase in water costs with no readily apparent documentation. I do so as a representative of a household served by Hiland Water in the Illahe area in Salem, Oregon, which appears now to be part of Sunstone Utilities, or Northwest Natural Water, or both. [However, I add that, in a letter from Sunstone, the name Hiland is not mentioned. Instead, the name Illahe is used in what could be a reference, however inaccurate it is, to Hiland.] As a payor, the proposal creates shock for at least two reasons: • There is no rationale contained in the proposal other than for the new owner of Hiland and about 25 other systems to make more profit. A letter we received from Sunstone says this: “The new rates will increase the utility’s total annual revenues from $2,771,938 to $4, 370,932.” Advocating for more profit is no reason to approve increases in this magnitude. • We understand that Sunstone claims that one rationale for the huge increase is to enable what I would label as “consistency.” The letter from Sunstone puts it this way: “The consolidated Sunstone Utilities are proposing a unified revenue requirement for all of the Utilities based on a consolidated rate base, income statement, and cost of capital.” This applies to all the small systems within Sunstone. Again, consistency is no reason to approve increases, given that each of the involved water systems is so different from any other as they serve various clients in urban and rural areas. As a person who has been involved in Oregon government for more than 40 years, my expectation is that PUC investigators and the three-member Commission will take a hard look at the proposal to make sure that increased rates are rooted in increased expenses of providing water service, not just more profit or the strange word “consistency.” I encourage the hard look. I also would ask that my name be added to the mailing list for those interested in when public hearings on this rate increase proposal are set by the PUC. Thank you for your consideration. David Fiskum 3621 Augusta National Drive South Salem, Oregon 97302 Cell phone: (503) 544-8625 E-mail address: davef@cfmsalem.com
1/28/2026 12:10:46 PM	Oppose Docket	Ryan	Hazelbaker	January 28, 2026 Oregon Public Utility Commission RE: OPUC Docket UW209, Sunstone proposed rate increase Submitted via website Please consider this my response to the proposed water rate increase that is included in the Oregon Public Utility Commission Docket UW209. As a rate payer in the Sunstone/Hiland Utilities region, I am opposed to this dramatic increase in water costs with no definition or documentation to support the increase. It is my understanding that Sunstone Utilities is affiliated with NW Natural, although this has not been made clear in communications to rate payers. This proposed increase has been described as simply to increase profit to the parent company. Sunstone has stated, “The new rates will increase th utility’s total annual revenues from $2,771,938 to $4,370,932.” To propose a rate increase of close to 100% simply for profit (however honestly stated) is not an adequate reason to impose this large of an increase on rate payers. Sunstone has stated they need consistency in their rates across the many small utility companies they have purchased. What has not been stated is any improvements made to services or improvements to rate payers. It is unreasonable to ask rate payers to simply accept an increase of this magnitude simply to increase profits of a parent company who is not investigating any of the actual needs of their rate payers who come from a diverse range of urban and rural areas. We look forward to the Oregon Public Utility Commission investigating this proposal carefully and seeking input from affected rate payers as they weight this proposed. Increases in rates should be related to the expense of providing water service, not simply more profits. Please keep me updated on the public hearings on this rate increase as they are scheduled by the PUC. Thank you for your consideration Ryan Hazelbaker 3562 Augusta National Drive S Salem OR 97302 Email: ryanhazelbaker5@gmail.com Mobile: 503.559.4481
1/29/2026 12:33:53 AM	General Comment			Good afternoon, In response to the water rate increase proposals imbedded in Oregon Public Utility Commission docket UW 209, I write to express strong opposition to such a huge increase in water costs with no readily apparent documentation. I do so as a representative of a household served by Hiland Water in the Illahe area in Salem, Oregon, which appears now to be part of Sunstone Utilities, or Northwest Natural Water, or both. However, I add that, in a letter from Sunstone, the name Hiland is not mentioned. Instead, the name Illahe is used in what could be a reference, however inaccurate it is, to Hiland. As a payor, the proposal creates shock for at least two reasons: * There is no rationale contained in the proposal other than for the new owner of Hiland and about 25 other systems to make more profit. A letter we received from Sunstone says this: “The new rates will increase the utility’s total annual revenues from $2,771,938 to $4, 370,932.” Advocating for more profit is no reason to approve increases in this magnitude. * I understand that Sunstone claims that one rationale for the huge increase is to enable what I would label as “consistency.” The letter from Sunstone puts it this way: “The consolidated Sunstone Utilities are proposing a unified revenue requirement for all of the Utilities based on a consolidated rate base, income statement, and cost of capital.” This applies to all the small systems within Sunstone. Again, consistency is no reason to approve increases, given that each of the involved water systems is so different from any other as they serve various clients in urban and rural areas. As a person who has been involved in Oregon government for more than 40 years, my expectation is that PUC investigators and the three-member Commission will take a hard look at the proposal to make sure that increased rates are rooted in increased expenses of providing water service, not just more profit or the strange word “consistency.” I encourage the hard look. I also would ask that my name be added to the mailing list for those interested in when public hearings on this rate increase proposal are set by the PUC. Thank you for your consideration. Dave ***************** David Fiskum 3621 Augusta National Drive South Salem, Oregon 97302 Cell phone: (503) 544-8625 E-mail address: davef@cfmsalem.com
1/29/2026 12:33:55 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, I am a Sunstone Utility - Illahe Water customer. They have requested a rate change to consolidate their rate schedules. This increase will more than double our rates and should not be granted. The level of increase to our rates is not fair and reasonable. Thank you for your consideration, Ann Emry 3854 St. Andrews Loop S. Salem, OR 97302
2/2/2026 5:19:20 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Jerry	Hubbard	A recent mailing from Northwest Natural Water, owner of Sunstone Water, owner of previous Hiland Water, has indicated they are applying for a rate adjustment on their water delivery. As a home owner at Illahe Hills, previously under Hiland Water, the only upgrade planned is an installation of a back up generator to supply water pressure in the event of a power outage. The filers indicate they would like an average 51% increase in the water rates, but our rates buried in the proposal would increase 400-500%. Additionally, the filers indicate there have been times of elevated lead levels in our water, without an indication of how this might be ameliorated in the future. I wish to draw the PUC's attention to these matters. Respectfully, Jerry L. Hubbard, 3361 El Dorado Loop S, Salem, OR 97302 Cell 503-569-2048
2/3/2026 12:33:37 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, I am a Sunstone Utility - Illahe Water customer. They have requested a rate change to consolidate their rate schedules. This increase will more than double our rates and should not be granted. The level of increase to our rates is not fair and reasonable. It is very difficult to understand why such a steep increase is requested by Sunstone Utility. Thank you for your consideration, Denise Croy 3542 Deerfield Ct S Salem, OR. 97302
2/6/2026 12:33:10 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, My family and I are Sunstone Utility - Illahe Water customers. Sunstone has requested a rate increase, which we believe is entirely unreasonable and unrelated to their actual operating cost for providing water to its customers. The request appears to have been based on the costs of not only providing water to its customers, but surely providing a return on the purchase price paid to the acquired water company, Illahe Water in our case, along with many other smaller water companies. Our rates should not be dependent on costs related to any acquisition premium that the current owner has paid to acquire our water system. We have no choices for other providers. The utility operator/owner has a monopoly with customers who have no choice in providers. We depend on the PUC to protect customers and to assure fairness of rates. On behalf of our family and fellow customers, I respectfully urge the PUC to set the water rates based on the actual costs of operating the specific water system involved without any consideration of acquisition premiums that were paid by the current owners of the various water systems involved in this case. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jim and Chane Griggs 3896 St. Andrews Lp S Salem OR 97302 https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif Virus-free.www.avast.com
2/9/2026 4:37:14 PM	Oppose Docket	Lorne	Yudcovitch	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
2/11/2026 6:16:49 PM	Oppose Docket	James	DeCamp	Dear PUC Commissioners, I’m a customer of Salmon Valley—soon Sunstone Water—in Welches, zip 97067. Back in 2023 they hit us with a nearly 100% rate jump. Bills doubled overnight. They promised every cent would clear the rust out—yet I occasionally still get brown water, and many neighbors have it way worse, day after day. That’s ridiculous. It’s under two years since the last one, and Oregon’s HB 3179—the FAIR Energy Act—flat-out warns against this churn. PGE pulled 18% then 16% quick; you dialed it back after folks yelled. Do it again. Prove it: where did the 2023 money actually go? If the pipes and treatment aren’t fixed after that cash infusion, approving another hike just rewards failure. And let’s be real—there’s a ton of short-term rentals up here. They won’t complain about thirty percent more, but we locals do. We pay on time, we drink the water, we fix the toilets. Please deny this request outright. Thanks for reading. I’ll be watching the hearing if you set one. Jim DeCamp
2/12/2026 4:37:54 PM	Oppose Docket	marie	lauterbach	This again ? Seriously ? We just spent over 4 thousand dollars for a entire home filtration system because our water is so bad (i have pictures and receipts) My husband and I have been very vocal about the "Quality" of this water , In 64 years of my life I have never lived in an area where the water was so bad, 8 states between my husband and I . This home was built in 2017 , since then we have had 2 water heaters , changed out all of our faucets , the kitchen 3 times and our washer new in 2017 and the shower heads because of this horrible water. And my husband had kidney cancer and has dementia , High Manganese and other stuff in this toxic water , also three dogs had mast cell cancer , one died . You said ya bought a new truck last time, I live up here I don't see no new truck , a new computer system that apparently can't notify its customers of anything going on with the water. And as I can see on documents one well has an unfixed crack and another sits on a well fertilized Golf course. And we pay the taxes for these companies. You know what I see ? Money being raised to acquire more companies for control of the water , That's what you want instead of providing decent water , this isn't safe . We won't drink it or cook with it . I've had to go to my Dr for a rash that comes and goes. It just doesn't look bad it IS bad. Also every time you go out of compliance you they don't release past records when they go back in compliance the fine is paid and none of us know why. Also your clean water report on the website is from 2024 its now 2026 just a reminder . I seriously remember in times past where the PUC stuck up for citizens , apparently everything has a price . We've paid ours . I oppose this
2/12/2026 4:42:54 PM	Oppose Docket	marie	lauterbach	This again ? Seriously ? We just spent over 4 thousand dollars for a entire home filtration system because our water is so bad (i have pictures and receipts) My husband and I have been very vocal about the "Quality" of this water , In 64 years of my life I have never lived in an area where the water was so bad, 8 states between my husband and I . This home was built in 2017 , since then we have had 2 water heaters , changed out all of our faucets , the kitchen 3 times and our washer new in 2017 and the shower heads because of this horrible water. And my husband had kidney cancer and has dementia , High Manganese and other stuff in this toxic water , also three dogs had mast cell cancer , one died . You said ya bought a new truck last time, I live up here I don't see no new truck , a new computer system that apparently can't notify its customers of anything going on with the water. And as I can see on documents one well has an unfixed crack and another sits on a well fertilized Golf course. And we pay the taxes for these companies. You know what I see ? Money being raised to acquire more companies for control of the water , That's what you want instead of providing decent water , this isn't safe . We won't drink it or cook with it . I've had to go to my Dr for a rash that comes and goes. It just doesn't look bad it IS bad. Also every time you go out of compliance you they don't release past records when they go back in compliance the fine is paid and none of us know why. Also your clean water report on the website is from 2024 its now 2026 just a reminder . I seriously remember in times past where the PUC stuck up for citizens , apparently everything has a price . We've paid ours . I oppose this
2/13/2026 7:26:16 AM	Oppose Docket	James	Robinson	Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposed water rate increase by NW Natural Water or Salmon Valley Water Company. A 100% rate increase—particularly on the heels of a previous increase of similar magnitude—is unreasonable, unsustainable, and deeply harmful to the residents who depend on these services. Water is an essential, nonoptional utility. Residents cannot reduce or eliminate usage to offset dramatic cost hikes. Many households, including seniors, disabled residents, and others living on fixed incomes, are already struggling to keep up with rising costs of living. Groceries, housing, insurance premiums, and energy rates have all increased exponentially in recent years. Adding another steep water rate increase would further strain families and seniors who simply cannot absorb additional financial pressure. A doubling of rates once is difficult; a second doubling in such a short period is outrageous and grossly disproportionate to the service provided. Customers have not seen improvements in infrastructure, service reliability, water quality, or customer support that would justify such an extreme jump. These increases appear to place corporate financial goals above community well-being. And may I add that the water provided is regularly substandard and may not meet health standards. The water company must stop blaming the Hoodland Fire Department for delivering a brown, sediment-laden, appliance- and household-item-damaging commodity. Not to mention the potential health issues. I urge the Commission to reject this proposed rate increase and to conduct a thorough review of NW Natural Water’s and Salmon Valley Water’s financial justification and operational practices. Although private companies, NWN and SVWCo, provide utilities to the public and must remain accountable, transparent, and fair—especially when ratepayers have no alternative provider. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important matter. I respectfully request that the Commission prioritize the needs of Oregon residents and protect us from excessive and unjustified rate hikes. Sincerely, James Robinson – Welches
2/13/2026 7:32:08 AM	Oppose Docket	James	Robinson	Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposed water rate increase by NW Natural Water or Salmon Valley Water Company. A 100% rate increase—particularly on the heels of a previous increase of similar magnitude—is unreasonable, unsustainable, and deeply harmful to the residents who depend on these services. Water is an essential, nonoptional utility. Residents cannot reduce or eliminate usage to offset dramatic cost hikes. Many households, including seniors, disabled residents, and others living on fixed incomes, are already struggling to keep up with rising costs of living. Groceries, housing, insurance premiums, and energy rates have all increased exponentially in recent years. Adding another steep water rate increase would further strain families and seniors who simply cannot absorb additional financial pressure. A doubling of rates once is difficult; a second doubling in such a short period is outrageous and grossly disproportionate to the service provided. Customers have not seen improvements in infrastructure, service reliability, water quality, or customer support that would justify such an extreme jump. These increases appear to place corporate financial goals above community well-being. And may I add that the water provided is regularly substandard and may not meet health standards. The water company must stop blaming the Hoodland Fire Department for delivering a brown, sediment-laden, appliance- and household-item-damaging commodity. Not to mention the potential health issues. I urge the Commission to reject this proposed rate increase and to conduct a thorough review of NW Natural Water’s and Salmon Valley Water’s financial justification and operational practices. Although private companies, NWN and SVWCo, provide utilities to the public and must remain accountable, transparent, and fair—especially when ratepayers have no alternative provider. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important matter. I respectfully request that the Commission prioritize the needs of Oregon residents and protect us from excessive and unjustified rate hikes. Sincerely, James Robinson – Welches
2/13/2026 8:21:41 AM	General Comment	Douglas	Saldivar	NW Water DBA Salmon Valley Water has not realized its promises to our community to drill a new well that could rid our community of the high iron content water we currently receive. I understand that businesses need a reasonable profit for providing their service/product. However, all businesses also has an obligation to furnish a quality product. If Salmon Valley Water were not a monopoly in our community, it would not be in business. Any rate increase granted to Salmon Valley must include an order from the PUC that they improve the quality of their water. This could mean a new well or perhaps water filters on our meters. Filters could be inspected or cleaned during the meter reading process. The iron rings around our toilets, sinks and other appliances are detrimental to the value of our homes. Salmon Valley Water must improve water quality as a condition for any rate increase.
2/13/2026 9:04:20 AM	General Comment	MISTY	Allen	Public Comment – Docket UW 209 I live in the Cedars community in Welches, Oregon. My name is Misty Allen, and my husband, Cary Allen, is a disabled U.S. Army veteran. Like many people in our community, we live on a limited and carefully managed household budget. The Cedars is largely made up of retired residents, seniors, and working families who do not have large or flexible incomes. The proposed increase in Docket UW 209 would create a serious financial burden for our household and for many of our neighbors. A base charge of $100 per month for a standard residential meter, with no water usage included, combined with significantly higher usage rates, makes basic water service increasingly unaffordable for a small rural community like ours. For a typical two-person household using approximately 4,000 gallons per month, the bill would increase by about $50 per month. For retirees and fixed-income households in particular, this is not a small increase — it directly affects our ability to pay for basic necessities. I respectfully ask the Commission to carefully consider the affordability impacts of this proposal on retired residents, veterans, and working families in the Cedars community, and to determine whether there are more reasonable and balanced alternatives before approving such a large increase. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment. Misty Allen Welches, Oregon
2/13/2026 9:06:26 AM	Oppose Docket	James	Winchester	I strongly oppose these rate changes. How at a time like this when so many of us on fixed incomes such as the elderly, are we able afford this? It was hard paying the amount we pay now and you want to almost double the price for water??? This will have a very negative effect on whole communities without improving our water quality one bit. DON’T ALLOW THIS INCREASE
2/13/2026 12:01:00 PM	General Comment	Clair	Jones	Our Water bill now is $85 per month. Please consider another $50 raise is going to stretch budgets to the breaking Point. Thank you
2/13/2026 12:26:37 PM	General Comment	Carla	Allen	As a gold star spouse, these rates that keep going up is a real burden on my budget. We do not get raises to match all the rates that keep going up. This water company just got two rate raises in as many years. When does it end?
2/13/2026 1:45:37 PM	General Comment	Jordan	Landstrom	My family and I currently are serviced by Salmon Valley Water Company and have been notified of an approximately 50% rate hike after a 100% rate hike in 2003. This rate hike would place my family and I at extreme risk of being forced out of our house do to cost. The current service provided by Salmon Valley has already placed my family at health risk as they have been routinely servicing brown dirty water to my house. I have already had to invest in an extra filter to insure my kids do not get sick. The water that they are providing has also run the risk of damaging water appliances due to the high dirt content. I do not understand how this company can justify a rate increase when they are not providing proper services with the rate we pay.
2/14/2026 12:06:41 PM	General Comment	Cynthia	Dove	Salmon valley delivers terrible, dirty water in many areas where I live ( Welches, OR.) We already had a rate increase last year, and now we are going to have another one?
2/15/2026 9:14:00 AM	Oppose Docket	David	Winchester	I oppose any rate changes for our water service!
2/15/2026 9:14:02 AM	Oppose Docket	David	Winchester	I oppose any rate changes for our water service!
2/18/2026 10:59:15 AM	General Comment	Cordelia	Carrick	Our rates have increased from 30 to 40 to $62 monthly. Are they requesting even higher rates? When rates were raised to 62, the company promised that the rate increase was to improve water quality. They said that they would install a system to reduce the exceedingly high manganese levels. This has not been done so far as I know. We cannot fully use our water. We have to use bottled water to drink and cook. Our laundry cannot be bleached to reduce germs because the manganese turns clothes and the washing machine brown. As a diabetic, germs are dangerous to my health and other laundry sanitizers cause allergic symptoms. The repetitive flushing programs to reduce manganese deposits in the pipes cause my son great distress because he is autistic and loss of water is one of his biggest fears.
2/19/2026 12:33:25 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, We are a Sunstone Utility - Illahe Water customer. They have requested a rate change to consolidate their rate schedules. This increase will more than double our rates and should not be granted. The level of increase to our rates is not fair and reasonable. Thank you for your consideration, Tim and Pamela Ewing 3480 Prestwick Ct. S Salem, Oregon 97302
2/22/2026 6:28:07 PM	General Comment	Shawn	Delay	It is extremely difficult to accept a rate hike when there are ongoing issues of water quality, availability and lack of communication. For example over the past five months we have experienced ongoing issues with our well that have required major changes to our life. The water was so high in iron that it was orange coming out of our faucets. The company was not believing customers in the neighborhood or myself calling in to inform them of the problem. I had to send pictures to them showing the orange unfiltered water in a bucket and the cloudy yellow water of our filtered inside water. At which point, they finally sent someone out to fix it. At the time, I could not believe this was happening. How is it that a company is requiring a customer to prove there is an issue, why does it take pictures of customer water complaints to prove there is a problem, versus them checking it and using data to say it is safe? Then, after they quote “fixed it,” they did not take us off a water boil even after we had repeated calls to check in. Each time they said they would do research to find out what was going on, and each time they did not return our call or call off the water boil. It took until after there was another issue with water quality, a power outage that required a repair and that event invoking a quote "water boil alert" for them to test the water again and remove the “water boil.” Thus indicating they are not actually monitoring our system on a routine basis, even in a follow up manner. All told we had a water boil in effect for over 4 weeks around and including Thanksgiving and Christmas. Events like these are routinely happening. We are buying our actual drinking water again. As I type this, in less than three months, our water is currently back in the same state of orange and cloudy it was just months ago. I fully understand there may be a need to raise rates to improve quality and service. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is the case. This appears to be some type of financial engineering. The company has been sold and this seems like a way for the books to be balanced because of a sale. The rate hike does not appear to be in order to address our quality problems. If I thought for one moment the rate hike was to improve the water, I might be inclined to support this hike. However, I do not believe the company wants to improve the water or supply better service. At the same time, I do not believe this company understands a customer's view of a rate hike again for the second time in recent history. There was no improvement in quality in the past. Since that sale we have seen only a decrease in quality and worsened service. This coupling of trending downward water quality and worsened service to a recent past rate hike seems very much like financial window dressing for Sunstone Water. For a customer to grasp the need to raise rates would require transparency on the improvement to the system and water. Customers need clear communication, quality service, and safe water, not unexplained rate hikes. If the Oregon Public Utility Commission approves this request it will be at the expense of the customers, so Sunstone can enhance their profit margin.
2/22/2026 7:20:19 PM	General Comment	Brian	Lauterbach	Concerning UW 209 filing document and information therein: The Consolidated Sunstone Utilities are seeking the above increases in rates because current revenues are insufficient to cover the ongoing cost of continuing to provide safe, reliable and adequate service while allowing an opportunity for a reasonable return. They do give us safe and healthy water. My wife Marie and I have been complaining about this situation, and Salmon Valley Water, for almost a decade. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Salmon Valley Water, in the UW 209 filing, is the only company NOT listed at the NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Salmon Valley currently employs two full-time and 0 part-time employees. The other companies listed have no full time employees. I went through the UW 209 document, and this is what I found. Page 1. Why is Salmon Valley Water included in Sunstone Utilities? It is not. Why is the proposed rate increase so high, especially for SVW? Page 3. A 51% percent increase in revenue is exorbitant, especially for SVW. Page 4. Salmon Valley water only company listed not NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Why is this? Page 7. In their proposal on page 7 question 13 and 14. It gives the rate of return they are seeking for their shareholders. Question 10 list the increase they are seeking; $1,482941. The 7.864% is multiplies by the utility base rate of $13,344,091 = $1,044,379 or 70%. So 70% of our increase isn't even going for plant operations or improvements, it's going to NW Natural and their shareholders. Why is so little put towards the waler companies? Page 10, Operating Revenues for this filing include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Why has this been done and has a 51%increase? Page 11. Operating expenses increases are low compared to revenue increases asked for. Why is this? Could it be that the vast majority of the Revenue increase requested is going to the NW Natural Shareholders? Page 13. UTILITY CURRENT RATES AND SCHEDULES. Do these figues include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC.? They are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 16. Utility plant documentation is not itemized and for this filing. Do they include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 18. Utility plant documentation . Does this include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 21. Sunstone letter giving notice of PUC filing. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 25 New base rate for Salmon Valley Water. Almost 100% increase in base rate and 30% increase in usage rate. Why is this so much higher that other NW Natural Companies? And why is it listed as Sunstone Water, LLC? Salmon Valley Water not part of Sunstone Water, LLC. Page 60. Matthew Rowell states that Lakeshore Water, Seavey Loop Water, South Coast Water and Salmon Valley Water are currently separate legal entities and are owned by NWN Water. Not part of Sunstone. Why is this not admitted in the first place? Page 61. Overview of Systems show that Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities. Page 62. Recovering investments of this nature from small utilities is a challenge that the Consolidated Sunstone Utilities’ rate consolidation proposal is designed to address. Does this refer also to Stockholder profit that the asked-for increased revenue (70)% goes to? Page 66. An adjustment of $4,211 was made to increase Pension and Benefits expense to account for increases in health insurance costs faced by NWN Water. This is applicable to the two employees who currently work directly for Salmon Valley Water. Why is Salmon Valley Water singled out like this? Aren’t they part of Sunstone? No, they are not. EVERYBODY e
2/22/2026 7:27:00 PM	General Comment	Brian	Lauterbach	Concerning UW 209 filing document and information therein: The Consolidated Sunstone Utilities are seeking the above increases in rates because current revenues are insufficient to cover the ongoing cost of continuing to provide safe, reliable and adequate service while allowing an opportunity for a reasonable return. They do give us safe and healthy water. My wife Marie and I have been complaining about this situation, and Salmon Valley Water, for almost a decade. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Salmon Valley Water, in the UW 209 filing, is the only company NOT listed at the NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Salmon Valley currently employs two full-time and 0 part-time employees. The other companies listed have no full time employees. I went through the UW 209 document, and this is what I found. Page 1. Why is Salmon Valley Water included in Sunstone Utilities? It is not. Why is the proposed rate increase so high, especially for SVW? Page 3. A 51% percent increase in revenue is exorbitant, especially for SVW. Page 4. Salmon Valley water only company listed not NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Why is this? Page 7. In their proposal on page 7 question 13 and 14. It gives the rate of return they are seeking for their shareholders. Question 10 list the increase they are seeking; $1,482941. The 7.864% is multiplies by the utility base rate of $13,344,091 = $1,044,379 or 70%. So 70% of our increase isn't even going for plant operations or improvements, it's going to NW Natural and their shareholders. Why is so little put towards the waler companies? Page 10, Operating Revenues for this filing include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Why has this been done and has a 51%increase? Page 11. Operating expenses increases are low compared to revenue increases asked for. Why is this? Could it be that the vast majority of the Revenue increase requested is going to the NW Natural Shareholders? Page 13. UTILITY CURRENT RATES AND SCHEDULES. Do these figues include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC.? They are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 16. Utility plant documentation is not itemized and for this filing. Do they include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 18. Utility plant documentation . Does this include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 21. Sunstone letter giving notice of PUC filing. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 25 New base rate for Salmon Valley Water. Almost 100% increase in base rate and 30% increase in usage rate. Why is this so much higher that other NW Natural Companies? And why is it listed as Sunstone Water, LLC? Salmon Valley Water not part of Sunstone Water, LLC. Page 60. Matthew Rowell states that Lakeshore Water, Seavey Loop Water, South Coast Water and Salmon Valley Water are currently separate legal entities and are owned by NWN Water. Not part of Sunstone. Why is this not admitted in the first place? Page 61. Overview of Systems show that Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities. Page 62. Recovering investments of this nature from small utilities is a challenge that the Consolidated Sunstone Utilities’ rate consolidation proposal is designed to address. Does this refer also to Stockholder profit that the asked-for increased revenue (70)% goes to? Page 66. An adjustment of $4,211 was made to increase Pension and Benefits expense to account for increases in health insurance costs faced by NWN Water. This is applicable to the two employees who currently work directly for Salmon Valley Water. Why is Salmon Valley Water singled out like this? Aren’t they part of Sunstone? No, they are not. EVERYBODY e
2/22/2026 7:27:33 PM	General Comment	Brian	Lauterbach	Concerning UW 209 filing document and information therein: The Consolidated Sunstone Utilities are seeking the above increases in rates because current revenues are insufficient to cover the ongoing cost of continuing to provide safe, reliable and adequate service while allowing an opportunity for a reasonable return. They do give us safe and healthy water. My wife Marie and I have been complaining about this situation, and Salmon Valley Water, for almost a decade. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Salmon Valley Water, in the UW 209 filing, is the only company NOT listed at the NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Salmon Valley currently employs two full-time and 0 part-time employees. The other companies listed have no full time employees. I went through the UW 209 document, and this is what I found. Page 1. Why is Salmon Valley Water included in Sunstone Utilities? It is not. Why is the proposed rate increase so high, especially for SVW? Page 3. A 51% percent increase in revenue is exorbitant, especially for SVW. Page 4. Salmon Valley water only company listed not NW Natural Water address in Portland in this document. Why is this? Page 7. In their proposal on page 7 question 13 and 14. It gives the rate of return they are seeking for their shareholders. Question 10 list the increase they are seeking; $1,482941. The 7.864% is multiplies by the utility base rate of $13,344,091 = $1,044,379 or 70%. So 70% of our increase isn't even going for plant operations or improvements, it's going to NW Natural and their shareholders. Why is so little put towards the waler companies? Page 10, Operating Revenues for this filing include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209. Why has this been done and has a 51%increase? Page 11. Operating expenses increases are low compared to revenue increases asked for. Why is this? Could it be that the vast majority of the Revenue increase requested is going to the NW Natural Shareholders? Page 13. UTILITY CURRENT RATES AND SCHEDULES. Do these figues include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC.? They are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 16. Utility plant documentation is not itemized and for this filing. Do they include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 18. Utility plant documentation . Does this include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time? Page 21. Sunstone letter giving notice of PUC filing. Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 25 New base rate for Salmon Valley Water. Almost 100% increase in base rate and 30% increase in usage rate. Why is this so much higher that other NW Natural Companies? And why is it listed as Sunstone Water, LLC? Salmon Valley Water not part of Sunstone Water, LLC. Page 60. Matthew Rowell states that Lakeshore Water, Seavey Loop Water, South Coast Water and Salmon Valley Water are currently separate legal entities and are owned by NWN Water. Not part of Sunstone. Why is this not admitted in the first place? Page 61. Overview of Systems show that Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC that are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities. Page 62. Recovering investments of this nature from small utilities is a challenge that the Consolidated Sunstone Utilities’ rate consolidation proposal is designed to address. Does this refer also to Stockholder profit that the asked-for increased revenue (70)% goes to? Page 66. An adjustment of $4,211 was made to increase Pension and Benefits expense to account for increases in health insurance costs faced by NWN Water. This is applicable to the two employees who currently work directly for Salmon Valley Water. Why is Salmon Valley Water singled out like this? Aren’t they part of Sunstone? No, they are not. EVERYBODY e
2/22/2026 7:32:53 PM	General Comment	Brian	Lauterbach	To Continue: Page 96. Plant in Service figures probably include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209, which has been noted in this filing that they are NOT part of Sunstone. Page 97-98. Plant in Service and Depreciation Summary figures include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209, which has been noted in this filing that they are NOT part of Sunstone. Page 113. Impact of Proposed Rates Summary show the horrendous increase for Salmon Valley customers, and others; significantly up from the rate increase less than 3 years ago. Page 114-116 Bill Impact of Proposed Rates shows increased rates for customers including Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Any financial or other information is, in fact, in error concerning the filed document submitted for UW 209, which has been noted in this filing that they are NOT part of Sunstone. Page 121=123. Jeffrey J. Olson states HE is the General Manager for Sunstone Water, LLC (“Sunstone Water”), Salmon Valley Water Company (“Salmon Valley Water”)( The Company website states that Michael Bowman is the General Manager), (“South Coast Water”) (collectively, the “Consolidated Sunstone 10 Utilities”). As noted, Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are NOT part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. This is in the UW 209 filing document in testimony to the PUC. Mr. Olson states this again on page 123, as well as his testimony being factual. It is not. Page 124. Mr. Olson states that States that Salmon Valley Water is part of Consolidated Sunstone Utilities. Not according to prior information and testimony. Page 147. Consolidated Sunstone financials page include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 149. Pumped amount of water page include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 152. Type of water generation systems include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 154. Include water storage information include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 156. Filtration of systems include Salmon Valley Water, Lakeshore Water Company, LLC, Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC, and South Coast Water Company, LLC, which are not part of Sunstone Water LLC/Consolidated Sunstone Utilities at this time. Page 158=160 . Salmon Valley Customer Complaints have been around water quality, specifically around discolorized water. And the water is Still unhealthy. Since 2017. Many of the other companies report the same. Also states that: Operators are often dispatched to verify water quality and evaluate test results. Customers are given test result information and assured of the water quality and safety. Further, customers are educated on primary and secondary contaminant levels required by federal law and encouraged to ask for better treatment installations to remove secondary contaminants, whether it be at the community level, management, or with the Public Utility Commission rate case. That is a lie, We have asked for a residential water test since 2018, and have been IGNORED. Page 163. Salmon Valley wants to evaluate a water right adjustment to allow the utility to pump more water from the ONLY filtered, treated well year-round. THE other pumps are un-treated. Many, many errors and outright falsehoods in this filing. It should be dismissed with prejudice. I oppose this unfair and deceptive rate increase as a Corporate money maker anti-trust mechanism to acquire more and more water companies to eventually own ALL the water in this State of Oregon. The PUC, unfortunately, is facilitating
2/23/2026 1:43:39 AM	Oppose Docket	Peter	West	I don't support the rate increase. The community isn't getting what they are paying for up here. The rates have tripled already from the last rate increase and now just a few years later it'll go well over $100 for only water. Please investigate this company's history of negligence. There are people whose water is undrinkable and spending thousands for filtration systems. For me it does leave quite a bit of sediment in my hot water tank, that I need to stay on top of more frequently than should be needed. I have had issues with this company in the past and PUC helped with them charging me the wrong unit of measure with their new meter install. During the big freeze in early 2024, my pipe burst and my water wouldn't shut off and their emergency number is a third party number that relays the message that isn't available 24/7 or I guess it is, but the water company wont respond until they open. There were supposed to be improvements I believe from the last rate increase, but I haven't seen any. There for I fear more of the same...more broken promises and just giving insane pay boosts to people sitting in chairs. This rate increase doesn't correlate with inflation either. The monthly payments for other bills are going up and we shouldn't have to pay so much for water only.
2/24/2026 9:28:00 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Greg	Chandler	NOTE: This comment was submitted via email and exceeded our public comment system’s character limit of 10,000. A full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
2/24/2026 9:31:33 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Barbara	Monroe	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
2/24/2026 1:48:11 PM	General Comment	Stacey	Hyland	I received my notice of a hike increase. I thought it was somewhat deceptive that the percentage of increase was not included. According to my calculations I believe it is about a 27% increase. Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand increases are necessary but this is a huge increase at one time. I would like it to be considered to do this over a period of time not all at once. This allow those on fixed incomes or working people to be able to adjust with increasing income. I ask this to be taking into consideration.
2/24/2026 3:01:26 PM	General Comment	Todd	Ellis	Public Comment of proposed Utility rate change. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed rate increase. I am a resident of Welches, Oregon and a customer of Salmon Valley Water. After reviewing the application materials, I have a couple concerns I’d like to express and explain. 1) This application is seeking a total revenue increase of $1,482,941 and a rate of return for their investors of 7.864%. While they state this is based on cost of equity (10%) and cost of debt (4.66%) it doesn’t identify those two numerical values. The values may appear in the application, but it’s not obvious to the public. On page 13 of Matthew Rowell’s testimony he states Sunstone is 100% equity capital, which carries no debt. This may mean something to an expert, but when I read Sunstone carries no debt, I assume there is no debt. If there is debt, it should clearly identify the amount of debt and who is carrying that debt. This should be explained in detail and a new public comment period offered that affords an opportunity to have meaningful input. My fear is the entire $1,482,941 is going to this rate of return. Increases of this amount should only be entertained if the money is going toward capital expenditures like aging infrastructure that is mentioned numerous times in the application. I’m sure that application will be coming in the next couple years. 2) In several places in the application it states a rate of return is needed to attract investors. NW Natural holdings is a publicly traded entity that doesn’t “attract” investors, it has 43 million stockholders that each share currently receives $2/year - worth 86 million. NW Natural doesn’t profit or lose when shares are sold between stockholders. NW Natural made money on the initial IPO. What it does gain is value from the overall increase in market capitalization and control over the subsidiary's operational profits. Customers should not be paying higher rates to attract “investors” or pay stockholders. 3) In their calculations on page 9 of 17, under “other revenue deductions” account # 403, the depreciation expense is $644,266, with an adjusted value of $821,218. Depreciation is an accounting method used primarily for tax deductions from income, reducing tax obligations. This deduction should not be used when evaluating actual cost incurred, because it does not involve an actual cash outflow for the company like the other items do. This should be removed and new calculations submitted. This depreciation expense appears again in calculations in exhibit 103. 4) I would like to know why in the Salmon Valley Water applications submitted on 9-30-2020 and 2-27-2023, it was stated that there are 859 customers (2020) and 900 customers (2023). However, in this submission there are 674 “connections.” I understand a connection is a physical hookup at a property line and a customer is an entity responsible for paying for the water (which could own multiple connections). So how do you get more customers than connections? I’m assuming customers/connections have some significance in setting base rate (again, no calculations identified). By using customers it would add to the denominator and decrease the base rate. 5) If this proposed merger is approved, why are there three (3) rate schedules? The explanation I found said it’s because all would experience a 51% increase. That makes no sense when the largest number of “connections” are found in Schedule 3. Following that logic, Salmon Valley Water will pay disproportionate increases every time the rate is increased. And if we’re trying to level the playing field, if this proposal goes through as is, Salmon Valley Water “connections” will have incurred a 400% increase on base rate since 2022 ($20.23, $53, and $100 (proposed)). Additionally, the Salmon Valley Water water usage rate tripled from what customers paid in 2022. I could not find rate increases for any of the other water systems included in the merger in the last five (5) years. It seems for this and moving forward, if we all paid (in dollars) the same rate it would be more equitable. There is no differentiation in services or maintenance between the three; therefore, the cost structure should follow suit. 6) For future fillings all references within Q & A testimony should include page citations. This would significantly improve transparency and allow meaningful public review. 7) All water systems in Oregon have the same infrastructure and replacement issues whether they are government- or privately-owned. The economies of scale afford little benefit for water systems. This is a limited comparison of very different populations and their base rates based on city, base rate, miles of pipe in system, population per mile of pipe, and operator. Portland $24.6, 2,250 miles of pipe, 333 people per mile of pipe, city run; Salem $20.07, 420 mile of pipe, 514 people per mile, privately run; Welches ,$100 (proposed), 12 mile of pipe,
2/24/2026 4:50:39 PM	General Comment	Laura	Waterman	283% Residential Water Rate Increase Is Too Much I live in a condo in the Illahe Hills neighborhood off south River Road in Salem. Residents of our condo HOA were informed that NW Natural Water Co.,(NWNW) acquired the Illahe area water utility, Hiland Water, as well as several other small water utilities (rural and urban). And now NWNW has filed for approval from the OPUC to substantially increase water rates for the residents and businesses in all those areas. I’ve read over the NWNW application to the OPUC. I’m concerned about the proposed rate increases, specifically in the Illahe area where I live. NWNW is requesting an 283% increase per household for residents in our condo units as well as all the other residents in the Illahe neighborhoods that were previously getting water from Hiland Water. That’s too much to absorb. Our condo HOA fees are already high and if this is approved, they will go sky-high in order to afford the water to going to our condo units. For OPUC reference the Illahe water system is now under the name SUNSTONE WATER, LLC. Residential lines are 1” to our condo units. Consolidated Sunstone Utilities/109 Rowell/Page 1 Exhibit Bill Impact of Proposed Rates Detail Page 1 Illahe Line Size Current Monthly Bill Proposed Monthly Bill % Increase 1” 52.59 201.47 283% The above referenced graph in NWNW’s application shows a very different and much higher monthly bill increase than what was stated on the first page of their cover letter, which states: “The monthly bill of the average residential customer served in Rate Schedule 1 will increase from $76.01 per month to $126.43; Rate Schedule 2 will increase from $93.52 per month to $109.26; Rate Schedule 3 will increase from $67.83 per month to $77.31; and Flat Rate Customers will increase from $52.00 per month to $76.23.” My Questions/comments: • The proposed 283% rate increase for Illahe area residents is extraordinarily high. Why? • Why are the monthly bill increases shown in the Exhibit Bill graph so different than what’s stated in their cover letter? • In the application, it appears that the Illahe area has the highest water usage, but the lowest revenue. That seems very odd. Why? • Are the rates going up just because NWNW acquired several small water system and now the residents are being asked to subsidize their employees and share other repairs and upgrade costs? • The information in the application indicates that the Illahe area water tanks are rated “good”. Are we having to pay for improvements that don’t directly benefit us? • Doesn’t the OPUC limit the amount of residential rate increases a water utility can impose over a specific time? • As a resident for several years in the Illahe neighborhood, I have had no water issues, not even during power outages, and have appreciated good service from Hiland Water. Hiland’s rates over the years have seemed reasonable and affordable. This proposed gigantic jump in rates, if approved will most definitely affect our HOA’s budget requiring a substantial member dues increase, impacting my household budget. • I ask that the OPUC please consider greatly reducing the rate increase proposed by NWNW. Thank you,
2/24/2026 5:20:32 PM	Oppose Docket	Rod	Jones	We are very shocked at the outrageous request by Sunstone/NW Natural Water to raise our water rates by such a large amount. The proposed rate increase is not supported by any facts or specific itemization of work that needs to be completed. We understand that a modest increase in rates from time to time is necessary, but this request is absurd. Please deny the request in its entirety.
2/25/2026 12:33:39 AM	General Comment			OPUC Members: My husband and I bought a home in Illahe in June and were SHOCKED to receive notice that our water rates may be DOUBLING!!! In a worst case scenario with a community well, a slight increase might be understandable, but this is tantamount to price-gouging. There is no rationale that could remotely explain this proposal. Please be informed that all of us in Illahe who find ourselves in this predicament are organizing to confront this unfair increase. Dave and Teresa Neumann 3860 St. Andrews Loop So. Salem, OR 97302
2/25/2026 12:33:42 AM	General Comment			I am commenting on our water bill . I am on the Quaker meadows system. I can understand a little increase, but to double it is insane. During the summer I can’t even water the lawn because they charge so much a gallon . Now I don’t know if my wife and i can even water the plants around the house. With this huge increase the bill could be pushing $200.00 a month just to water outside plants. Not the yard. We stopped doing that years ago because of the price per gallon. So please do not let them do such a drastic increase especially when the quality of water is not very good as it is. Thank you Jim Kaus 503-313-5290 Arctic sheet metal.
2/25/2026 12:33:44 AM	General Comment			To whom it concerns, As a resident of Welches Or. I encourage you to vote no on the merger and price hike of Salmon Valley Water Co. In the past few years our water district was sold to NW Naturals and my base price went from $25 to $75 a month. Now, within a few years of NW Naturals owning our water district they want to sell it and merge with Sunstone Utilities. I can only assume this future rate hike will be another substantial one. Living in the shadow of Mount Hood where water is ample I wonder what it is that causes the continuous exchange of ownership and where the profits of each sale goes. I understand upgrades in the system which have occurred, but making profits on the backs of residents who struggle at times in retirement and or jobs feels unethical to me. What can we do as residents to stop this chain of events? Concerned resident, Debra Himes
2/25/2026 12:33:48 AM	General Comment			Our local water company (Salmon Valley Water) was purchased by NW Natural Gas a couple years ago, they immediately filed for a large rate increase which our little community fought and lost with the PUC. NW Natural Gas is now filing a merger document, UP 439 that incorporates 22 small water companies. The same day they filed for another Rate Increase, UW 209. We are a community of retirees. Enough already! We can’t afford a team of lawyers like NW Natural. We, the Welches community cannot afford to fund infrastructure upgrades for 21 other water companies. Please vote no on this merger and rate increase. Respectfully, Peter Himes Salmon Valley Water Customer Welches, OR
2/25/2026 6:58:55 AM	General Comment	Todd	Ellis	Public Comment of proposed Utility rate change. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed rate increase. I am a resident of Welches, Oregon and a customer of Salmon Valley Water. After reviewing the application materials, I have a couple concerns I’d like to express and explain. 1) This application is seeking a total revenue increase of $1,482,941 and a rate of return for their investors of 7.864%. While they state this is based on cost of equity (10%) and cost of debt (4.66%) it doesn’t identify those two numerical values. The values may appear in the application, but it’s not obvious to the public. On page 13 of Matthew Rowell’s testimony he states Sunstone is 100% equity capital, which carries no debt. This may mean something to an expert, but when I read Sunstone carries no debt, I assume there is no debt. If there is debt, it should clearly identify the amount of debt and who is carrying that debt. This should be explained in detail and a new public comment period offered that affords an opportunity to have meaningful input. My fear is the entire $1,482,941 is going to this rate of return. Increases of this amount should only be entertained if the money is going toward capital expenditures like aging infrastructure that is mentioned numerous times in the application. I’m sure that application will be coming in the next couple years. 2) In several places in the application it states a rate of return is needed to attract investors. NW Natural holdings is a publicly traded entity that doesn’t “attract” investors, it has 43 million stockholders that each share currently receives $2/year - worth 86 million. NW Natural doesn’t profit or lose when shares are sold between stockholders. NW Natural made money on the initial IPO. What it does gain is value from the overall increase in market capitalization and control over the subsidiary's operational profits. Customers should not be paying higher rates to attract “investors” or pay stockholders. 3) In their calculations on page 9 of 17, under “other revenue deductions” account # 403, the depreciation expense is $644,266, with an adjusted value of $821,218. Depreciation is an accounting method used primarily for tax deductions from income, reducing tax obligations. This deduction should not be used when evaluating actual cost incurred, because it does not involve an actual cash outflow for the company like the other items do. This should be removed and new calculations submitted. This depreciation expense appears again in calculations in exhibit 103. 4) I would like to know why in the Salmon Valley Water applications submitted on 9-30-2020 and 2-27-2023, it was stated that there are 859 customers (2020) and 900 customers (2023). However, in this submission there are 674 “connections.” I understand a connection is a physical hookup at a property line and a customer is an entity responsible for paying for the water (which could own multiple connections). So how do you get more customers than connections? I’m assuming customers/connections have some significance in setting base rate (again, no calculations identified). By using customers it would add to the denominator and decrease the base rate. 5) If this proposed merger is approved, why are there three (3) rate schedules? The explanation I found said it’s because all would experience a 51% increase. That makes no sense when the largest number of “connections” are found in Schedule 3. Following that logic, Salmon Valley Water will pay disproportionate increases every time the rate is increased. And if we’re trying to level the playing field, if this proposal goes through as is, Salmon Valley Water “connections” will have incurred a 400% increase on base rate since 2022 ($20.23, $53, and $100 (proposed)). Additionally, the Salmon Valley Water water usage rate tripled from what customers paid in 2022. I could not find rate increases for any of the other water systems included in the merger in the last five (5) years. It seems for this and moving forward, if we all paid (in dollars) the same rate it would be more equitable. There is no differentiation in services or maintenance between the three; therefore, the cost structure should follow suit. continued
2/25/2026 7:00:05 AM	General Comment	Todd	Ellis	Public Comment of proposed Utility rate change. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed rate increase. I am a resident of Welches, Oregon and a customer of Salmon Valley Water. After reviewing the application materials, I have a couple concerns I’d like to express and explain. 1) This application is seeking a total revenue increase of $1,482,941 and a rate of return for their investors of 7.864%. While they state this is based on cost of equity (10%) and cost of debt (4.66%) it doesn’t identify those two numerical values. The values may appear in the application, but it’s not obvious to the public. On page 13 of Matthew Rowell’s testimony he states Sunstone is 100% equity capital, which carries no debt. This may mean something to an expert, but when I read Sunstone carries no debt, I assume there is no debt. If there is debt, it should clearly identify the amount of debt and who is carrying that debt. This should be explained in detail and a new public comment period offered that affords an opportunity to have meaningful input. My fear is the entire $1,482,941 is going to this rate of return. Increases of this amount should only be entertained if the money is going toward capital expenditures like aging infrastructure that is mentioned numerous times in the application. I’m sure that application will be coming in the next couple years. 2) In several places in the application it states a rate of return is needed to attract investors. NW Natural holdings is a publicly traded entity that doesn’t “attract” investors, it has 43 million stockholders that each share currently receives $2/year - worth 86 million. NW Natural doesn’t profit or lose when shares are sold between stockholders. NW Natural made money on the initial IPO. What it does gain is value from the overall increase in market capitalization and control over the subsidiary's operational profits. Customers should not be paying higher rates to attract “investors” or pay stockholders. 3) In their calculations on page 9 of 17, under “other revenue deductions” account # 403, the depreciation expense is $644,266, with an adjusted value of $821,218. Depreciation is an accounting method used primarily for tax deductions from income, reducing tax obligations. This deduction should not be used when evaluating actual cost incurred, because it does not involve an actual cash outflow for the company like the other items do. This should be removed and new calculations submitted. This depreciation expense appears again in calculations in exhibit 103. 4) I would like to know why in the Salmon Valley Water applications submitted on 9-30-2020 and 2-27-2023, it was stated that there are 859 customers (2020) and 900 customers (2023). However, in this submission there are 674 “connections.” I understand a connection is a physical hookup at a property line and a customer is an entity responsible for paying for the water (which could own multiple connections). So how do you get more customers than connections? I’m assuming customers/connections have some significance in setting base rate (again, no calculations identified). By using customers it would add to the denominator and decrease the base rate. 5) If this proposed merger is approved, why are there three (3) rate schedules? The explanation I found said it’s because all would experience a 51% increase. That makes no sense when the largest number of “connections” are found in Schedule 3. Following that logic, Salmon Valley Water will pay disproportionate increases every time the rate is increased. And if we’re trying to level the playing field, if this proposal goes through as is, Salmon Valley Water “connections” will have incurred a 400% increase on base rate since 2022 ($20.23, $53, and $100 (proposed)). Additionally, the Salmon Valley Water water usage rate tripled from what customers paid in 2022. I could not find rate increases for any of the other water systems included in the merger in the last five (5) years. It seems for this and moving forward, if we all paid (in dollars) the same rate it would be more equitable. There is no differentiation in services or maintenance between the three; therefore, the cost structure should follow suit. continued
2/25/2026 7:02:10 AM	General Comment	Todd	Ellis	Public Comment of proposed Utility rate change. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed rate increase. I am a resident of Welches, Oregon and a customer of Salmon Valley Water. After reviewing the application materials, I have a couple concerns I’d like to express and explain. 1) This application is seeking a total revenue increase of $1,482,941 and a rate of return for their investors of 7.864%. While they state this is based on cost of equity (10%) and cost of debt (4.66%) it doesn’t identify those two numerical values. The values may appear in the application, but it’s not obvious to the public. On page 13 of Matthew Rowell’s testimony he states Sunstone is 100% equity capital, which carries no debt. This may mean something to an expert, but when I read Sunstone carries no debt, I assume there is no debt. If there is debt, it should clearly identify the amount of debt and who is carrying that debt. This should be explained in detail and a new public comment period offered that affords an opportunity to have meaningful input. My fear is the entire $1,482,941 is going to this rate of return. Increases of this amount should only be entertained if the money is going toward capital expenditures like aging infrastructure that is mentioned numerous times in the application. I’m sure that application will be coming in the next couple years. 2) In several places in the application it states a rate of return is needed to attract investors. NW Natural holdings is a publicly traded entity that doesn’t “attract” investors, it has 43 million stockholders that each share currently receives $2/year - worth 86 million. NW Natural doesn’t profit or lose when shares are sold between stockholders. NW Natural made money on the initial IPO. What it does gain is value from the overall increase in market capitalization and control over the subsidiary's operational profits. Customers should not be paying higher rates to attract “investors” or pay stockholders. 3) In their calculations on page 9 of 17, under “other revenue deductions” account # 403, the depreciation expense is $644,266, with an adjusted value of $821,218. Depreciation is an accounting method used primarily for tax deductions from income, reducing tax obligations. This deduction should not be used when evaluating actual cost incurred, because it does not involve an actual cash outflow for the company like the other items do. This should be removed and new calculations submitted. This depreciation expense appears again in calculations in exhibit 103. 4) I would like to know why in the Salmon Valley Water applications submitted on 9-30-2020 and 2-27-2023, it was stated that there are 859 customers (2020) and 900 customers (2023). However, in this submission there are 674 “connections.” I understand a connection is a physical hookup at a property line and a customer is an entity responsible for paying for the water (which could own multiple connections). So how do you get more customers than connections? I’m assuming customers/connections have some significance in setting base rate (again, no calculations identified). By using customers it would add to the denominator and decrease the base rate. 5) If this proposed merger is approved, why are there three (3) rate schedules? The explanation I found said it’s because all would experience a 51% increase. That makes no sense when the largest number of “connections” are found in Schedule 3. Following that logic, Salmon Valley Water will pay disproportionate increases every time the rate is increased. And if we’re trying to level the playing field, if this proposal goes through as is, Salmon Valley Water “connections” will have incurred a 400% increase on base rate since 2022 ($20.23, $53, and $100 (proposed)). Additionally, the Salmon Valley Water water usage rate tripled from what customers paid in 2022. I could not find rate increases for any of the other water systems included in the merger in the last five (5) years. It seems for this and moving forward, if we all paid (in dollars) the same rate it would be more equitable. There is no differentiation in services or maintenance between the three; therefore, the cost structure should follow suit. continued
2/25/2026 7:50:03 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Todd	Ellis	Public Comment of proposed Utility rate change. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed rate increase. I am a resident of Welches, Oregon and a customer of Salmon Valley Water. After reviewing the application materials, I have a couple concerns I’d like to express and explain. 1) This application is seeking a total revenue increase of $1,482,941 and a rate of return for their investors of 7.864%. While they state this is based on cost of equity (10%) and cost of debt (4.66%) it doesn’t identify those two numerical values. The values may appear in the application, but it’s not obvious to the public. On page 13 of Matthew Rowell’s testimony he states Sunstone is 100% equity capital, which carries no debt. This may mean something to an expert, but when I read Sunstone carries no debt, I assume there is no debt. If there is debt, it should clearly identify the amount of debt and who is carrying that debt. This should be explained in detail and a new public comment period offered that affords an opportunity to have meaningful input. My fear is the entire $1,482,941 is going to this rate of return. Increases of this amount should only be entertained if the money is going toward capital expenditures like aging infrastructure that is mentioned numerous times in the application. I’m sure that application will be coming in the next couple years. 2) In several places in the application it states a rate of return is needed to attract investors. NW Natural holdings is a publicly traded entity that doesn’t “attract” investors, it has 43 million stockholders that each share currently receives $2/year - worth 86 million. NW Natural doesn’t profit or lose when shares are sold between stockholders. NW Natural made money on the initial IPO. What it does gain is value from the overall increase in market capitalization and control over the subsidiary's operational profits. Customers should not be paying higher rates to attract “investors” or pay stockholders. 3) In their calculations on page 9 of 17, under “other revenue deductions” account # 403, the depreciation expense is $644,266, with an adjusted value of $821,218. Depreciation is an accounting method used primarily for tax deductions from income, reducing tax obligations. This deduction should not be used when evaluating actual cost incurred, because it does not involve an actual cash outflow for the company like the other items do. This should be removed and new calculations submitted. This depreciation expense appears again in calculations in exhibit 103. 4) I would like to know why in the Salmon Valley Water applications submitted on 9-30-2020 and 2-27-2023, it was stated that there are 859 customers (2020) and 900 customers (2023). However, in this submission there are 674 “connections.” I understand a connection is a physical hookup at a property line and a customer is an entity responsible for paying for the water (which could own multiple connections). So how do you get more customers than connections? I’m assuming customers/connections have some significance in setting base rate (again, no calculations identified). By using customers it would add to the denominator and decrease the base rate. 5) If this proposed merger is approved, why are there three (3) rate schedules? The explanation I found said it’s because all would experience a 51% increase. That makes no sense when the largest number of “connections” are found in Schedule 3. Following that logic, Salmon Valley Water will pay disproportionate increases every time the rate is increased. And if we’re trying to level the playing field, if this proposal goes through as is, Salmon Valley Water “connections” will have incurred a 400% increase on base rate since 2022 ($20.23, $53, and $100 (proposed)). Additionally, the Salmon Valley Water water usage rate tripled from what customers paid in 2022. I could not find rate increases for any of the other water systems included in the merger in the last five (5) years. It seems for this and moving forward, if we all paid (in dollars) the same rate it would be more equitable. There is no differentiation in services or maintenance between the three; therefore, the cost structure should follow suit. Continued
2/25/2026 7:52:05 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Todd	Ellis	comments continued - todd Ellis 6) For future fillings all references within Q & A testimony should include page citations. This would significantly improve transparency and allow meaningful public review. 7) All water systems in Oregon have the same infrastructure and replacement issues whether they are government- or privately-owned. The economies of scale afford little benefit for water systems. This is a limited comparison of very different populations and their base rates based on city, base rate, miles of pipe in system, population per mile of pipe and operator; Portland $24.6 base rate, 2,250 mile of water pipe, 333 people per mile of water pipe, city operated; Salem, $20.07 base rate, 420 miles of water pipe, 514 people per mile of water pipe, privately operated; Welches, $100 (proposed) base rate, 12 mile of water pipe, 266 people per mile of water pipe, privately run; Colton, $38 base rate, 46 miles of water pipe, 110 people per mile of water pipe, city operated. With privately-owned systems, you expect some profit to be incurred, but this disproportionate base rate for Welches is beyond reasonable. From the information I could find, both Portland and Salem water rates are based on self-sustaining water system needs. One of three things can explain our disparity; inefficient system management, excess acquisition cost, or excessive profit allocation. None of the three should be costs incurred by our community. While their operating expenses try to justify the rates being proposed, they are unverifiable, and it is unrealistic to try to verify. But,there is nothing unique in the cost categories in NW Naturals submittal and those of other water systems. All systems include those same or similar cost categories in setting base rates. A comparison between base rates of other systems, private or public, will give you information on how reasonable these costs and this proposal is. I would ask the PUC before rendering a decision on this increase to look at what other water systems, government-controlled and private (non NW Natural systems) and see what they are charging for water and base rate. A comparison is the only way to evaluate whether this increase is reasonable. There is nothing unique in the cost categories NW Natural submitted and those of other systems, public or private. From the information I was able to obtain off the internet, size of customers had no correlation to base rate. A comparison will allow the PUC to evaluate if this proposal is reasonable compared to other government and private systems, not just how much it takes NW Natural to operate a plant. The PUC mission statement says; to ensure Oregonians have access to safe and reliable, and fairly priced utility services. If this water rate increase is approved, our rates will have increased 400% since 2021 (from $20.25 to $100), and the water usage rate has tripled. Does this seem like a fairly priced service? Todd Ellis Welches, Oregon
2/25/2026 10:00:58 AM	Oppose Docket	Daniel	Cartmell	The purpose of this correspondence is to strongly encourage the OPUC to disapprove the request for the inordinate rate increase by Highand/Sunstone. As a property owner in the Illahe Hills community, approval of their proposed rate adjustment would result in a 100-400% increase to our water bill. This frankly is unfathomable! If I were a member of the Commission, I would recommend to my colleagues, that the Commission disapprove the proposal without any further dialogue; and request Highline/Sunstone to resubmit a more reasonable proposal considering the economic times. Regards, Dan Cartmell
2/25/2026 10:22:06 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Kelley	Parosa	I am a water client of Highland/Sunstone water in the Illahe Water neighborhood. I have lived here for 11 years. Though water rate increases are to be expected, I urge you to evaluate the dramatic increase that is being proposed by Northwest Natural Water (Docket Number UW209). I have reviewed the application and it is my understanding that there are system improvements that may be necessary for several water systems recently purchased by NW Water. Their profit margins don't consider the drastic impact upon their clients. I, like many of my neighbors, are on fixed incomes in this community. A 100% - 400% increase is unfair and requires the utmost attention by the Oregon PUC. I respectfully ask that you review this application with the consumer in mind.
2/25/2026 12:13:07 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Chad	Elliott	Hello, I am a resident in the Illahe Neighborhood in Salem. I am asking for the Commission to review the proposed drastic fee increase and push back. There are several reasons i ask that this is reviewed in more detail. 1. The letter is very poorly communicated and seemingly was rushed out to the mail. The overall revenue is going up 53.49% while all of the specific examples shown range form a 133% to 626% increase depending on the line size. The letter was also not properly dated at the top. It said "Date". If Sunstone was so rushed with the letter, is their request just as inaccurate? 2. I believe sunstone has recently purchased all of these smaller water companies. Some of them appear to be very small. I believe as one of the larger areas, Illahe is now footing the bill to maintain and improve the smaller areas that are not supporting themselves. These areas are all the way on the other end of the state. It is not reasonable to combine these costs and spread them out to our area. 3. If an increase is warranted, the size of meter is commonly used for fee's, etc but it seems like water VOLUME or USE could be a more equitable way to look at this increase. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but it could be more equitable.
2/25/2026 8:12:44 PM	Oppose Docket	Richard	Johnson	We live in Illahe Hills and received the letter from Sunstone about rate increases. They are proposing 100-400% increase in rates, although we are not sure what level of increase will apply to our home. We feel a 5-10% annual increase might be justified, but the increases proposed are way out of line. It will cause great hardship on us as senior citizens on a fixed income. We appreciate you paying serious attention to this matter.
2/26/2026 12:33:37 AM	General Comment			billy@3ppm.com. To Whom It May Concern, My name is William Padot and I am a customer of the wilderness canyon water company under sunstone. I am concerned that by allowing Sunstone to lump all of its water companies into one unified billing rate it will cause burdens on different water system customers. It would seem the best way to identify proper water rates would be for a billing rate determined within each water company. My system rate has been proposed to double. That seems to be a significant increase for our water system. Why is the increase so high? Are there capital projects needing to be executed within our system, have we suffered unusually high maintenance costs, what is the rational for our proposed rate increase? I would hope its not to offset costs at another water system..... Thank you for reading my concerns, William Padot
2/26/2026 12:33:41 AM	General Comment			Thank you for taking the time to read this note of concern regarding Docket No: US 209 I am a current resident of the Illahe Neighborhood and ask that those of you in a position to review the application do so thoroughly and with the best interest of the water users in mind. The possibility of a 100% increase in our water rates is daunting, and our understanding is that is the low end of the estimates - that 400% is a possibility. It is understandable that water rates may need to increase, but consumers are generally prepared for adjustments closer to 5-10% increases, not a sudden doubling of the monthly bill. (Or potentially a monthly bill four times the current expense) Fred and Margot Gates
2/26/2026 9:41:17 AM	Oppose Docket	Sue	Rende	Please look closely at the proposed increase in monthly charges for Hiland/Sunstone Water. It is as much as 400% per month. If you look at the previous increase you will notice that it was increased from approximately $60. for 2 months to $56. per month about 3 yrs ago. This is an outrageous increase and the crew who has been attempting to locate "sewer covers" have been at our home 5X in January looking for the covers none of whom knew that anyone else was doing the same thing within days of each other. Please do not allow this huge increase.
2/26/2026 10:01:44 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	David	Glennie	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
2/26/2026 6:16:00 PM	Oppose Docket	Peter	Himes	Please vote no on any rate increases regarding NW Natural Gas/Sunstone Water, LLC. I am a Salmon Valley Water customer in Welches, OR. You granted a large rate increase around two years ago to NW Natural Gas. Ouch! We are a community of retirees and can’t afford another increase, especially after two rate increases you approved for PGE. There is no transparency in what all this money is going to, especially since it involves a Merger UP 439 of 22 small water companies into one giant: NW Natural Gas / Sunstone Water, LLC. There has been no improvements to customer service and water quality as a Salmon Valley Water user since our last large rate increase. Higher profits for a giant Utility Company is poor reasoning for a rate increase.
3/2/2026 12:33:34 AM	General Comment			I live in the Illahe area where most of the residents are retired and/or older individuals and on fixed incomes The increase in water rates that Northwest Natural (Docket number UW209) is proposing is absurd. The fact that they purchased areas with decaying equipment should not be everyone else’s problem. Perhaps they should have done their due diligence prior to the purchase, or perhaps they did and just decided to make everyone else pay for it to ensure their profits. In any event, this increase is unfair and will adversely affect the residents in Illahe. I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal. Gay Howard
3/2/2026 12:33:38 AM	General Comment			Please look carefully at the proposed increase in rates, as much as 400% by Hiland/Sunstone water company. This rate increase follows one about 4 yrs ago which took rates from approximately $60. for 2 months to $56 per month done by Hiland water. These rates are outrageous and the company they hired to "find the sewer cover" have been at our house 5X in January none of who knew the other "team" had already been there looking for the same thing. Please do not allow this increase. Thank you, Ron and Sue Rende 3315 Augusta Nat'l Dr S Salem Oregon 97302
3/2/2026 12:33:40 AM	General Comment			I am a Sunstone Utility-Illahe Water customer. They have requested a significant rate increase of over 100% without a n additional service. This should not be granted. It is unreasonable and unfair. Jeffrey Ward
3/2/2026 12:33:43 AM	General Comment			Hello, I am a resident in the Illahe Neighborhood in Salem. I am asking for the Commission to review the proposed drastic fee increase and push back. There are several reasons i ask that this is reviewed in more detail. 1. The letter is very poorly communicated and seemingly was rushed out to the mail. The overall revenue is going up 53.49% while all of the specific examples shown range form a 133% to 626% increase depending on the line size. The letter was also not properly dated at the top. It said "Date". If Sunstone was so rushed with the letter, is their request just as inaccurate? 2. I believe sunstone has recently purchased all of these smaller water companies. Some of them appear to be very small. I believe as one of the larger areas, Illahe is now footing the bill to maintain and improve the smaller areas that are not supporting themselves. These areas are all the way on the other end of the state. It is not reasonable to combine these costs and spread them out to our area. 3. If an increase is warranted, the size of meter is commonly used for fee's, etc but it seems like water VOLUME or USE could be a more equitable way to look at this increase. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but it could be more equitable. -- Chad Elliott 9717072097
3/2/2026 12:33:46 AM	General Comment			Hello! I am writing on behalf of our coop owned 51 home manufactured home park Cedar Glen Estates in Welches, OR. As you may have previously researched our manufactured home park is considered low income housing. Our main goal in writing is to make sure that the water bills monthly will not rise. A bill rising even $20-50 more per month could seriously impact our community. Everyone deserves clean and fair housing and a huge part of this is access to clean water at reasonable pricing. Some of us plan on attending the zoom on 3/11. Kindly, Cedar Glen Estates Coop Board located in beautiful Welches, OR www.cedarglenestatescoop.com
3/2/2026 2:44:34 PM	Oppose Docket	Linda	Darter	They have already raised our rates sents NW Natural took over salmon valley water witch doubled our bill already. They think of their profit before the customers. Don't see them doing much of anything to want another 100% increase.
3/2/2026 3:10:48 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Geoffrey	Riley	I own a duplex in Shady Cove, Oregon, which is served by Hiland Water, now wholly owned by Sunstone. I read NW Natural Water's December 31, 2025 rate revision letter, and my eyes nearly popped out. The rate increases for Rate Schedules 2 and 3 do not seem too steep, but Rate Schedule 1 customers would see a 66% increase in their bills, and Flat Rate customers would see a 47% increase. I see the need for any business to cover its costs. But which should come first, the rate increase, or the improvement in service? Because Hiland has had to contact Shady Cove customers seven times in the last year to communicate problems with its system, including equipment failures, drained reservoirs, and boil-water notices. PUC should examine the company's delivery record and pursue agreements to improve service, along with any increase in its charges.
3/3/2026 12:34:21 AM	General Comment			To Whom it May Concern: My family is a water client of Hiland/Sunstone water in the Illahe Water neighborhood. We have lived here for almost 7 years. Though water rate increases are to be expected, I urge you to evaluate the dramatic increase that is being proposed by Northwest Natural Water (Docket Number UW209). I have reviewed the application and it is my understanding that there are system improvements that may be necessary for several water systems recently purchased by NW Water. Their profit margins don't consider the drastic impact upon their clients. A 100% - 400% increase is unfair and requires the utmost attention by the Oregon PUC. I respectfully ask that you review this application with the consumer in mind. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Katie Brown and Michael Lipman, 3343 Augusta National Dr S., Salem OR 97302
3/3/2026 12:34:24 AM	General Comment			From: Cynthia Dove <cdove058@gmail.com<mailto:cdove058@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 7:25 AM To: YAMADA Stephanie * PUC <stephanie.yamada@puc.oregon.gov<mailto:stephanie.yamada@puc.oregon.gov>> Subject: Water cdove058@gmail.com<mailto:cdove058@gmail.com>. Our water up here in Welches, Oregon gets dirty at times. It stains our clothes, yucky to drink. An increase hike in water is ridiculous!
3/3/2026 4:56:18 PM	General Comment	Dean	Kaufman	I am a water client of Highland/Sunstone water in the Illahe Water neighborhood. I have lived here for __27_______ years. Though water rate increases are to be expected, I urge you to evaluate the dramatic increase that is being proposed by Northwest Natural Water (Docket Number UW209). I have reviewed the application and it is my understanding that there are system improvements that may be necessary for several water systems recently purchased by NW Water. Their profit margins don't consider the drastic impact upon their clients. I, like many of my neighbors, are on fixed incomes in this community. A 100% - 400% increase is unfair and requires the utmost attention by the Oregon PUC. I respectfully ask that you review this application with the consumer in mind.
3/4/2026 9:54:42 AM	Oppose Docket	RICHARD	ALWAY	I am a resident of the Illahe neighborhood, where our water was previously provided by Highland Water, now part of NW Natural Water (aka Sunstone). The new owner is seeking to increase our water rates. While escalation over time are to be expected, an spike of the magnitude proposed is, frankly, preposterous. Services rates to my home would go from about $53 to $201, and $130 to $600, for 1" and 1.5" lines, respectively. If our system needs updates, why can't those be phased in? Also, I cannot believe our water system is so decrepit as to warrant the "overnight" change. From what I gather from the application, our tanks are ranked "good." Finally, I note that my wife and I are retired, living mainly on fixed SSA benefits, and a monthly increase as sought, in light of our modest usage, would be very harmful to our living budget. Thank you.
3/4/2026 3:02:53 PM	Oppose Docket	Dave	Ivanoff	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
3/5/2026 12:33:39 AM	General Comment			We have had Highland Water Company for our water company since we moved into our home 23 years ago. We recently received a notice that our water bill for our 1" water line may go up by at least 4 times with this rate increase. At about $60 for a low month and $100 in the summer, we look forward to the possibility of paying approximately $240 to $400+ a month for our water. This seems unbelievable. If you were to double our rates, that would be a lot, but 4 times as much—how could the PUC realistically approve of that? We are in our 70's and on a fixed budget and this will be a huge chunk of our budget that we live on. What is this rate increase going to achieve? Is it for infrastructure, for new pipes, new wells, or for wage increases? Will we have more pure water, healthier water? We are really frustrated that a company can do such a drastic rate increase affecting many families, families that can't afford the increase. If we were told that our rate would double, that would still be a big deal, but would be a little easier to handle. Please let me know what is going on, and if the zoom meeting coming up will even consider the consumer's considerations. We are concerned. Thank you in advance for your help and reply. Sincerely, Pamela (& Reid) Amborn
3/5/2026 2:04:45 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Ron	Karls	Letter entered by Consumer Services staff (DJ) on 3/5/2026. Dear PUC Commissioners, Regarding the matter of merging Salmon Valley water with Sunstone Utilities (Part of NW Natural Gas), and at the same time requesting a51% rate increase, seems excessive and unnecessary. Let me cite some of the hidden operating issues with Salmon Valley. 1- about 5 years ago a vehicle ran into and destroyed a fire hydrant. "It will be fixed soon." The fire hydrant is still missing. 2- A recent purchase of a new "work" truck happened. Interesting that the word "work" must have been not properly spelled out. This new work truck as more bells and whistles on it than any work truck would ever need. 3 - Salmon Valley within about the last year installed diesel back up generators when power is lost. Turns out someone must have forgot to order electronic switch equipment so that when the electricity does go out, someone has to arrive to turn the generators on and then when the electricity comes on, go turn off the generators. These are just some examples of why a rate reduction should be approved by the PUC. Thank you for your support. Ron and Barb Karls, Salmon Valley Customer
3/6/2026 7:43:49 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Sean	Chase	Our home is in Quaker Meadows (Newberg) with water supplied by Hiland Water. Our rates have historically been reasonable. Sunstone Water has acquired Hiland Water along with a number of other water providers. Sunstone seeks to consolidate these entities into a single group and they are requesting a rate increase. The reason for my comment is to ask the commission to allow only a reasonable rate increase. The US consumer price index (CPI) is in the 2-3% range and this provider should be limited to something near that. Please do not grant them an exorbitant increase in rates (base and volume) Thank you, Sean Chase
3/6/2026 11:22:21 AM	Oppose Docket	Jennie	White	Dear Commissioners: I am a Salmon Valley Water customer in Welches, and I am deeply worried about what’s happening to our community. Two years ago, I watched my water bill double overnight. I accepted it. I told myself it would mean better service, cleaner water, and real improvements. I waited. And now? Salmon Valley Water Customers are facing another 100% increase, and on top of that, we are still waiting for safer, cleaner water. When I turn on my tap, I wonder what’s going to come out. Will it be brown water that stains my laundry? Water, I don’t feel safe using, so I pay for water filters or buy bottled water. We are paying some of the highest rates around, and I still don’t trust what’s coming out of my pipes. That’s not okay. That’s not something I should have to live with. I understand that a merger is being proposed, and it may change things down the road. But honestly? I don’t care who manages this system if I still can’t trust my water. Right now, today, what I need is for someone to look me in the eye and explain where my money went. What was fixed? What got better? Show me something real. Before anyone approves another rate increase, I need answers. Not promises, answers. I need to see measurable improvements and a real plan. Welches residents have been patient, have been paying high water rates, and have been hoping things would get better. We are all running out of patience. Sincerely, Jennie White
3/6/2026 6:37:24 PM	Oppose Docket	Albert	McCoy	I am a water customer of Highland/Sunstone Water in the Illahe Water neighborhood. I have lived here for over 8 years. Though water rate increases are to be expected over time, I urge you to evaluate the dramatic increase that is being proposed by Northwest Natural Water (Docket Number UW209). I have reviewed the application and it is my understanding that there are system improvements that may be necessary for several water systems recently purchased by NW Natural Water. Their profit margins don't consider the drastic impact upon their clients, nor the unique differences in each water system's history, infrastructure, and users. I, like many of my neighbors, am on fixed incomes in this community. A 100% - 400% increase is unfair to expect the consumer to bear, will drastically impact my household budget, and should require the utmost attention by the Oregon Public Utility Commission. I respectfully ask that you review this application with the consumer in mind. Thank you.
3/8/2026 2:05:10 PM	Oppose Docket	Jamie	Zielinski	It is with great emotion that I write this letter to you. I am asking for your careful consideration of the water rate increases that are being proposed by NW Natural Water Company in requesting. This proposed increase is anywhere from a 100% to 400% increase. While we all can understand gradual increases, this is outrageous and should not be allowed. People are stretched to the max already trying to heat their houses and keep the lights on; even our garbage rates are becoming a difficult expense to manage. Utility costs have doubled (or more) over the last two years. There has to be a time when we say NO to these requests, or at the very least make it a small percentage so people don't feel the "hit" so hard and attempt to figure out where else they are going to cut their expenses. Please take a good long look at the proposition and ask this company where they can start cutting their own budgets and help us all out in this time of economic worries and stress.
3/9/2026 12:33:54 AM	General Comment			To: puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov<mailto:puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov> Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, Thank you for notifying me about the upcoming public meeting on Wednesday March 11th regarding the Sunstone Utility rate consolidation. I am a Sunstone Water Utility - Illahe Water customer. I may not be able to make the meeting and am also unfamiliar with the protocol on submitting comments in advance. I would like to have the following comments on public record. I have three points that I feel are relevant to your meeting. Firstly, our billing statements come with the Hiland Water name and the email address to contact the water company also has the Hiland Water name. It has been confusing for ourselves and our neighbors to have billing and email with one name and notification of a rate change under a different name. Many of our neighbors did not realize the rate consolidation would affect them. Second, Sunstone Utility has only given an example of an average invoice amount under our current rate and with the new consolidated rate. It does not tell us what the new consolidated rates actually are. The notification letter stated we could drive to Portland and meet with them to determine our rate, but that is not convenient and the new rates should be more transparent. Third, under their rate consolidation schedule proposal, our average invoice amount will more than double. This is not a fair and reasonable increase in our rates and should not be granted. They are not proposing to make substantial upgrades in our infrastructure, but just simplifying their rate tables. Making their invoicing easier is not justification for causing such a dramatic increase to our rates. Thank you for adding my comments to your public meeting. Ann Emry 3854 St. Andrew Loop S. Salem, OR 97302 emrymail@icloud.com<mailto:emrymail@icloud.com> 817-313-1539
3/9/2026 11:31:33 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Dennis	Ghelfi	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
3/9/2026 3:39:09 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Wayne	Davidson	I am a member of Illahee water, and I feel the increased water fee that is being proposed is ridiculous! They are looking at 383% increase and would like to know why that's even being considered. I hope Commission takes a good look into the proposed rates.
3/10/2026 12:33:34 AM	General Comment			Public Comment regarding Water in Welches Oregon Our water at our vacation home 25492 East Trevino Court in Welches OR is not drinkable. It smells and tastes terrible. We are unable to drink it. We won’t even give it to our dog. We bring bottled water from our home in SW Portland to drink and cook. When the price was $18.11 per month up until 2020, the water was not great, but it was drinkable. The cost per month is now $53.55 and not drinkable. I called the water company, and they told me to let the water run for 5 minutes and the water would improve. We have tried this and it does not change the terrible smell and taste of our water in Welches. We all need and deserve good drinking water, especially as it is getting hotter. We are very concerned about the merging of water companies and the possibility of increased cost for terrible tasting and unhealthy water. Sincerely, Drs Arnold and Elizabeth Klein
3/10/2026 10:10:57 AM	Oppose Docket	Kelly	Munger	I have reviewed the application (UW209) by Sunstone Water for rate revision for Illahe Water in Salem, Oregon and object to the request. Upon review of the application, it appears Illahe Water has been and an efficient run well managed system. This conclusion can not be made for many of the other systems included in application. The proposed rate increase appears be shifting system improvement costs from the less efficiently managed systems owned by applicant in the proposal to the well managed systems owned by applicant such as Illahe Water. It is not unreasonable to expect periodic rate increases for individual water system that take into account inflation, system upgrades inline with industry best practices and long term operation plans of the specific water system. However, it is unreasonable to expect well run water system's subscribers to subsidize the operational costs of the owner's other less well run and geographically isolated water systems within the state. Coincidentally the applicant has petitioned the commission in a separate filing , see Docket UP 439 filed December 31, 2025, to merge these geographically disparate water system within this rate increase proposal into a single system. Is this an intentional effort by applicant to dampen the affect of the proposed rate increase away from the unrelated geographically isolated individual systems to an amalgamated system that disregards the disparate financial impact of collective system ownership and management to the individual unrelated component system rate payers? Applicant's one size fits all proposed rate increase is unfair and harmful the individual component system's consumers and I urge the Commission to reject the requested rate increase proposed. Furthermore, it is my hope that the Commission directs applicant to make future rate application requests specific to the individual component water system's owned and not the amalgam of component water system's owned.
3/10/2026 1:47:52 PM	Consumer Complaint	Michael	Litwin	Dear Commissioners Tawney, Perkins, and Power: On behalf of Illahe Hills Country Club, we are submitting this letter to formally object to the proposed rate increases by Sunstone Water, LLC, filed under Docket?UW?209. Our objection pertains specifically to the proposed rate adjustments for 3 inch and 4 inch service lines in the Illahe Water system, which are excessive and unsupported by cost of service justification. According to the company’s filing, the proposed changes for Illahe Water are: Line Size Current Avg. Monthly Bill Proposed Avg. Monthly Bill Percent Increase 3” $806.21 $2,085.95 +159% 4” $241.70 $1,755.42 +626% These increases far exceed Sunstone’s overall 53% proposed revenue increase (from?$2,771,938?to?$4,370,932). Moreover, Illahe Water’s proposed rate changes appear to be substantially higher than those in other water systems recently acquired by NW Natural Water, such as Lakeshore Water, Seavey Loop Water, South Coast Water, and Salmon Valley Water. The company has not provided an explanation for why the Illahe system should bear a disproportionate share of the consolidated revenue burden when its infrastructure, operational scale, and customer profile are comparable to those other systems. Illahe Hills Country Club is a long standing community institution that operates responsibly within water conservation and management standards. Despite these efforts, our monthly costs would increase by several thousand dollars under Sunstone’s proposal — a sharp and unsustainable change unaccompanied by evidence of local capital investments, service improvements, or extraordinary system expenses that would justify such a rate shock. The proposed rate structure also appears inconsistent with the requirements of OAR?860 036 1020 and OAR?860 036 1220, which direct that rates must be just, reasonable, and cost based, and that utilities must apportion expenses in accordance with cost causation principles. In previous Commission cases involving private water utilities and consolidated systems, the Oregon PUC has properly denied or modified disproportionate rate adjustments that were unsupported by detailed cost of service evidence. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Commission: 1. Deny or substantially reduce the proposed rate increases for 3 inch and 4 inch services within the Illahe Water system. 2. Require Sunstone Water to provide transparent, system specific justification for the Illahe increases relative to other NWN Water owned systems. 3. Ensure compliance with OAR?860 036 1020 and? 1220, guaranteeing fair and proportionate rate design across all Consolidated Sunstone Utilities. We appreciate the Commission’s careful oversight in protecting Oregon consumers and ensuring that all rate treatments remain equitable and based on demonstrable cost causation. Respectfully submitted, Illahe Hills Country Club Illahe Hills Country Club 3376?Country?Club?Drive?S Salem,?OR?97302
3/10/2026 4:53:31 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Katherine	Gazeley	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
3/10/2026 4:55:50 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	David	Henderson	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
3/10/2026 5:29:22 PM	Oppose Docket	Kelley	Parosa	Please consider the following questions regarding UW 209. I am a resident in the Illahe Water Community and am concerned about the staggering increase in the monthly rate being proposed in this application. 1. Are our rates increasing simply because Highland Water was purchased by NW Natural in 2023? Is the result of this acquisition higher taxes, higher assessments and higher labor fees and then that burden falls on the consumer? 2. Our water tanks, according to the application, are ranked "good". Are generators and SCADA now the standard? 3. Why is the Illahe Water rate percentage increase so extreme? We live in a Condominium where we have both 1" and 1.5" lines. The increase will be 283% and 362% respectively.
3/10/2026 5:30:10 PM	Oppose Docket	Kelley	Parosa	Thank you for taking the time to read this note of concern regarding Docket No: US 209 I am a current resident of the Illahe Neighborhood and ask that those of you in a position to review the application do so thoroughly and with the best interest of the water users in mind. The possibility of a 100% increase in our water rates is daunting, and our understanding is that is the low end of the estimates - that 400% is a possibility. It is understandable that water rates may need to increase, but consumers are generally prepared for adjustments closer to 5-10% increases, not a sudden doubling of the monthly bill. (Or potentially a monthly bill four times the current expense)
3/11/2026 12:33:35 AM	General Comment			Oregon Public Utility Commission 201 High St. S.E. #100 Salem, Oregon 97301 Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on NW Natural’s proposed rate revision request-Docket UW 209. I wish to comment on the proposed water rate increase. I am a consumer and a homeowner in Yamhill County. It is my firm view that the proposed rate increase is excessive, unreasonable, and it borders on “price gouging.” The recent notice from NW Natural communicated that Yamhill County with 1” connections are expected to have an average monthly bill increase of 99%. This proposed increase comes after an average 28% increase was imposed on my community effective June 15, 2025. Perhaps more worrisome is that NW Natural’s proposal calls this new increase an “intermediate step” to full consolidation, thus generating the question of whether NW Natural is already planning an additional phase 2 price increase. Their cover letter is misleading in that it only uses a subset of their customers to summarize the proposed billing changes. 41% of their customers will receive an average rate increase of 40% to 626%. Their justification raises many questions and concerns about aggressive corporate greed. The proposed increase in NW natural revenue is overwhelmingly going to support an increase in their net operating income of almost one million dollars, not to invest in the water systems. Also, Federal and Oregon Income Tax totals are increasing from $29,576 to $285,118, without a clear explanation for this 864% increase. And expenses for Management Fees (Shared Services) are going up from $92,122 to $249,596, a 171% increase, contrary to the economies of scale for shared services and efficiency savings that NW Natural said would occur with their purchase and consolidation of small water systems. NW Natural Holdings is prioritizing their aggressive growth and profit strategy instead of focusing on the sustainability of their loyal customers. As proof of this, in February 2026, they issued an investor relations news release reporting “NW Natural Holdings Delivers Record 2025 Results Across All “Businesses”. We must therefore question why they need such a large increase considering their record results last year. Please consider the financial hardship this increase will impose on their customers. We therefore humbly request the Oregon PUC to reject this proposal and work to develop a reasonable and equitable alternative. In my household’s case, I have no other option than to consume NW Natural’s water and I am being held “hostage” to their aggressive growth and profitability plan. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed water rate increase. My request is for the Oregon Public Utility Commission to reject NW Natural’s unfair water rate increase proposal. I appreciate and value the role of the Oregon Public Utility Commission as a strong advocate and defender of our public resources and the communities that they serve. Sincerely, Keri L. Kessel 12305 NE Coyote Loop Newberg, OR 97132
3/11/2026 9:22:52 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	James	DeCamp	To Whom It May Concern, We have been customers of Salmon Valley Water for approximately 28 years. For most of that time, our service was reliable and we had no significant concerns. However, over the past decade — and especially within the last five years — the quality of our water has noticeably declined. We began seeing intermittent brown discoloration in our toilet bowls, along with recurring issues such as itchy skin and dryness that raised concerns about possible irritation from the water. We eventually had to install a shower filter, and we now have to replace it frequently. Each time we do, the filter is stained with a rust-colored buildup. This was the point at which we began questioning whether something had changed in the water supply. It is worth noting that the timing of this decline appears to coincide with the replacement of one of the holding tanks. While we cannot say with certainty that the issues are directly related, the problems began after that work was completed, and it raises reasonable questions about whether something in that process may have contributed to the ongoing water quality concerns. Around the same time, we started seeing posts from neighbors on Nextdoor reporting similar or worse problems. Some have had to replace water heaters, deal with ruined loads of laundry, or manage significant staining in their fixtures. These issues appear to be widespread, not isolated. When we contacted Salmon Valley Water previously, we were told that flushing was needed to clear iron buildup in the system. However, it has never been clearly communicated to customers whether this flushing was actually completed, what areas were addressed, or whether any follow-up work was planned. Aside from one public meeting held around the time of the most recent rate increase — where the issue was acknowledged and promises were made — there has been no further communication. This lack of transparency leaves customers feeling that the problems are not being taken seriously, even as another rate increase and a merger are now being proposed. That is unacceptable. As a result of the ongoing water quality issues, we now purchase all of our drinking water separately. This adds roughly $70 per month to our household expenses, on top of the already increased water rates. It is frustrating to pay more while receiving water that many customers do not feel comfortable consuming. We had hoped that the most recent rate increase would provide the funds necessary to reverse the degradation of our water system. Instead, the situation has only gotten worse. At this point, the community needs an advocate — someone willing to hold Salmon Valley Water accountable for delivering the safe, reliable service we are paying for. Given the unresolved water quality issues and the lack of clear, consistent communication, we strongly believe that no further rate increases — and no merger — should be considered or approved until the community once again has confidence that the water is safe and reliable. At a minimum, a detailed, transparent action plan to resolve the water quality issues should be required before any merger is approved. Customers should not be asked to pay more or accept major changes to the utility when the basic service itself is not meeting expectations. The bottom line is that we no longer have confidence in the safety or reliability of our water. The ongoing discoloration, the physical effects on skin and hair, the need for additional filtration, the financial burden of buying drinking water, and the lack of communication from Salmon Valley Water all point to a problem that has not been adequately addressed. We hope Salmon Valley Water will take these concerns seriously and provide clear, consistent communication and a long-term solution that restores trust in the water we rely on. Sincerely, James DeCamp
3/11/2026 1:02:46 PM	General Comment	Roger & Rebecca	Sandberg	Entered by PUC staff - cw Oregon Public Utility Commission 201 High St. S.E. #100 Salem, Oregon 97301 Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on NW Natural’s proposed rate revision request-Docket UW 209. I wish to comment on the proposed water rate increase. I am a consumer and a homeowner in Yamhill County. It is my firm view that the proposed rate increase is excessive, unreasonable, and it borders on “price gouging.” The recent notice from NW Natural communicated that Yamhill County with 1” connections are expected to have an average monthly bill increase of 99%. This proposed increase comes after an average 28% increase was imposed on my community effective June 15, 2025. Perhaps more worrisome is that NW Natural’s proposal calls this new increase an “intermediate step” to full consolidation, thus generating the question of whether NW Natural is already planning an additional phase 2 price increase. Their cover letter is misleading in that it only uses a subset of their customers to summarize the proposed billing changes. 41% of their customers will receive an average rate increase of 40% to 626%. Their justification raises many questions and concerns about aggressive corporate greed. The proposed increase in NW natural revenue is overwhelmingly going to support an increase in their net operating income of almost one million dollars, not to invest in the water systems. Also, Federal and Oregon Income Tax totals are increasing from $29,576 to $285,118, without a clear explanation for this 864% increase. And expenses for Management Fees (Shared Services) are going up from $92,122 to $249,596, a 171% increase, contrary to the economies of scale for shared services and efficiency savings that NW Natural said would occur with their purchase and consolidation of small water systems. NW Natural Holdings is prioritizing their aggressive growth and profit strategy instead of focusing on the sustainability of their loyal customers. As proof of this, in February 2026, they issued an investor relations news release reporting “NW Natural Holdings Delivers Record 2025 Results Across All “Businesses”. We must therefore question why they need such a large increase considering their record results last year. Please consider the financial hardship this increase will impose on their customers. We therefore humbly request the Oregon PUC to reject this proposal and work to develop a reasonable and equitable alternative. In my household’s case, I have no other option than to consume NW Natural’s water and I am being held “hostage” to their aggressive growth and profitability plan. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed water rate increase. My request is for the Oregon Public Utility Commission to reject NW Natural’s unfair water rate increase proposal. I appreciate and value the role of the Oregon Public Utility Commission as a strong advocate and defender of our public resources and the communities that they serve. Sincerely, Roger & Rebecca Sandberg 11980 Coyote Loop, Newberg OR 97312 9 March 2026
3/11/2026 2:38:42 PM	Oppose Docket	James	Robinson	Dear Commissioners: I am submitting this comment regarding Sunstone Water, LLC’s filing in Docket UW 209. After reviewing the customer notice, again, as distributed by Sunstone Water, I have serious concerns about the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of the information provided to affected customers—particularly those served by Salmon Valley Water Company. First, most Welches SVW Company customers don't know who Sunstone Utilities is. Second, a good deal of customers did not receive this notice and instead received a notice of Merge (see UP 439). Thirdly, the Average Monthly Bill example was for "College Park" and is not representative of the current Salmon Valley average monthly bills. Why was I sent this notice for College Park, if I am a customer of Salmon Valley Water Co? I wish to point out the following: 1. Misleading Use of College Park as the Sole “Average Bill” Example The notice presents only College Park billing data to illustrate the projected rate increase. However, College Park is just one of the 26 individual water systems included in this consolidated rate case. The notice states: “We anticipate the requested increase will change average monthly water service bills for your system, College Park, as shown in Attachment 1…” This is misleading for the following reasons: College Park does not represent Salmon Valley Water Company, nor does it represent the average customer in any other system. The notice does not disclose that College Park’s increase example is not representative of the expected increase for Salmon Valley Water Company customers. Customers of Salmon Valley—and the other 25 systems—cannot determine their own projected bill changes based on this information. Because each system has its own historical rates, infrastructure, and cost allocations, presenting only College Park’s increase creates a false impression of uniformity across systems. 2. Lack of System-Specific Impact Information Although the filing includes 26 water systems, the notice provides no rate-impact data for any system other than College Park. There is no table, bill comparison, or even a general percentage range for: Salmon Valley Water Lakeshore Water Seavey Loop Water South Coast Water Any metered or unmetered Sunstone Water system outside College Park The absence of system-specific bill impact information prevents customers from understanding how the proposed consolidation and rate design will affect them directly. 3. Consolidated Rate Proposal Is Not Explained in a Customer-Understandable Way The notice states that Sunstone Water is proposing consolidated revenue requirements, a consolidated rate base, and four rate schedules. Yet the notice fails to: Identify which customers will fall under each of the four proposed rate schedules Explain the financial impact of consolidation on newly added utilities, including Salmon Valley Water Describe how consolidation may shift costs from larger or higher-cost systems onto smaller or lower-cost systems Customers cannot determine how the consolidation affects them, which undermines the purpose of a required notice. 4. Omission of Impacts on Newly Added Systems The notice identifies four additional systems being included in the consolidated filing: Lakeshore, Seavey Loop, South Coast, and Salmon Valley. [Notice 1 | PDF] However, the notice: Provides no bill-example or cost impact for these systems Does not disclose whether these systems face materially higher increases due to harmonization into Sunstone’s consolidated rates This leaves customers of these systems without the information necessary to evaluate the proposed change. 5. Overall Clarity and Transparency Concerns The customer notice should provide clear, accurate, and system-specific information so customers can understand how the proposal affects them. Instead: Only one system is highlighted The example shown is not typical Many customers are left without any meaningful information regarding their own expected bill changes This raises concerns about whether the notice aligns with the intent of OAR 860-036 (customer notice requirements), which emphasizes transparency and sufficient detail. Request to the Commission Given the issues listed above, I respectfully request that the Commission require Sunstone Water, LLC to: Issue corrected notices to all affected customers, providing: System-specific bill impact information, or at minimum, accurate ranges or representative examples for each water system. Clarify that the College Park example does not represent Salmon Valley Water Company or any other system. Provide a mapping showing which rate schedule applies to each system under the consolidated proposal. Ensure customers receive sufficient information to participate meaningfully in the proceeding. Customers deserve accurate and clear information when a utility seeks significant rate increases and consolidation across multiple sy
3/11/2026 3:10:37 PM	Oppose Docket	Olivia	Pothoff	To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed 100% rate increase. Over the past year, we have experienced some of the worst water quality and customer service we have seen in 10 years being a customer, making it unreasonable to ask residents to pay double for a service that has not met basic expectations. For months at a time, our water has been visibly discolored and unreliable. The current well system appears unable to provide consistently good-quality water for the number of customers it serves. Throughout the past year, residents have also been placed under multiple boil-water notices—including one that lasted an entire month with no communication from the company. Before any rate increase is considered, the priority should be fixing the underlying issues with water quality, system capacity, and customer communication. Customers should not be asked to fund a 100% increase while still dealing with green/yellow or poor-quality water and inadequate service. The high iron in the water is forcing us to buy filters at a rapid rate which cost us more money, and also is ruining our appliances. We deserve reliable, safe drinking water and transparent communication. Until those basic standards are met, this proposed rate increase is unjustified. Sincerely, Quaker Meadows Customer
3/11/2026 4:08:51 PM	Oppose Docket	Charles	Blair	TO: The State of Oregon Public Utility Commission RE: Docket Number UW 209 – In the Matter of SUNSTONE WATER ET AL REQUEST for a general rate revision. FROM: Charles and Barbara Blair, Wilderness Canyon SUBJECT: Formal Objection to Proposed General Rate Revision To the Oregon PUC Commissioners, We are writing to formally contest the general rate increase as proposed in the UW209 PUC filing, and specifically for the Wilderness Canyon subdivision water system under the "Group 3" consolidation. While SUNSTONE WATER ET AL characterizes this as a move toward "Water Equity," the underlying data in their 170-page submittal demonstrates a clear case of unreasonable rate shock and undue cross-subsidization. Whereas these concerns likely exist for all 2,700 customers as part of the filing, we can only speak to our system specific case and so utilize our case as an example. 1. Violation of the Principle of Gradualism The SUNSTONE WATER ET AL’s testimony highlights a "Group 3" average increase of 14%, stated as an increase of $68 to $77. However, for Wilderness Canyon, the proposed "consolidated" rate results, as received from SUNSTONE WATER ET AL thru the USPS mailing and not included in their PUC filing lists an increase from $75 to $150, a 100% increase, and a single user case (ourselves) reviewed indicating a monthly bill increase in February from $33 to $86, for a low end 2,000-gallon user, a 170% increase. Regulatory standards generally require "Gradualism," ensuring that no single customer class or subdivision faces a predatory spike in a single test year. A 170% jump is not a "rate adjustment"; it is an unprecedented financial shock that lacks any mitigation or local economic reality. 2. Failure to Demonstrate "Used and Useful" Infrastructure SUNSTONE WATER ET AL justifies these increases by citing "aging systems" and "substantial improvements." However, the filing fails to provide a Capital Improvement Plan or a Cost-Benefit Analysis specific to the systems being consolidated. • Lack of Prudence Review: With limited exception, SUNSTONE WATER ET AL has not detailed which specific assets in Wilderness Canyon, or the various other holdings, are being replaced or improved beyond a boiler plate ‘needs listing’ to justify a 100-200% revenue adjustment request. • The "Averaging" Obfuscation: By utilizing group averages, SUNSTONE WATER ET AL is effectively hiding the fact that low-cost, efficient systems are being forced to subsidize major capital projects in other geographic areas without receiving a commensurate increase in service quality or reliability. • Lack of Good Faith: For a monopolized customer base, an exhaustive review should be public record. Without a Capital Improvement Plan or a Cost-Benefit Analysis, these claims remain unsubstantiated and do not meet the burden of proof for a rate hike. 3. Comparison to Proximate Municipal Benchmarks Under the proposed rates, our cost for 2,000 gallons ($86) would be nearly double that of neighboring Newberg ($47) and triple that of Dundee ($28). While I recognize the difference between municipal and investor-owned utilities, a disparity of this magnitude suggests SUNSTONE WATER ET AL's Return on Equity and Cost of Service calculations are decoupled from the local economic reality. 4. The "Simplification" Red Herring The applicant argues that reducing 26 rate schedules down to 4 is necessary for administrative efficiency and is a ‘benefit’ to the customer base. In the modern era of automated billing and spreadsheets, this is not only a fallacy but a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the inflated cost request. • Administrative Reality: Transitioning from 26 rates to 4 does not save meaningful "labor" time; modern software handles these calculations in seconds. • The Intent: This simplification is not a technical necessity, but a tactical choice to remove transparency and prevent the PUC from seeing the specific burdens placed on small captive systems. In closing, we request: As SUNSTONE WATER ET AL’s filing fails to meet the burden of proof required for a "fair, just and reasonable" rate increase, we urge the Oregon Public Utility Commission to reject the UW209 general rate increase request and consolidation of Wilderness Canyon into a general rate until a transparent, system-specific cost analysis is provided, and to impose a Rate Cap consistent with the principles of gradualism to protect our neighbors and those of the entire UW209 request from predatory rate shock. Respectfully submitted, Charles and Barbara Blair 9965 NE Trillium Ln Newberg, OR 97132 Wilderness Canyon Subdivision
3/11/2026 5:41:37 PM	Oppose Docket	Michael	Pelchar	Dear Members, My wife and I have been residents in the Welches comunity for 28years. We have been utilizing Salmon Valley Water for the entirety starting when the owner was Michael Bowman. The rates throughout the first 26 years or therabouts were fair and kept the system maintained and paid for the needed employees to do so. We recieved water tesing reports annually to ensure nothing was out of range. There have been upgrades as needed throughout those years without drastic increases to our rates. That changed a couple of years ago with Mr. Bowman selling to NW Natural. Although there were some infrastructure upgrades to the meters, which by the way eliminated the time and an other employee being paid to read said meters. The rates have increased to support these meters and also a new well. This we understand. This proposed increase of rates however seems to not be for any such infrastructure improvements (for example to correct issues where some customers have water unsuitable for consumption) that have been brought to light, but to be for purchases of other small systems such as ours and to bring profit to the shareholders. This should NOT be at our expense! It has always been my belief that the OPUC was there for the PUBLIC's good, to prevent scalping and to ensure fairness to ratepayers. A large majority of people in this community are seniors or aging adults on fixed incomes such as ourselves. This is going to be quite hard for this community to bear. You all need to consider this, along with the fact that this is simply unfair to this rural community. For these and other reasons, my wife Maureen and I vehemently oppose this rate increase and the merger. Thank you, Michael Pelchar
3/11/2026 5:58:01 PM	Support Docket	James	DeCamp	To Whom It May Concern, We have been customers of Salmon Valley Water for approximately 28 years. For most of that time, our service was reliable and we had no significant concerns. However, over the past decade — and especially within the last five years — the quality of our water has noticeably declined. We began seeing intermittent brown discoloration in our toilet bowls, along with recurring issues such as itchy skin and dryness that raised concerns about possible irritation from the water. We eventually had to install a shower filter, and we now have to replace it frequently. Each time we do, the filter is stained with a rust-colored buildup. This was the point at which we began questioning whether something had changed in the water supply. It is worth noting that the timing of this decline appears to coincide with the replacement of one of the holding tanks. While we cannot say with certainty that the issues are directly related, the problems began after that work was completed, and it raises reasonable questions about whether something in that process may have contributed to the ongoing water quality concerns. Around the same time, we started seeing posts from neighbors on Nextdoor reporting similar or worse problems. Some have had to replace water heaters, deal with ruined loads of laundry, or manage significant staining in their fixtures. These issues appear to be widespread, not isolated. When we contacted Salmon Valley Water previously, we were told that flushing was needed to clear iron buildup in the system. However, it has never been clearly communicated to customers whether this flushing was actually completed, what areas were addressed, or whether any follow-up work was planned. Aside from one public meeting held around the time of the most recent rate increase — where the issue was acknowledged and promises were made — there has been no further communication. This lack of transparency leaves customers feeling that the problems are not being taken seriously, even as another rate increase and a merger are now being proposed. That is unacceptable. As a result of the ongoing water quality issues, we now purchase all of our drinking water separately. This adds roughly $70 per month to our household expenses, on top of the already increased water rates. It is frustrating to pay more while receiving water that many customers do not feel comfortable consuming. We had hoped that the most recent rate increase would provide the funds necessary to reverse the degradation of our water system. Instead, the situation has only gotten worse. At this point, the community needs an advocate — someone willing to hold Salmon Valley Water accountable for delivering the safe, reliable service we are paying for. Given the unresolved water quality issues and the lack of clear, consistent communication, we strongly believe that no further rate increases — and no merger — should be considered or approved until the community once again has confidence that the water is safe and reliable. At a minimum, a detailed, transparent action plan to resolve the water quality issues should be required before any merger is approved. Customers should not be asked to pay more or accept major changes to the utility when the basic service itself is not meeting expectations. The bottom line is that we no longer have confidence in the safety or reliability of our water. The ongoing discoloration, the physical effects on skin and hair, the need for additional filtration, the financial burden of buying drinking water, and the lack of communication from Salmon Valley Water all point to a problem that has not been adequately addressed. We hope Salmon Valley Water will take these concerns seriously and provide clear, consistent communication and a long-term solution that restores trust in the water we rely on. Sincerely, Jim DeCamp
3/12/2026 12:34:25 AM	General Comment			Having just moved to Illahe Estates, my husband and I were flabbergasted to find out our water rates were going to DOUBLE!! There simply is no valid excuse for this. Our neighborhood has organized over this outrageous increase and all agree that this is not fair and that Sunstone has not been upfront in revealing our rate of increase. We highly advise the Oregon Public Utility Commission not to approve this. Dave and Teresa Neumann 3860 St. Andrews Loop So. Salem, Or 97302
3/12/2026 2:55:15 PM	Oppose Docket	Ann	Emry	Our billing statements come with the Hiland Water name. It has been confusing for ourselves and our neighbors to have billing and email with one name and notification of a rate change under a different name. Many of our neighbors did not realize the rate consolidation would affect them. Sunstone Utility has only given an example of an average invoice amount under our current rate and with the new consolidated rate. It does not tell us what the new consolidated rates actually are. The notification letter stated we could drive to Portland and meet with them to determine our rate, but that is not convenient and the new rates should be more transparent. Under their rate consolidation schedule proposal in the letter sent to Hiland customers, our average invoice amount will more than double. This is not a fair and reasonable increase in our rates and should not be granted.
3/13/2026 2:18:53 PM	Oppose Docket	Douglas	Saldivar	March 12, 2026 RE: UW 209 - SUNSTONE WATER ET AL REQUEST FOR A GENERAL RATE REVISION I am retired as General Manager of an international Automobile Logistics corporation. I have extensive experience in operating a large business. Even though NW Natural/Sunstone Water Company is a Public Utility Company, it is, essentially, a business. I live in the Salmon Valley Water Company service area. I was intrigued when I learned that NWN was buying small water companies. When most businesses acquire another business, they typically do so to improve their core business. After the first 60% rate increase, I felt that NWN would be working to improve the quality of Salmon Valley water. I was quite disappointed when I saw that no improvements were undertaken. One week ago, I learned from our community newspaper about another proposed large rate increase. The purpose of this increase is to increase the net return on investment. Apparently, a very bad business decision was made by NWN. They must not have done the required research or due diligence, and now they are faced with not returning enough to satisfy shareholders. And so, they are trying to make the users of the water pay for their bad decisions. If NWN were not a public utility, the CEO and managers who planned these water company acquisitions would lose their jobs, because in a free-market situation, they cannot ask a government agency to pay for their bad decisions and then pass the cost of those bad decisions on to their customers. Customers who have no other competitive choice. The PUC should require that NWN/Sunstone pay for its own bad decisions and mistakes. I oppose any rate increases at this time unless NWN/Sunstone can make its administrative and operations processes more efficient. They must also pledge investment and improvements for all these local utilities they have acquired. Providing an excellent service and reasonable price to their customers while settling for a reasonable ten percent return to investors should be a hallmark of all public utilities.
3/16/2026 10:06:00 AM	Oppose Docket	Carol	hughes	(Resubmitting comments originally filed March 11) I am submitting public comments about the proposed merger of Salmon Valley Water Company (and other companies) with Sunstone Water, LLC. I am a Salmon Valley Water customer. I respectfully request that the Commission does NOT authorize the merger of Salmon Valley Water Company with Sunstone Water, LLC, for the following reasons: 1) Salmon Valley Water customers received inaccurate and inconsistent communications from Sunstone Water, LLC. I received an “IMPORTANT NOTICE” dated 2/6/2026 about the proposed merger. The link in the letter sent me to the information about the rate case. To gain clarity, I contacted a few neighbors. I learned they received an undated “IMPORTANT NOTICE” about the proposed rate increases yet the notice was for College Park customers. All Salmon Valley Water customers should have received accurate and complete information from Sunstone Utilities on the merger and the proposed rate increase (UW 209). Sunstone Utilities’ (Sunstone Water, LLC) inconsistent and flawed communications with Salmon Valley Water customers diminishes my confidence in their ability to manage our water system. These two flawed notices reveal a lack of attention to detail and poor organization. Adding more water systems under their umbrella may be taking them over their operational limit. 2) The docket explains that the new organizational structure would be streamlined. The new corporate structure may be simplified for Lakeshore, Seavey Loop, and South Coast Water companies, but the new corporate structure adds an administrative overhead layer (NW Natural Water of Oregon, LLC) for Salmon Valley Water (see Figures 1 & 2 on page 8 of Docket UP 439). Adding overhead is likely to increase costs for Salmon Valley Water customers. Other than the simple figure showing the corporate structure before and after the merger, the docket lacks evidence of the proposed streamlined organizational structure and financial savings/efficiencies. Exhibits A, B and C may provide that evidence, but they are under a general protective order so that evidence is not available to public citizens. 3) The docket claims that “applicants anticipate that the proposed merger will benefit customers by reducing the administrative and regulatory complexity of NWN Water’s Oregon operations.” The examples they provide are “streamlining the organizational structure allows for long-term efficiency benefits by reducing duplicative regulatory reporting and filings, financial reporting, property tax filings, and corporate governance matters.” These examples are direct administrative benefits and efficiencies to the company (See pages 9 & 10.) I realize they likely mean that these administrative efficiencies may translate to cost efficiencies for customers/ratepayers, but there is no evidence of cost efficiencies/benefits to customers within the docket. 4) They claim no substantial customer impacts. I disagree. The proposed merger and proposed rate increases are effective on the same day. I realize that these are two separate dockets and applications, but they cannot be separated. I have a feeling that if the proposed rate increases are not approved, Sunstone Water, LLC, would wish they had not applied for the merger. 5) The PUC of Oregon has a commitment to maintaining public interest and ensuring that utility services are provided in a fair and reasonable manner and that benefits of the transaction outweigh any potential costs or negative impacts. The docket does not provide evidence for the PUC to determine the potential costs. Based on the rate increase docket (UW 209) and associated testimony, if the rate increase is approved, there would be a 66% increase for most Salmon Valley Water customers. That level of increase seems unfair and unreasonable when other customers would receive 14-17% increases and some flat rate customers would receive a 13% decrease. The data in this document is inadequate for the Commissioners to determine if the benefits of the merger outweigh any potential costs or negative impacts.
3/20/2026 12:38:45 PM	Oppose Docket	Ben	Coleman	I ask the PUC to delve deep into the Sunstone application in detail and question Sunstone further on the reasons for such huge and inconsistent rate increases they're requesting in all the different water districts they acquired. Also, if these acquisitions aren't legally finalized yet, how can they even file for rate increases? I live in the Illahe district and a 280+% increase is just outrageous.
3/23/2026 12:28:13 PM	Oppose Docket	Zak	Ostertag	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
3/23/2026 9:47:10 PM	Oppose Docket	Judi	Sandsness	I wrote to Heather B. Cohen on January 1, 2021 regarding UW 184 (Docket Name: Salmon Valley Water Company Request for a General Rate Revision). I am again writing about UW 209 - Request for a General Rate Revision In the Matter of Salmon Valley Water Company; Sunstone Water, LLC; Lakeshore Water Company, LLC; Seavey Loop Water Company, LLC; and South Coast Water Company, LLC. I would like to be added to the distribution list for UW 209. Salmon Valley Water Company is the company that provides us water. We have been very unhappy with our water for years. We finally put in a filtration system in 2020 because the iron was so bad. We did lots of complaining to Salmon Valley prior to spending $2,913 (plus continuous upkeep for supplies, filters, service calls) but nothing was ever done. We also have spent a considerable amount of money on bottled over the years. I used to have to wash my hair with bottled water. Prior to our filtration system being added, we had clothes completely ruined by the water and finally ended going to the laundromat to wash clothes. We found at that time that the laundromat is very expensive to use. We tried to remove stains with "Iron Out" to clean stains from clothing, toilets/sinks/tubs which was also costly. At that time, nothing would remove the stains. I will say that since adding the filtration system things are some better but not absolutely perfect. At times we still have stains when washing clothes and they eventually become dingy. We still drink bottled water because we do not trust our tap water (even with the filtration system). Salmon Valley kept saying that they were putting in a new well and that would stop the water issues. That is not true. The new well is in and most people still have bad water. Our water base rate in January 2023 was $31.10; our water base rate in September 2023 went up to $52.27. Now, I understand IN THE MATTER OF SUNSTONE WATER, LLC; SALMON VALLEY WATER COMPANY, ET AL, Docket No. 439, are trying to put through a "merger into Sunstone" and they want to substantially increase our water base rate again but the water issues have not been resolved. It is worse for those without a filtration system. If rates are increased then everyone should have safe tap water that is clear. I am requesting that the Request for a General Rate Revision be denied. Thank you.
3/24/2026 2:36:25 PM	Oppose Docket	Sean	Cobin	The requested proposed increase does not provide strong enough support / reason to increase rates besides a merger, which should bring down costs due to consolidation and economies -of-scale. The community is not being offered a more reasonable sliding scale based on usage, rather a very simple table with high base. Rates were already increased through NW Natural recently; an additional increase is not justified if company is not effectively managing their own expenses / investments. It is another poor decision to try to rate tax a community that has a number of vacation homes which are not even using services on any regular basis and another part of the community which are on fixed-incomes. Also an increase in commercial expenses will also negatively impact an already fragile / down year in tourism and business revenue loss due to the larger economy spending downturn / inflation / gas prices. This is not the time to add an exuberant increase to an essential utility for the Mt Hood communities.
3/24/2026 3:32:38 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Peter	Homes	Please tie UW 209 Rate Increase to UP 439. These two relate to each other. They were both filed at the same time. A Merger/Rate increase by the same Company NW Natural should be handled together. Shouldn’t the Merger happen first, then a Rate Increase proposal? Regards, Peter Himes Salmon Valley Water customer Welches, OR
3/25/2026 10:25:21 AM	Oppose Docket	Lorne	Yudcovitch	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets.
4/1/2026 9:15:06 AM	Oppose Docket	Ann	Emry	Why does Sunstone Water need to exist since the water companies were already purchased under NW Natural Water and will still have the same parent company of NW Natural Holdings? Why did OPUC grant a waiver to NW Natural Holdings to move Illahe Water (dba Hiland Water) from NW Natural Water to Sunstone Water even though they did not provide any operating costs or contract agreement documents? What are the OPUC guardrails for rate of return revenue to contracted services? Does the OPUC guideline for 10% rate of return hold to the parent company of Northwest Natural Holdings or Sunstone Water? Are the contracted service agreements being used to get a higher rate of return?