IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15

- 1451 Filed November 23, 2016 MT. PLEASANT MUNICIPAL UTILITIES , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
vs. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD , Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Lucy J. Gamon , Judge.

The Iowa Utilities Board appeals the district court’s decision on a statutory question and remand to the board

. APPEAL DISMISSED.

David J. Lynch, General Counsel, and Cecil I. Wright, Assistant General Counsel , Des Moines , for appellant. Ivan T. Webber and James R. Wainwright of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C. , Des Moines , for appellee.

Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. We must decide whether an appeal is moot and whether we should consider the appeal under an exception to the mootness doctrine. I. Background Proceedings Mount P leasant Municipal Utilities refused to provide a city resident utility service until she paid an outstanding bill. The woman filed a complaint with the Iowa Utilities Board

. The board issued a n informal “proposed resolution” letter requiring “Mount Pleasant to offer [ the woman ] a six

- month payment agreement, if [she] would still want utility service in [her] name.” The letter stated , “If any party disagrees with the proposed resolution, that party may request a formal proceeding with the Board.”
M ount Pleasant requested a formal proceeding to address whether the utility could statutorily deny service based on the outstanding bill or whether it had to connect service and afford the woman a payment plan on the outstanding
bill

. The board denied the request for a formal proceeding to litigate this statutory question

. Mount Pleasant sought judicial review of the agency decision

. See Iowa Code § 17A.19 (2015)

. The district court ruled for M ount Pleasant on the statutory question and remanded the case for a formal proceeding to dismiss the complaint

. The board appealed and the appeal was transferred to this court for disposition

. After the notice of appeal was filed, Mount Pleasant notified the court that the woman who sought utility service had paid the outstanding bill. The utility acknowledged the payment “appear[ed] to eliminate the factual basis for the3

dispute ” with the Iowa Utilities Board

. Mount Pleasant nonetheless asked this court to “exercise its discretion to decide [the appeal] ” on the ground that the appeal “presents issues of public importance to municipal utilities and their
customers. ” The board filed a resistance , arguing the appeal was moot because a decision would “have no practical legal effect upon any existing controversy

. ” The board requested “the Court dismiss this appeal

. ” 1
II. Mootness We begin and end with the mootness question. An appeal “ is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy.” Homan v. Branstad , 864 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted)

. This appeal no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the potential customer paid the outstanding bill on which the statutory question was predicated. T he re i s no need for a payment plan and no need for a formal proceeding before the agency to address the board’s requirement of a payment plan.
M ount Pleasant insists the dispute is one of broad public importance. See
In re B.B. , 826 N.W.2d 425, 428

- 29 (Iowa 2013) ( “[O]ne exception [to the mootness doctrine] permits appellate review of otherwise moot issues when the issue is one of broad public importance likely to recur.” ) ; State v. Hernandez

Lopez , 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002) (considering factors for deciding
whether to review a moot claim ). In its view, the issue of whether a utility may statutorily withhold service until an outstanding bill is paid

— ra ther than connect

1 The board did not dismiss its appeal of its own accord. See Iowa Ct. R. 6.1201 (1) (“An appeal may be voluntarily dismissed by the party who filed the appeal at any time before a decision is filed by either the supreme court or the court of appeals.”).4

service and afford the customer a plan to repay the past

- due bill

— is one that will affect municipal electric and natural gas utilities around the State. The board essentially concedes the importance of this statutory issue , but points out that the agency intends to address it in a rulemaking proceeding, which will allow “[a]ll interested persons, including M [ount] Pleasant and t he Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities” t o weigh in. We need not decide whether a rule making proceeding at some later date is grounds for foregoing a decision on t he statutory question at this time because the statutory question both sides seek to resolve would not be b ef ore us even i f
we were to consider th is moot appeal. As noted, the agency decision from which
Mount Pleasant appealed was the denial of a formal proceeding. The only issue on judicial review , then, was whether the agency erred in denying Mount Pleasant’s request for a formal proceeding. 2 Th e statutory question concerning the utility’s ability to deny service pending payment was not formally addressed by the agency, was not properly before the district c ourt on judicial review, and is not properly before us. See State ex. rel. Miller v. DeCoster , 608 N.W.2d 785, 791 (Iowa 2000) ( noting that , under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, “courts will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal or agency prior to the solution of that question by the administrative tribunal ” in c ertain enumerated circumstances ” citation omitted) ); City of Waukee v. City Dev

. Bd. , 514 N.W.2d 83, 90 (Iowa 1994) (“[T]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction compels us to leave the resolution of

2 We recognize the district court decided the statutory question. The court’s authority was limited to “issues considered and decided by the agency.” Meads v. Iowa Dep ’t of Soc. Serv

s. , 366 N.W.2d 555, 559 (Iowa 1985).5

the merits of this controversy to the CDB.”) ; see also Iowa Ins. Inst

. v. Core Gr

p. of Iowa Ass’n for Justice , 867 N.W.2d 58, 68 (Iowa 2015) (noti ng “[t]he legislature has granted agencies multifaceted authority,” which they exercise “when deciding contested cases; and . . . when the y promulgate rules and rule on p etitions for declaratory orders ” )

. We conclude the appeal is moot and the only un derlying issue that would properly be before us

— whether the agency should have granted a formal proceeding

— is not one of public importance warranting review of th is moot appeal. The appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED.