Defendant accused of Arbitrary Denial in Utility Billing Dispute

A dispute over utility billing practices has escalated to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, drawing attention to the intricacies of public fire protection service fees. On January 28, 2026, Eric Dunst filed an appeal against the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin in Waukesha County Circuit Court, challenging the Commission’s decision to deny a formal review of his complaint against the City of Waukesha Water Utility (WWU).

The case centers around WWU’s billing practices for public fire protection services. According to Wisconsin Statutes, public utilities like WWU must file a schedule of rates with the Commission and charge customers accordingly. Dunst owns three parcels in Waukesha—one developed with a primary water meter and two vacant—and was charged a fire protection fee on each parcel based on WWU’s tariff. He contended that as a customer receiving water service at his developed parcel, he should not be charged for his vacant parcels under Wisconsin Statute § 196.03(3)(b), which outlines billing conditions for non-customers.

Dunst’s informal complaint led to an investigation by Commission staff, who upheld WWU’s charges as compliant with its tariff. The tariff stipulates that parcels without a primary meter are billed at a standard rate for public fire protection services. Despite Dunst’s request for formal review, citing arbitrary and capricious denial by the Commission, his petition was rejected after an open meeting on May 9, 2024.

The court proceedings revealed that WWU’s adopted tariff mandates charging fees per parcel regardless of ownership or service status. The Commission maintained that statutory provisions allowed such charges and that once approved, utilities are bound by their tariffs unless changes are sanctioned by the Commission.

Dunst sought judicial review following this decision but faced another setback when the circuit court denied his petition. His appeal to the higher court argued procedural errors and misinterpretation of statutes by both WWU and the Commission.

In response to Dunst’s claims, the appellate court examined whether the Commission acted within its discretion and adhered to statutory requirements in denying formal review. The court found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious behavior by the Commission, affirming its decision as rationally based on established legal frameworks.

Representing Eric Dunst is attorney Samuel A. Christensen. The case was presided over by Judges Neubauer P.J., Gundrum, and Lazar in District I of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals under Case ID No. 2024AP2566.