20250127Final_Order_No_36444.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 27,2025
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN NAUMANN, ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-34
COMPLAINANT, ) ORDER NO. 36444
VS. )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY, )
RESPONDENT. )
On August 14,2024, Jim Naumann filed a formal complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission("Commission")against Idaho Power Company("Company"). Mr.Naumann alleges
that the Company needlessly required him to replace a power cable running from the street to his
meter base, resulting in him incurring approximately$15,000 in unnecessary costs.
At its August 27,2024,Decision Meeting,the Commission accepted the Complaint, issued
a Summons to the Company, and gave the Company twenty-one days to answer or otherwise
respond.
On September 18, 2024, the Company filed an answer ("Answer") to the Complaint that
requested denial of the relief Naumann sought and dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that it
sought relief outside the Commission's jurisdiction,was procedurally deficient, and failed to state
a claim. Alternatively, the Company argued that the Complaint should be dismissed because the
Company acted in accordance with its tariffs and normal business practices. No other materials
were filed. No other comments were filed.
Having reviewed the record in this case, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaint.
THE FORMAL COMPLAINT
Mr. Naumann alleged that he had to move his electrical meter box while expanding his
garage sometime before June 15, 2024, to keep the meter outside the garage. After the concrete
pad and footings for the expanded garage were poured, a Company representative informed Mr.
Naumann's electrician that a new underground cable from the distribution box near the street to
the meter box was necessary.According to Mr.Naumann,he was out of state when this disclosure
occurred. However, because construction could not be delayed, a new underground power cable
ORDER NO. 36444 1

was installed from the distribution box near the street to his new meter box, resulting in
approximately $15,000 in installation costs and damage to his sprinkler system and old sage.
Mr. Naumann alleged that he later learned that the Company claimed installation of the
new cable was necessary because the existing cable was too short, could not be spliced, and was
encased in the newly poured concrete pad and footings for the expanded garage. Mr. Naumann
asserted that both these claims are false. According to Mr. Naumann, the original underground
cable was in conduit and could not be too short because his new meter box was closer to the
distribution box than his old one. Mr. Naumann requested financial compensation from the
Company for the allegedly unnecessary installation of the power cable.
THE COMPANY'S ANSWER
The Company requested that the Commission deny the relief Mr. Naumann requested and
dismiss his Complaint. The Company acknowledged that it required Mr. Naumann to install new
cable from the distribution box to his meter. However, as set forth in detail below, the Company
asserts that its tariffs compelled installation of the new cable and that it was workers hired by Mr.
Naumann who damaged his property during the installation.
According to the Company, it was unaware that Mr. Naumann was expanding his garage
until his electrician called the Company on May 7, 2024. After Mr. Naumann's electrician
disclosed during this call that he believed there was a direct buried cable between the distribution
box and Mr. Naumann's existing meter, a Company representative explained that installation of a
new cable in conduit was likely necessary.This was so because, after uncovering the existing cable
and pulling it back from the new foundation, there would not be enough cable to connect it to the
new meter without performing a splice that would impact the integrity of the cable. The Company
representative also advised Mr. Naumann's electrician that a Company field employee would be
coming to Mr. Naumann's residence to further assess the situation.
The following day, the field employee visited the garage work site at Mr. Naumann's
residence.During that visit,the employee confirmed that Mr.Naumann's existing meter was inside
his expanded garage, necessitating its relocation to an exterior wall. The field employee further
observed that the concrete pad and footings for the expanded garage had already been poured over
ORDER NO. 36444 2

the buried cable, preventing it from being pulled back to connect to the new meter.' This
necessitated installation of a new cable, which had to be buried in conduit at Mr. Naumann's
expense and in compliance with both the National Electric Code and Company standards.
Following the installation of a new underground cable in conduit by Mr. Naumann's third-party
contractors, the Company connected the new cable to the relocated meter outside the expanded
garage—billing Mr. Naumann $838.74 for the service.
The Company contended that it complied with its tariffs throughout the above-described
interactions with Mr. Naumann. Under Rule C of its Tariff, the Company does not have to install
extension or additional service facilities except in accordance with Rule H of the Company's tariff
and consistent with its construction standards. Rule H gives the Company the discretion to permit
customers to provide trenches and backfill for underground lines, like Mr. Naumann was allowed
to do. Furthermore, the Company stated that its construction standards, which necessitated the
reinstallation of an underground cable in conduit between the distribution box and Mr.Naumann's
meter, are both reasonably necessary to ensure safe, reliable service is provided to customers who
contact the Company about changing their service and published on the Company's website.
The Company noted that it did not dig the trench that allegedly damaged Mr. Naumann's
sprinkler system and old sage. Rather, the Company asserted that its employees merely pulled the
new cable through the conduit and trench provided by workers Mr. Naumann hired. Thus, the
Company reasoned that any claim for damages resulting from the digging of that trench must be
brought against those workers or their employer—not the Company.
Furthermore, the Company contended that the Complaint should be dismissed because it
fails to reference a specific provision of law that the Company allegedly violated as required by
the Commission's Rule of Procedure 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.054. In a similar vein, the Company
reasoned that the Complaint fails to present a claim the Commission has authority to redress. To
support this argument,the Company cited orders in which the Commission determined it lacks the
authority to award civil damages. Thus,the Company argued that Mr.Naumann must seek redress
through the courts for the damage to his sprinklers and sage brush caused by his agents.2
'The Company submitted photos that it asserted depict both Mr.Naumann's meter inside his expanded garage before
it was relocated and the old cable underneath the new garage foundation and footings. See Company's Answer -
Attachment 5.
z Idaho Code § 61-702 authorizes those injured by the conduct of a public utility to bring an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
ORDER NO. 36444 3

COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01,et. seq. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public
utility are just and reasonable.Idaho Code§ 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate
rates, charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine
whether they are just, reasonable,preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of
law, and to fix the same by order.Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503. The Commission addresses
informal and formal complaints through the process outlined in its procedural rules and does not
provide preferential treatment to any participating party. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02.
The Commission is an agency of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise that authority
delegated to it by the Legislature. Washington Water Power v Kootenai Environmental Alliance,
99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). The Commission has authority to investigate and modify by
order the rates, regulations, and practices of public utilities. See Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through
503. However,Mr.Naumann has not identified a specific statute,regulation, or tariff provision the
Company allegedly violated. Instead, Mr. Naumann seeks to recover civil damages the Company
allegedly caused.
Contrary to Mr.Naumann's request,the Public Utilities Law,Idaho Code§ 61-101, et seq.,
does not authorize the Commission to award civil damages.Rather,persons harmed by the conduct
of a public utility have recourse through the courts. More specifically, Idaho Code § 61-702
provides that "any corporation or person" injured by the conduct of a public utility may file an
"action to recover such loss , damage or injury. . . in any court of competent jurisdiction . . . ."
Although the Commission is often described as a quasi-judicial agency, it is not a judicial court.
Thus, the Commission lacks authority over claims of civil tort liability.
In summary, the Commission does not have authority to award damages caused by the
actions of a regulated public utility. That power rests with the courts of this State. Because we lack
authority to grant Mr. Naumann the relief he seeks, we find it appropriate to dismiss Mr.
Naumann's complaint without expressing an opinion on whether the Company is liable for any
civil damages. That issue can properly be addressed by a judicial court.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the formal complaint filed by Jim Naumann against Idaho
Power Company is dismissed for the reasons set forth above.
ORDER NO. 36444 4

THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 27th day of
January 2025.
ER ANDS SON, PRESIDENT
HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COT _ ISSIONER
ATTEST:
I ,L to
�..
h arfLo s A a Commission Secreta e
IALega1\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-24-34_Namnann Complaint\orders\IPCE2434_final_at.docx
ORDER NO. 36444 5