20250319Reconsideration_Order_No_36513.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 19,2025
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN NAUMANN, ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-34
COMPLAINANT, ) ORDER NO. 36513
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 alleged
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.
On January 27, 2025, the Commission dismissed Mr. Naumann's complaint, concluding
that it lacked authority to grant Mr.Naumann the award of civil damages that he sought for injuries
the Company allegedly caused. Order No. 36444.
FINAL ORDER NO. 36444
On January 27, 2025, the Commission issued Order No. 36444, which dismissed Mr.
Naumann's complaint. Order No. 36444 provides, in pertinent part:
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,
ORDER NO. 36513 1

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 No. 36444 at 4.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 10, 2025, the Commission received a letter from Mr. Naumann, dated
February 4, 2025, ("Letter") asking the Commission to "review [its] decision." Mr. Naumann
asserted that the Company's workers falsely reported that the cable running to his existing meter
box was encased in concrete. According to Mr. Naumann, pictures he submitted show that the
cable ran through a conduit in the concrete.Additionally, Mr. Naumann asserts that no splice was
necessary because his meter was being relocated almost a yard closer to the distribution box near
his residence. According to Mr. Naumann, "it would be sad if litigation is required" to address
"obvious"falsifications by Company employees.Due to these alleged falsifications,Mr.Naumann
asked the Commission to review its decision to dismiss his complaint.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Under Idaho Code§ 61-626,the Commission may abrogate or change one of its orders that
it determines after reconsideration is unjust, unwarranted, or should be changed. This permits the
Commission to correct any errors in the original order before appellate review. See Washington
Water Power Co. a Kootenai Env't All., 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). Although
the Letter is not expressly styled as a petition seeking reconsideration under Idaho Code § 61-626,
we find it reasonable to deem the Letter to be a petition for reconsideration and analyze it according
ORDER NO. 36513 2

to the standards applicable to such petitions as the Letter seeks reversal of the Commission's
decision to dismiss his complaint.
The Commission finds that the Letter does not meet the substantive requirements for a
petition for reconsideration. Rule 331 provides:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why
the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will
offer if reconsideration is granted.
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01 (emphasis added). Further, "the petition . . . must state whether the
petitioner . . . requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or
interrogatories."IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03.
In this case Mr. Naumann has not addressed the Commission's basis for dismissing his
complaint. Mr.Naumann argues that the Company's decision to require him to lay new cable from
the distribution box near his residence to his electric meter box was based upon inaccurate
information from Company employees. However, the Commission dismissed Mr. Naumann's
complaint because he was seeking relief in the form of civil damages that the Commission could
not provide—not because it believed the Company properly required him to lay new cable to his
meter box.
Accordingly,Mr.Naumann has failed to identify specific grounds for why Order No. 36444
was unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law. Pursuant to Rule 332,
"[g]rounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported by specific
explanation may be dismissed." IDAPA 31.01.01.332. Based upon the petition's lack of specific
grounds for reconsideration and supporting argument,the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Naumann's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by
this Order, or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case, may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
ORDER NO. 36513 3

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 19th day of
March 2025.
G
P
E A"LODG , IDENT
R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
DAYN HA IE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
XVIWBa os- a
Commission See eta
;!5
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-24-34_Naumann Comp1aint\orders\IPCE2434_fna12_at.docx
ORDER NO. 36513 4