20250610Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER HARDIE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: ADAM TRIPLETT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: JUNE 10, 2025
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF TYLER HILLMAN'S FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST PACIFICORP dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER; CASE NO.
PAC-E-25-09.
On May 5, 2025, Tyler Hillman filed a formal complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") against PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power Company
("Company"). Mr. Hillman alleges that he contacted the Company to inquire about connecting a
residence he owns near Dubois, Idaho, to the Company's system. Mr. Hillman alleges that, after
entering a contract with the Company to connect to a line that ran near the residence, he paid a
private contractor $11,040 to install a transformer box and conduit to prepare for the connection.
After this work was complete, the Company informed Mr. Hillman that he could not connect to
the line near his residence because a third-party owned it. According to Mr. Hillman, the
Company has maintained the line since 1998, despite a third-party owning it. The Company
reimbursed Mr. Hillman the costs he incurred preparing to connect to the line after signing a
release of claims.
Mr. Hillman further alleges he was later told that the Company had negotiated an
agreement with the owner of the line near Mr. Hillman's residence that would allow him to
connect to it. However, the Company representatives Mr. Hillman spoke to when he
subsequently sought to connect to that line were unaware of any such agreement. Mr. Hillman
asserts that connecting to the nearest above-ground pole the Company owns would cost him
about $150,000. Mr. Hillman alleges that the Company violated its Electronic Service
Regulation ("ESR") No. 12 — Line Extensions and requests that the Commission investigate his
DECISION MEMORANDUM I

claims and require the Company "to provide us the power we had a signed contract for."
Complaint at 3.
RECOMMENDATION
Under Idaho Code § 61-612, a formal complaint must articulate the act or omission by a
utility that the complainant claims violates a statute, Commission order, or rule. Mr. Hillman's
complaint contains numerous factual allegations, but only the conclusory assertion that the
Company has violated ESR No. 12. The complaint does not describe how Mr. Hillman believes
the Company violated ESR No. 12. That regulation is fifteen pages long with numerous sections
and subsections, and the complaint does not identify any specific provision(s) Mr. Hillman
believes the Company violated. In short, the complaint does not interpret and apply ESR No. 12
to the Company's alleged conduct in a way that shows a violation occurred. Without this, Mr.
Hillman's complaint does not satisfy the requirements for consideration by the Commission.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission issue an order conditionally
dismissing Mr. Hillman's formal complaint with leave to amend it for a period of 30 days. If Mr.
Hillman amends his formal complaint within that time, the Commission should review it to
determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-612. If it does, the
Commission may issue a Summons to the Company directing it to answer or otherwise respond
to the amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. If Mr. Hillman fails to address the
defects in his complaint, the Commission can enter a final order dismissing it without prejudice.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to issue an order conditionally dismissing Mr. Hillman's
formal complaint with leave to amend it for a period of 30 days?
az,,-
Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
I:LegahELECTRICTAC-E-25-09_HillmanVnemosTACE2509_Dec_at.doe
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2