20250819Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER HARDIE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: JEFFREY R. LOLL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: AUGUST 19, 2025
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF BRENDA CHARLES' FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY; CASE NO. IPC-E-25-26.
On July 31, 2025, Brenda Charles filed a formal complaint ("Complaint") with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") against Idaho Power Company ("Company"). Ms.
Charles alleges the Company: (1) wrongfully billed her; (2) wrongfully disconnected her service
for non-payment; and (3) failed to notify her about a bill transferred to her account. She requests
the Commission enjoin the Company from disconnecting her service while her Complaint is
resolved.
Ms. Charles alleges irregular billing started shortly after she began service at her current
address on May 1, 2024. Complaint at 1. Ms. Charles states that she was erroneously assessed a
fee of$8.50 on May 29, 2024, when the Company claimed her service had been interrupted. Id.
In September of 2024, Ms. Charles was approved by Western Idaho Community Action
Partnership ("WICAP") for an energy assistance payment in the amount of$1,220.00, and she
notified the Company. Id. According to Ms. Charles, when her service was subsequently
interrupted in late September or early October of 2024, she called the Company and was told a
payment on her behalf from WICAP was never received. Id. Ms. Charles was allegedly told that
the Company could see her WICAP approval, and on that basis, her service was restored. Id.
However, in March or April of 2025, Ms. Charles received a bill from the Company showing a
balance of $2,999.17. Id. When she called the Company, Ms. Charles was again told that no
payment had been received from WICAP. Id. at 1-2. Ms. Charles alleges she received no
notification from the Company or WICAP about the lack of payment. Id. at 2.
DECISION MEMORANDUM I

In late May of 2025, Ms. Charles' power service was interrupted again. Id. When she
called the Company, she was told her account had a balance of$7,270.67 because she was listed
on her ex-spouse's account, and her ex's unpaid balance had been transferred to her account. Id.
Ms. Charles maintains she never provided identification to be added to her ex-spouse's account.
Nevertheless, Ms. Charles and the Company reportedly came to an agreement in which the
balance from her ex-spouse's account would be removed from her account, and she would make
arrangements to pay the balance. Id. However, when she spoke with the Company again, Ms.
Charles states that she was told the transferred balance would not be removed from her account
and that she would have to pay the entire balance in 30 days, or her service would be turned off
again.Id.
Ms. Charles requests that the balance from her ex-spouse's account be removed from her
own account—though she still represents she's willing to make arrangements with the Company
to pay that balance.Id.
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. Idaho
Administrative Procedure Act ("IDAPA") 31.01.01.054.03 requires a formal complaint to
identify "the specific provision of statute, rule, order, notice, tariff or other controlling law that
the utility or person has violated."
Counsel for Commission Staff ("Staff') reviewed Ms. Charles' Complaint. The
Complaint contains numerous factual allegations but does not specify any binding authority that
the Company allegedly violated. Without such specificity, Staff does not believe that Ms.
Charles' Complaint satisfies the pleading requirements for consideration by the Commission.
Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission issue an order conditionally
dismissing Ms. Charles' Complaint with leave to amend it for a period of 30 days. If Ms. Charles
amends her Complaint within that time, the Commission should review it to determine whether it
satisfies the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-612 and IDAPA 31.01.01.054.03. 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 Ms. Charles fails to address the defects
in her Complaint, the Commission can enter a final order dismissing it without prejudice.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2

COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to issue an order conditionally dismissing Ms. Charles'
formal complaint with leave to amend it for a period of 30 days?
Jeffrey' . Loll
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-25-26_Chades Complaint\memos\IPCE2526 Dec;l.doc
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3