20260423Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER HARDIE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: KELSEA E. ROSS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: APRIL 23, 2026
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF BRENDA CHARLES' FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY; CASE NO. IPC-E-26-11.
On April 14, 2026, Brenda Charles sent an email ("Email") to the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") secretary alleging that actions taken by Idaho Power Company
("Company") against Ms. Charles violated provisions of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act
("IDAPA"). Email at 1. Ms. Charles alleges that her telephone service is currently suspended and
requests that all communication regarding her complaints in this case be conducted via email.Id.
Ms. Charles alleges that a Company employee("IPC Employee")did not provide a medical
fax form to Ms. Charles' daughter's doctor's office at Ms. Charles' request.Id. Ms. Charles claims
that the IPC Employee told her that she was not eligible for the form. Id. Ms. Charles alleges that
the IPC Employee's refusal to send the medical form to the medical provider was a violation of
her rights under IDAPA 31.21.01.308.Id.
Further, Ms. Charles alleges that the Company is holding her liable for a third-party debt,
in addition to her own account, in the amount of$9,545.66. Id. Ms. Charles alleges that the third-
party debt is associated with her ex-partner's account. Id. Ms. Charles alleges that the Company
stated that she was married to her ex-partner and that her name was included on an "energy
assistant application."Id. Ms. Charles claims that the Company's actions violate her rights under
IDAPA 31.21.01.206. Id. Lastly, Ms. Charles alleges that she was not listed on "the account
holders account," and that she was not responsible for anything related to that account. Id.
DECISION MEMORANDUM I

RECOMMENDATION
Counsel for Commission Staff("Staff')reviewed the Email, and based on its review, Staff
does not believe that the Email meets the pleading requirements necessary for the Commission to
consider it a filed Formal Complaint. A Formal Complaint must satisfy the requirements set forth
in Idaho Code § 61-612 and Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rule of Procedure 54 ("Rule 54").
Under Idaho Code § 61-612, a Formal Complaint must articulate the act or omission by the
Company that is alleged to violate a statute, Commission order, or rule. Additionally, under Rule
54, a Formal Complaint must"[r]efer to the specific provision of statute, rule, order, notice, tariff
or other controlling law that the utility or person has violated."
In this case, the Email articulates (1) that the IPC Employee's inaction violated Ms.
Charles' rights under IDAPA 31.21.01.308 and(2)that the Company's act of holding Ms. Charles
liable for the charges on her ex-partner's account violates IDAPA 31.21.01.206. By articulating
the act or omission of the Company that allegedly violated two specific Commission rules, Staff
believes that the Email partially satisfies the requirements under Idaho Code § 61-612 and Rule
54.03.
However, under Rule 54.02, a Formal Complaint must "[f]ully state the facts constituting
the acts or omissions of the utility and the dates when the acts or omissions occurred," and must
"[s]tate what action or outcome should be taken to resolve the complaint." In this case, the Email:
(1) does not fully state the facts surrounding the IPC Employee's inaction or the Company's act
of holding her liable for certain account charges; (2) does not detail when the IPC Employee's
alleged inaction occurred nor when the Company wrongfully held Ms. Charles liable for account
charges; and (3) does not articulate what actions should be taken to resolve the complaints. By
failing to fully state the facts of the acts or omissions by the Company, detailing when the acts or
omissions occurred, and articulating what should be done to resolve her complaints, Staff believes
that the Email does not meet the pleading requirements under Rule 54.02.
In Commission Order No. 36739, issued in Case No. IPC-E-25-26 (in which Ms. Charles
was a party), the Commission explained that:
[t]he Commission will not attempt to cure deficient pleadings by piecing
together the facts alleged to determine how a complainant believes a utility's acts
or omissions may constitute a violation of an unspecified statute,rule, order,notice,
tariff, or other controlling law. Moreover, because the Commission's procedural
rules do not allow unpleaded issues to be tried by consent, it is critical that a
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2

complainant explicitly assert and elucidate how a utility allegedly violated a
specific legal provision.
Order No. 36739 at 1-2(citing Edwards V.Idaho Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 568 P.3d 107, 111 (Idaho
2025)). In this case, the Email does not provide any explanation as to why or how the IPC
Employee's alleged inaction violated Ms. Charles' rights under IDAPA 31.21.01.308 nor how the
Company holding her liable for the account charges violates IDAPA 31.21.01.206. By not
providing any argument for why the Company's inaction and action violated the two IDAPA rules
cited, Staff believes the Email fails to meet the pleading requirements for a Formal Complaint.
For those reasons, Staff recommends that the Commission issue an order conditionally
dismissing this case and providing leave to amend it for a period of 7 days. Staff recognizes that 7
days is a short period of time. However, Ms. Charles was the complainant in Case No. IPC-E-25-
26, which had nearly identical facts to the facts provided in the Email, and that Order No. 36739
was issued for. Therefore, due to her participation in Case No. IPC-E-25-26, Staff believes that
Ms. Charles is aware of the pleading requirements set forth in Idaho Code § 61-612 and
Commission rules.
If Ms. Charles amends her Email within 7 days, Staff recommends that the Commission
review it to determine whether it satisfies the pleading requirements above. If the amended Email
complies with those requirements, the Commission may issue a summons to the Company
directing it to answer or otherwise respond within 21 days. If Ms. Charles fails to address the
defects in her Email, the Commission may enter a final order dismissing this case.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to issue an order conditionally dismissing this case and
providing leave to file an amended complaint for a period of 7 days?
Kelsea E. Ross
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Lega1\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-26-11_Charles\memos\IPCE2611_dec 1_kr.docx
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3