20260707Answer and Motion to Dismiss.pdf

RECEIVED
July 7, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN 1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
POWER. Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP
July 7, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise, Idaho 83714
RE: CASE NO. PAC-E-26-10
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JOSEPH HUBER
Attention: Commission Secretary
Rocky Mountain Power respectfully submits its Answer in the above-referenced matter for filing.
Informal inquiries may be directed to Anna DeMers, State Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (801)
543-5019.
Sincerely,
bAuza"'D
Joelle Steward
Senior Vice President, Regulation
Cc: Joseph Huber(Via US Mail)

Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330)
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Email: joseph.dallas(&,pacificorp.com
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JOSEPH
HUBER VS PACIFICORP D/B/A ROCKY CASE NO. PAC-E-26-10
MOUNTAIN POWER
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
1. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission"), Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp ("Rocky
Mountain Power" or the "company") hereby provides its answer to the formal complaint
("Complaint") filed by Joseph Huber("Complainant")with the Commission on June 16, 2026. In
addition, the Company moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety because Complainant has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Complainant has not alleged that Rocky
Mountain Power violated any specific Commission statute, administrative rule, order, or company
tariff in resolving the alleged safety hazard of a third-party electric pole.
2. Communications regarding this Case should be addressed to:
By e-mail (preferred):datarequestgpacificorp.com
j oseph.dallas(&,pacificorp.com
arena.demers kpacific orp.com
By mail: Data Request Response Center
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah St., Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
1

Anna DeMers
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
Rocky Mountain Power
315 W. 27th Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82001
Telephone: [phone]
Email: anna.demerskpacificorp.com
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330)
Senior Attorney
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Email:joseph.dallas(&pacificorp.com
I. INTRODUCTION
3. Rocky Mountain Power takes reports involving potential public safety hazards
seriously and responds by evaluating the conditions associated with its facilities and equipment.
In this instance, upon receiving the customer's concern regarding the pole and attached electric
facilities,Rocky Mountain Power dispatched personnel to inspect the site and assess the condition
of the electrical infrastructure, including conductor clearances, line tensions, and any potential
risks to safe operation of the electrical system.Rocky Mountain Power has been to the Complaint's
property at least three times based on customer requests and in response to complaints. Based on
these field evaluations,Rocky Mountain Power determined that its facilities were operating safely
and that no emergency condition existed requiring mitigation measures.
4. While Rocky Mountain Power does not own, control, or maintain the private pole
itself and therefore is not responsible for the maintenance or structural condition of that asset, the
company nonetheless reviewed whether the condition of the pole created a risk to Rocky Mountain
Power's electrical facilities or public safety, and whether a disconnection or other emergency
action was warranted. The inspection did not identify conditions warranting emergency action by
2

the utility. Accordingly, Rocky Mountain Power believes it acted appropriately by promptly
investigating the concern, assessing the safety of its facilities, and making a determination based
on the observed conditions rather than the characterization of the situation by the Complainant.
5. The Complaint alleges that Rocky Mountain Power violated the National Electrical
Safety Code ("NESC") and two City of Downey ordinances by failing to perform requested
maintenance and take other actions with respect to a pole owned by a third party. Based on these
alleged violations, the Complainant seeks various forms of relief, including additional
investigation and corrective action by the Company. However, the Complainant fails to identify
any legal authority establishing that Rocky Mountain Power has a duty to perform the requested
additional safety evaluations, emergency mitigation measures, or any incremental maintenance on
this third-party pole. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth below, Rocky Mountain Power
respectfully requests that the Commission dismiss the Complaint:
II. ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
6. Rocky Mountain Power does not own the pole at issue. The Complaint identifies
the pole as a "private power pole" and therefore Rocky Mountain Power submits this is not a
contested issue of fact in this proceeding.' Accordingly, Rocky Mountain Power has no property
interest in the pole and no legal authority to perform the incremental stabilization maintenance
requested by the Complainant.
7. Rocky Mountain Power nevertheless inspected the pole and determined that it does
not present a safety hazard. PacifiCorp initially visited the Complainant's property on August 4,
2025, to evaluate the concerns raised regarding the pole. Line tension was increased during this
initial site visit. Thereafter,PacifiCorp returned to the property on June 12,2026, and July 2,2026,
' Complaint at 1.
3

in response to additional communications from the Complainant and the filing of the formal
Complaint.
8. During these site visits, Rocky Mountain Power evaluated the condition of the
utility-owned electrical facilities,including conductor clearances,line tensions,and any conditions
that could affect the safe operation of the electrical system. Rocky Mountain Power also assessed
whether the third-party-owned pole itself presented any safety concern. Based on these
inspections, Rocky Mountain Power determined that the pole was not leaning against the fence,
did not otherwise pose a safety hazard, and that the associated electrical facilities maintained
appropriate clearances and were operating safely. Accordingly, Rocky Mountain Power found no
safety condition that would warrant disconnection of service or any other corrective action by the
company.
9. Despite the Complainant's assertions to the contrary, this pole was inspected by
multiple Rocky Mountain Power journeymen linemen. Each of these linemen concluded that the
pole had no structural issues. Furthermore, Rocky Mountain Power's understanding is that a state
electrical inspector also visited the site. Accordingly, PacifiCorp found no basis for disconnection
of service of the neighbor's service under Utility Customer Relation Rule 303.01(Grounds for
Termination of Service).'
10. The Complaint's principal allegation is that the pole is leaning against a fence. Yet
the photograph included in Attachment A, taken by a Rocky Mountain Power lineman on August
4, 2025, directly refutes that claim. The Complainant offers no evidence showing that the pole is
in contact with a fence or otherwise poses a safety hazard.Moreover,the Complaint is unsupported
2 Utility Customer Relation Rule 303.01,available at:https://proddfmmainsa.blob.core.windows.net/dfm-admin-
website/rules/current/31/312101.pdf
4

by any engineering analysis,expert opinion,or other competent evidence establishing that the pole
presents a safety risk. Absent such evidence, the Complaint fails to demonstrate any factual basis
for its safety-related allegations, outside of the Complainant's own opinion.
11. The Complaint likewise fails to identify any legal authority supporting its allegation
that the pole presents a safety violation. The Complaint generally references the NESC and asserts
only that the NESC requires compliance with structural and electrical safety standards. This
contention is vague and unsupported by any citation to a specific NESC provision applicable to
the facts of this case. Such conclusory allegations do not provide Rocky Mountain Power with a
meaningful opportunity to respond and are legally insufficient to justify further adjudicative
proceedings. The Complaint also fails to explain why the Commission is the appropriate forum for
resolving disputes surrounding these standards or local ordinances, particularly where Rocky
Mountain Power neither owns nor maintains the pole. At its core,this matter appears to concern a
disagreement between neighboring property owners rather than a dispute concerning the utility's
provision of regulated service.
12. The Complaint further alleges that Rocky Mountain Power violated City of
Downey Ordinances 4-1-5B and 8-2-1.However,the Complaint provides no explanation as to how
those ordinances were violated, why they apply to Rocky Mountain Power, or how they impose
any obligation with respect to a pole that Rocky Mountain Power neither owns nor maintains.
Moreover, the Complaint cites no authority establishing that either ordinance requires a utility to
repair or replace a third-party-owned pole.
13. To the extent the Complaint seeks an interpretation or enforcement of the cited City
of Downey ordinances as applied to property owned by a third party, those issues fall outside the
Commission's adjudicatory authority. A property line dispute pertaining to the condition and
5

location of a third-parry pole, it is more appropriately addressed in another forum with jurisdiction
over property-related disputes between neighboring landowners.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint fails as a matter of law and should be
dismissed. The undisputed facts establish that Rocky Mountain Power does not own the pole at
issue and therefore has no legal authority or obligation to perform the incremental maintenance
requested by the Complainant. Rocky Mountain Power has already inspected the pole and
concluded that it is not leaning on the fence and that the wiring is at the correct height. The
Complaint identifies no Commission statute, rule, tariff provision, ordinance, or other legal
authority imposing incremental duties on Rocky Mountain Power.
15. Absent a valid legal basis for relief, the Complaint does not present a claim within
the Commission's jurisdiction that warrants further adjudication. This case is more akin to a
property dispute between two neighbors that could be adjudicated in another venue and not a
cognizable claim with the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
16. For the foregoing reasons, the Company requests that the Commission deny the
relief sought in the Compliant and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for failing to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
6

DATED this 7th day of July, 2026.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
'� " �
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330)
Assistant General Counsel
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Email:joseph.dallas(a-pacificorp.com
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
7

s a f
1)
•4�;3TI'..
r