20070116_1803.pdf

ORIGINAL
Stanley J. Tharp, ISB No. 3883
EBERLE, BERLIN, KADING, TURNBOW
McKL VEEN & JONES, CHARTERED
300 North 6th Street
P. O. Box 1368
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
r:I\/FL. c-, 0 ....
LOGl JAN I PI-\ 4: 28
'"'L'l)U:j\C
i1~, '/r\i"(~\SS\Oiji 1:0 vU,(I,..
Attorneys for Petitioner
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JERENE PHILLIPS,
Case No.
Petitioner
FORMAL COMPLAINT
VS.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
COMES NOW the Petitioner, JERENE PHILLIPS, by and through her attorneys of
record, Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow, McKlveen & Jones, Chartered, and pursuant to IDAP A
31.01.01.054 hereby files this Formal Complaint against the Respondent, Idaho Power Company
(hereinafter "Idaho Power
LISTED REPRESENTATIVE:Stanley J. Tharp
Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow, McKlveen Jones
Chartered
300 North Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
O, Box 1368
Boise, ID 83701-1368
[phone]
[phone] (facsimile)
Mail: stharp~eberle.com
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 1
00142562
PETITIONER:J erene Phillips
16625 Basin Way
Boise, ID 83714
[phone]
RESPONDENT:Idaho Power Company
c/o its Registered Agent, Patrick Harrington
1220 West Idaho Street
Boise, ID 83702
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
The Petitioner, Jerene Phillips, is a customer of the Respondent, Idaho Power.
From January 1994 through March of 2006, Idaho Power was billing the
Petitioner at the home address identified as "16625 Basin Way, Boise, Idaho 83714" (hereinafter
the "Premises
Idaho Power installed CTs and meter at the Premises on or about January 24
1994. The CTs and meter installed by Idaho Power at all times functioned properly, and the
meter installed never failed to function.
Thereafter, Idaho Power billed the Petitioner for correct readings from the
installed meter. All bills received by Petitioner from January 1994 through March of 2006 were
paid when received.
On March 26, 2006, as part of a planned maintenance exchange, a different meter
was installed. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner noticed a huge increase in her electricity bills and
after further inquiry it was discovered that the incorrect CTs were installed by Idaho Power back
in 1994. In fact, the multiplier should have been a 40; however the meter and CTs that were
installed had a multiplier of 20.
In June of 2006 , Idaho Power sent Petitioner a bill for three (3) years of additional
electricity in the amount of $6 359.44. Petitioner has disputed this bill ever since and in fact
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 2
00142562
approached Idaho Power in an attempt to compromise this matter; however, Idaho Power rejected
Petitioner s offer to compromise.
A true and accurate copy of the bill is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
Originally, the basis and claim of the additional charges by Idaho Power was that
the CTs and meter previously installed in 1994 were not properly functioning and as a result, the
billings did not accurately reflect the services received by the Petitioner.
At no time in the past twelve (12) years did the meter and CTs installed by Idaho
Power fail or malfunction. In fact, upon the removal and testing of the meter by Idaho Power it
was found to be one-hundred percent (100%) accurate and fully functional.
COUNT ONE
10.Petitioner restates and realleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
through 9.
11.Under IDAPA 31.21.01.204, a utility may file a corrected billing only
( w Jhenever the billing for utility service was not accurately determined because the meter
malfunctioned or failed, bills were estimated, or bills were inaccurately prepared, the utility shall
prepare a corrected billing. If the utility has failed to bill a customer for service, the utility shall
prepare a bill for the period during which no bill was provided.
12.Because the basis of the billing was that Idaho Power had installed the wrong CTs
and meter, as opposed to an allegation that the meter failed or malfunctioned, Idaho Power lacks
any legal authority to rebill the Petitioner for the months of April 2003 , through March 2006.
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 3
00142562
COUNT TWO
13.Petitioner restates and realleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
through 12.
14.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter "IPUC") jurisdiction is
limited and has to be found entirely within the enabling statutes. Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho
Power Co.111 Idaho 925 , 729 P.2d 400 (1986); Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Land 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). An administrative regulation cannot
exceed the bounds of authority granted to it by the legislature. Curtis v. Canyon Highway
District No.122 Idaho 73, 831 P.2d 541 (1992) (overruled on other grounds).
15.Idaho Power s billing authority is limited via statute and its authority cannot
exceed the bounds ofthe statute.
16.Idaho Power s interpretation ofIDAPA Rule 31.21.01.204 is not consistent with
Idaho Code ~ 61-642. Idaho Code g 61-642 does not allow Idaho Power to back bill the
Petitioner for three (3) years as alleged by Idaho Power pursuant to IDAPA 31.21.01.204.
COUNT THREE
17.Petitioner restates and realleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
through 16.
18.Idaho Power s interpretation ofIDAPA 31.21.01.204 and Idaho Code g 61-642 is
arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.
19.The IPUC should not enforce Idaho Power arbitrary and CaprICIOUS
interpretation ofIDAPA and the Idaho Code.
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 4
00142562
COUNT FOUR
20.Petitioner restates and realleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
through 19.
21.The principles of equity are applicable in proceedings before administrative
bodies. Duggan v. Potlatch Forests Inc.92 Idaho 262, 441 P.2d 172 (1968).
22.Over the past twelve (12) years the Petitioner has in good standing, paid the bills
sent to her by Idaho Power. Idaho Power s current attempt to back bill the Petitioner is
inequitable because if she had known the true amount of her power consumption over the years
she could have taken measures to budget and conserve even more. However, Idaho Power
installation of the wrong CTs prevented her from taking that opportunity.
RIGHT TO AMEND
23.Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Formal Complaint in any respect as
motion practice and discovery proceeds in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner asks for the following relief:
The IPUC declare that the Respondent had no basis to charge the Petitioner for the
additional amounts claimed.
The IPUC declare that the billing received by Petitioner from the Respondent
from April 7, 2003 to March 26, 2006, including any late charges, is paid in full.
To the extent authorized by law, that the IPUC award the Petitioner its reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs; and
For such other and further relief as the IPUC may deem just and equitable.
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 5
00142562
DATED this day of January, 2007.
EBERLE, BERLIN, KADING, TURNBOW,
McKLVEEN & JONES, CHARTERED
By:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ~ay of January, 2007, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to; by fax
transmission to; by overnight delivery to; or by personally delivering to or leaving with a person
in charge of the office as indicated below:
Tammie Estberg
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
( J u.S. Mail
( J Fax:
( J Overnight Delivery
r)(rMessenger Delivery
FORMAL COMPLAINT - 6
00142562