20220628Final_Order_No_35454.pdf

ORDER NO. 35454 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 28, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

On February 25, 2022, and March 23, 2022, Karen Erickson (“Complainant” or “Ms.
Erickson”) submitted emails to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) alleging,
in part, that Idaho Power Company (“Company” or “Idaho Power”) violated Idaho statutes and
federal law.
Three public comments were received on March 7, 9, and 28, 2022.
At the March 29, 2022, Decision Meeting, the Commission determined to treat the emails
as a formal complaint (“Complaint”), accept the formal complaint, issue a Summons to the
Company, give the Company 35 days to answer or otherwise respond to the formal complaint, and
set a 14-day comment reply period.
On May 3, 2022, the Company filed an answer (“Answer”) to the formal complaint along
with the Declaration of Dan Smith.
On May 17, 2022, Commission Staff (“Staff”) filed comments and supporting attachments.
No other comments were filed.
With this Order we dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
In the Complaint1, the Complainant asserted that the Commission had violated, and
continued to violate, federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements. February 25,
2022, Email from Karen Erickson.
The Complainant further asserted that Idaho Power had “demonstrated, before witnesses,
unjust and unreasonable practices which are prohibited according to Idaho Statutes.” Id. The
Complainant continued, stating that Idaho Power had “demonstrated disregard for [Complainant’s]
safety, health, comfort and convenience” in violation of Idaho statutes. Id. The Complainant
asserted that the Company had violated state and federal law for the last eight years. Id.

1 The Complainant insisted that she did not give permission for a Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) to represent the
Complaint to the Commission. The DAG does not represent complainants or their complaints before the Commission.
Rather, the DAG represents Commission Staff and the Commission.
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL
COMPLAINT OF KAREN ERICKSON
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-22-09

ORDER NO. 35454
ORDER NO. 35454 2

The Complainant requested “Auxiliary aids and services” specified by the ADA and
additional “case management services because of the complexity of the current unaddressed
complaints and ADA violations.” Id.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER
The Company responded that the Complainant’s claim of Disability Discrimination under
Title II of the ADA, to the extent she was making such a claim, failed because the Company was
not a “Public Entity” under Title II of the ADA and, therefore, not beholden to the Title II
requirements. Answer at 18. The Company further replied that the Complainant failed to establish
that “she [was] an individual with a ‘disability’ . . . entitled to the protections of the ADA.” Id. at
19. The Company contended that because the Complainant had not established she had a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, her claim under the ADA
must be dismissed. Id.
The Company noted that, based on its interactions with the Complainant, it appeared to the
Company that the Complainant was “very articulate when conversing and seemingly ha[d] the
capability, or necessary assistance, to submit payment, send electronic correspondence (e.g.,
submitting iWebster complaints to the Company and emails to Staff), drive to the [Company’s
Canyon Operations Center in Nampa] or [corporate headquarters in downtown Boise], or call the
Company when it suit[ed] her to do so.” Id. at 19-20. The Company stated that the Complainant
had “also clearly demonstrated in front of Staff her ability to read and understand the Company’s
text message notifications.” Id. at 20 (citing In the Matter of Karen Erickson’s Petition that the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Require Public Utilities to Comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Case No. IPC-E-21-22, Staff Decision Memorandum at 2 (July 9, 2021)).
The Company further explained that, even if the Complaint was meritorious under the
ADA, and the Company was required to follow ADA protocol in providing service to the
Complainant, that the Company had offered “Accommodations” and “Auxiliary Aids.”
Specifically, the Company stated that for the past six years it had continually ensured that its
website was accessible to disabled customers, consistent with federal government standards. Id. at
21. The Company detailed its history of “communicating in multiple formats, meeting with [the
Complainant] in person, offering multiple dedicated individuals to explain her bill and services to
her, offering regular meetings at locations convenient to her, and also offering to provide technical
solutions to purported communication barriers, such as software or relay telephones.” Id. at 22.
ORDER NO. 35454 3

In sum, the Company claimed that the Complainant’s claim of disability discrimination
under the ADA, to the extent she was making such a claim, must fail.
In addition to failing to make out a claim under the ADA, the Company raised the following
affirmative defenses: (1) that the Complainant did not present a claim the Commission was
empowered to remedy; and (2) the Complainant did not allege any specific violations of Idaho
Public Utilities Law or Commission Rules.
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff noted the Complaint reiterated claims identical to those made in Case No. IPC-E-21-
22. Staff Comments at 3. The Commission issued a final order—Order No. 35124—in that case
on August 4, 2021. In Order No. 35124, the Commission stated that Ms. Erickson requested the
Commission: (1) require public utilities to comply with the federal ADA and provide disabled
persons equal access to utility services; and (2) itself comply with the accessibility requirements
of the ADA. Order No. 35124 at 1. With the issuance of Order No. 35142, the Commission
explained that it could not enforce ADA-based claims against public utilities because it lacked the
statutory authority to do so. Id. The Commission further explained that the Complainant’s Petition
referred to the ADA and ‘ADA Regulations’ but did not refer to any statutory provision or rule
upon which the Petition was based. Id. at 2.
Regarding Ms. Erickson’s request that the Commission itself comply with the accessibility
requirements of the ADA in Case No. IPC-E-21-22, the Commission noted that she failed to
provide facts “upon which this request [was] based and fail[ed] to refer to any particular provisions
of statute and regulation upon which her request [was] based.” Id. at 2-3. The Commission further
noted that Staff “went to great lengths to try to reach Ms. Erickson so that Staff could determine
what reasonable accommodation[s] she needed” and “would ‘continue to work with Ms. Erickson
to determine what reasonable accommodations she requires to participate in and enjoy the services,
programs, or activities’ of the Commission.” Id. at 3.
Staff noted that, on December 17, 2021, Commission legal counsel served a letter by
process server to Ms. Erickson’s address (“Letter”). Attachment 1 to Staff’s Comments. In an
affidavit, the process server certified that he offered to read the Letter out loud to Ms. Erickson
and she declined. Attachment 2 to Staff’s Comments. Staff noted that the Letter outlined resources
and options available to Ms. Erickson to pay and understand her bill, including Caption Call,
Hamilton Relay, smart dictation applications for Androids, iPhones or iPads, Idaho Assistive
ORDER NO. 35454 4

Technology Project, payment options allowing her to make payment to the Company in person or
by courier, and a third-party notification system. Staff Comments at 4. Staff noted the Letter also
stated that Staff had continued to meet with Ms. Erickson and her representatives on several
occasions and corresponded with Ms. Erickson in an effort to assist her. Id.
Staff believed the Complaint failed to state any facts, allegations, or issues not previously
addressed by Case No. IPC-E-21-22. Id. at 4. Staff commended the Company’s extensive efforts
in communicating with Ms. Erickson and assisting her with paying her bill. Id. Staff saw no
evidence that the Company had violated any of its Commission-approved tariffs or failed to
accommodate or interface with Ms. Erickson in a reasonable manner. Id.
Staff stated that Ms. Erickson had not alleged what specific rules or statutes—other than
the ADA—that Idaho Power had violated. Staff did not believe that, based on the evidence
presented, Idaho Power had violated any Commission rules or its tariffs in its provision of service
to Ms. Erickson. Staff further noted the Commission’s previous statement that it lacked the
jurisdiction to investigate whether itself or a regulated utility had violated the ADA.
Staff specifically believed the Complaint failed to state any facts upon which it was based
or “refer to the particular provisions of statute, rule, order or controlling law” as required by the
Commission’s rules regarding formal complaints and petitions. For this reason, Staff
recommended the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice under procedural Rule 65, IDAPA
31.01.01.065.
FINDINGS
Having reviewed the record in this case, we dismiss the Petition with prejudice pursuant to
procedural Rule 65, IDAPA 31.01.01.065. Notwithstanding Ms. Erickson’s lack of citation to the
relevant authority, nothing in Ms. Erickson’s Complaint or the Company’s Answer suggests that
a statutory provision, law, or rule enforced by the Commission has been violated.
Formal complaints must “[f]ully state the facts constituting the acts or omission of the
utility . . . against whom the complaint is filed and the dates when the acts or omission occurred”
and “[r]efer to the particular provisions of statute, rule, order or other controlling law upon which
[the petitions] are based.” IDAPA 31.01.01.054.02-.03.
Ms. Erickson asserts that the Company and the Commission have committed multiple
violations of the ADA over a ten-year period: these claims are identical to the claims she made in
her informal complaint in IPC-E-21-22. We previously stated in that case that:
ORDER NO. 35454 5

The facts upon which Ms. Erickson’s Petition is based are not fully stated . . . .We
decline to enforce ADA-based claims against public utilities because we lack the
statutory authority to do so . . . . The ADA and supporting federal regulations are
clear: the Commission is not the appropriate government entity to investigate an
alleged ADA violation. An individual who believes it has been subjected to
discrimination because of disability may file a civil action. 42 U.S.C. § 12133
(enforcement against a public entity); 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (enforcement against a
private entity). Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General has broad investigative
authority under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 and 12188. When an individual
believes it has been subjected to discrimination because of disability by a public
entity, federal regulations provide an administrative process. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190.
Therefore, the ADA clearly describes by what means ADA-based claims may be
made. This Commission has not been delegated the authority to process such a
claim.

Order No. 35124 at 1-2. Our reasoning in that Order regarding Ms. Erickson’s 2021
informal complaint applies here to Ms. Erickson’s Complaint. We take compliance with the ADA
very seriously. We also note the extensive efforts of the Company and Staff in working with Ms.
Erickson to address her concerns and assist her with paying and understanding her bill—efforts
which Ms. Erickson appears to have rejected multiple times. Regardless of these good faith efforts,
Ms. Erickson has, again, simply failed to state the facts and specific statutory authority supporting
her allegations.
Aside from the Complaint’s general assertions that the Commission and the Company have
violated the ADA, Ms. Erickson fails to point to any other law or statute that the Company violated
in its provision of service to her or the dates of or the specific factual circumstances underlying
these alleged violations.
For these reasons, Ms. Erickson’s Complaint is defective and insufficient under procedural
Rule 65, IDAPA 31.01.01.65. We dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms. Erickson’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to procedural Rule 65, IDAPA 31.01.01.065.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
ORDER NO. 35454 6

//Abstained to Avoid Conflict//
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 28th day of
June 2022.

__________________________________________
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

__________________________________________
JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

__________________________________________
JOHN R. HAMMOND, JR., COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-22-09 Erickson\Orders\IPCE2209_final_rn.docx