20240221Answer to Complaint.pdf

MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN
Corporate Counsel
[e-mail]

February 21, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg 8,
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074

Re: Case No. IPC-E-24-03
Paul Madalena vs. Idaho Power Company

Dear Ms. Barrios-Sanchez:

Attached for electronic is Idaho Power Company’s Answer in the above-entitled
matter.

If you have any questions about the attached documents, please do not hesitate
to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Megan Goicoechea Allen
MGA:sg
Enclosures
RECEIVED
Wednesday, February 21, 2024 4:56PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 1
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN (ISB No. 7623)
LISA D. NORDSTROM (ISB No. 5733)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Paul and Kathleen Madalena,

Complainants,

vs.

Idaho Power Company,

Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. IPC-E-24-03

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S
ANSWER

COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company (“Respondent,” “Idaho Power” or
“Company”), and pursuant to Procedural Rule 57, now answers the Summons of the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) dated January 31, 2024, concerning
the formal Complaint (“Complaint”) of Paul and Kathleen Madalena (“Complainants” or
“Madalenas”). Idaho Power requests the Commission deny the relief sought by the
Complainant and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 2
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Idaho Power’s records reflect that it was contacted by Complainants
regarding electrical issues at the Madalena residence located at 105 Sunset Circle in
Buhl, Idaho, on August 23, 2023, at which time an Idaho Power technician was dispatched
to assess whether Company-owned electrical equipment was functioning as expected.
When the technician arrived, the Complainants indicated there had been some issues
with various electrical equipment within the house but that everything was currently
working.
2. The Idaho Power technician verified that the Company’s equipment was
operating pursuant to Company standards and confirmed that the connections were
secure and the voltage was appropriate. After advising Mr. Madalena that the Company-
owned equipment appeared to be functioning properly, the Idaho Power technician
instructed him to notify the Company if further issues arose.
3. On August 28, 2023, the Complainants contacted the Company reporting
“flickering lights”, and in response, Idaho Power dispatched the same technician that
responded on August 23rd to the Madalena residence. The Idaho Power technician again
assessed the Company-owned electrical equipment and found that there was a slight
variance of voltage from “phase-to-phase,” though it was still within expected parameters.
At the time of this visit, the Complainants’ hired electrician was also on site and stated
there had been some differences in the voltage readings on the customer’s side of the
panel with load on in the house and no issues with the Complainants’ equipment were
identified during his visit on August 23, 2023. Accordingly, the Idaho Power technician
proceeded to isolate the Madalena’s service and checked the voltage at the transformer

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 3
and the junction box. Voltage was good at both of these locations but a slight variance in
voltage readings from phase to phase still remained at the meter base.
4. Given these circumstances, the technician determined that additional
testing was warranted and an additional Idaho Power technician was dispatched to the
Madalena residence that same day (August 28th) to help perform more in-depth testing.
The results of the additional testing revealed a variance in voltage that was outside the
expected parameters, meaning it was not operating within the Company’s standard. A
line crew was then dispatched to perform repairs.
5. On September 7, 2023, the Madalena’s initiated a claim via the Company’s
online portal alleging damage to personal property caused by the Company’s equipment.
As part of its initial investigation of the claim, Idaho Power’s Damage Claims Department
contacted Complainants on September 8, 2023, and left a voicemail requesting a call
back.
6. On September 12, 2023, an Idaho Power Damage Claim’s representative
spoke to Mrs. Madalena regarding the timeline of events related to the damage claim. At
that time, Mrs. Madalena stated that on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, they awoke to the
oven beeping and certain bedroom fans turning on and later found that the garage door
did not work. As a result of these issues, the Madalenas contacted an electrician (Doug
Gietzen) who, after visiting the premise, suggested that Idaho Power be contacted,
resulting in Idaho Power’s August 23rd visit.
7. Continuing her description of the timeline of events, Mrs. Madalena then
indicated that on August 28, 2023, they again experienced electrical issues, citing
problems with the following devices: cd player, outlet fragrances, light bulbs in the garage,

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 4
two power strips, and a DeWalt charger.
8. During the September 12th discussion, the Company’s Damage Claims
representative reviewed the submitted liability claim with Mrs. Madalena and advised her
of the Company’s standard practice as it relates to claims of this nature, which is to
consider items that were damaged after Idaho Power is notified of an issue and has
inspected the site. Accordingly, the representative informed Mrs. Madalena that Idaho
Power would reimburse them for the damage that was identified between Idaho Power’s
first visit on August 23, 2023, and its subsequent visit on August 28, 2023. Damage
reported to have occurred before Idaho Power’s August 23rd visit, however, including the
garage door failure would not be covered. At that point in the discussion, Mrs. Madalena
stated the garage door was damaged after the August 23, 2023, visit.
9. The Idaho Power Damage Claims representative then advised Mrs.
Madalena that she could complete a claim form along with any supporting evidence for
Idaho Power to consider related to whether the expense associated with the garage door
replacement was eligible for reimbursement.
10. At this point, Mrs. Madalena transferred the call to Mr. Madalena, and the
Damage Claims representative explained that based on the timeline initially set forth by
Mrs. Madalena, it appeared the garage door motor was damaged prior to notification to
Idaho Power, and therefore would not be eligible for reimbursement.
11. On November 5, 2023, Complainant sent an email providing additional
information regarding the claimed damages including receipts and photographs and the
claim statement seeking $885.00 (see “Receipt_Photos” filed with the initial complaint),
which included: replacement commercial garage door opener $710, two LED light bulbs

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 5
$15, two power strips $20, DeWalt battery charger $10, two wall flowers from Bath and
Body Works $30, and an invoice for Doug Gietzen $100.
12. After completing the investigation of the claim, the Idaho Power Damage
Claims representative determined that of the amounts submitted, nine items totaling $175
occurred after Idaho Power’s visit on August 23rd, and thus were eligible for
reimbursement under the Company’s typical business practice. Because the garage door
opener had been reported to have occurred prior to that visit, it was not included in the
reimbursement offer. Complainants were advised of the Company’s findings via email on
November 20, 2023, along with the release for the Company’s offer to reimburse the
$175.00 for damages that occurred after the first event. Mr. Madalena responded via
email on November 29, 2023, declining to sign the release until he heard back from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Consumer Affairs Staff.
13. It should be noted, that even if the Company had evidence that suggested
the garage door issue occurred prior to the Company’s initial visit, it is the Company’s
practice to determine reimbursement amount based on actual cash value, not the cost of
a brand-new replacement item, which is what the Madalena’s requested. According to the
Claims Statement submitted to Idaho Power by Mr. Madalena,1 the non-operational
garage door opener was purchased with the home in 2010 and estimated to have been
in use for 10 – 15 years after to the damage claim.
14. Following the Company’s partial acceptance of their claim, the
Complainants submitted an informal complaint to the Commission on November 28,
2023, regarding the Company’s response to their claim. On December 13, 2023, Idaho

1 Accessible in the Commission electronic case file in RECEIPTS_PHOTOS.PDF (page 12 of 12).

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 6
Power Damage Claims Department submitted a response to Staff’s questions regarding
this inquiry advising at the time of the initial visit on August 23, 2023, the tests performed
indicated that the facilities were operating in conformity with the Company’s standards
and that it had denied the garage door damages due to Mrs. Madalena stating those
damages were found prior to Idaho Power’s initial visit on August 23, 2023.
II. ANSWER AND DEFENSES
15. The Company’s investigation of Complainants’ claim for property damage
allegedly sustained in August of 2023, revealed that Idaho Power was dispatched to the
Madalena’s residence twice during that month: on August 23rd and August 28th. The
Company-owned electrical facilities were found to be operating in conformity with the
Company’s standards on the first visit but an issue with the Company’s equipment was
identified on the second visit, which was then promptly repaired. The Complainants have
requested that Idaho Power reimburse them for repair or replacement costs of several
personal items that were allegedly damaged due to the Company’s equipment.
16. As noted in Rule J of I.P.U.C. No. 30, Tariff No. 101, “[e]lectric service is
inherently subject to occasional interruption, suspension, curtailment and fluctuation.”
The Company designs and operates its system in conformance with the service voltage
ranges described in the current edition of standard C84.1 of the American National
Standards Institute – American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and
Equipment – Voltage Ratings (60HZ). Although Idaho Power designs and maintains its
facilities to meet or exceed industry standards, that does not always prevent unusual or
unforeseen events resulting in power interruptions and/or momentary variations in power
quality. Idaho Power includes protection devices throughout its system, and strongly

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 7
recommends customers also install their own equipment protection such as voltage surge
arresters and back-up power source.2 Rule K of Idaho Power’s tariff also provides, in
part, that a “customer should provide adequate protection for equipment…and property
under the Customer’s control from system disturbances such as (a) high and low voltage,
(b) surges, harmonics, and transients in voltage, and (c) overcurrent.”
17. As a utility regulated by the Commission that is statutorily required to
provide non-discriminatory treatment to its customers, Idaho Power does not pay claims
absent justification and full documentation that Idaho Power acted negligently to keep its
electric service as affordable as possible for all customers. It is the Company’s practice
that if it is notified of an issue and the responding technician does not identify or fix a
problem that is ultimately identified or remedied in a subsequent visit, the Company will
reimburse the actual cash value for damage to customer-owned personal property that
occurs after the Company’s initial visit. Under these circumstances, a customer could
have reasonably expected that any issues with the Company-owned electrical facilities
had been resolved. If the Company identifies something is eligible for reimbursement, the
policy is to reimburse the "actual cash value" of an item, which takes into consideration
the expected useful life of an item; it does not reimburse at a "replacement value."
18. In accordance with this practice, the Company offered to reimburse the
Madalenas the actual cash value for damage to those items identified as occurring
between Idaho Power’s first and second visits to the Madalenas’ residence and denied
liability for damage that it determined occurred prior its visit on August 23rd. The
Madalenas disagree with the Company’s decision on their claim and filed a complaint with

2 See Idaho Power’s website at: idahopower.com/accounts-service/damage-claims/how-to-protect-your-
equipment/

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 8
the Commission as a result. The Company responds and defends against the Complaint
as follows.
19. Mr. Madalena did not make specifically numbered allegations in his formal
Complaint, but instead made general allegations in a narrative format. To the extent Mr.
Madalena’s allegations contain legal conclusions, no response is required. Idaho Power
denies any allegation not specifically admitted and reserves the right to supplement
and/or amend its Answer if the Madalenas amend their Complaint, respond to discovery
requests, or if additional defenses are ascertained during the course of discovery or
otherwise.
A. The Complaint Raises Issues Beyond the Commission’s Jurisdiction and is
Procedurally Insufficient.

20. The Commission is an agency of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise
the authority delegated to it by the legislature. Washington Water Power v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). The legislature has
delegated to the Commission responsibility to regulate certain relationships between
utilities and their customers, including by setting service rates, charges and terms of
service pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 61-501, 502, 61-503, 61-507, and 61-612.
21. The Commission has also been granted the authority to determine the
merits of any complaint “setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any
public utility including any rule, regulation or charge heretofore established or fixed by or
for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or of
any order or rule of the commission[.]” Idaho Code § 61-612.
22. Commission Rule of Procedure 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.054.03, sets forth the
process for bringing formal complaints against a public utility, and specifies that

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 9
complaints must be in writing and include certain information including, in pertinent part,
reference “to the specific provision of statute, rule, order, notice, tariff, or other controlling
law” that the utility allegedly violated. See IDAPA 31.01.01.054.03. Rule 65, IDAPA
31.01.01.065, provides that insufficient or defective filings may be dismissed.
23. Mr. Madalena’s complaint sets forth factual allegations in a narrative format
but does not indicate how the Complainant believes such circumstances constitute a
violation of the Commission’s rules or laws. This failure to refer to specific provisions of
statute, rule, order, notice, tariff, or other controlling law that the Company allegedly
violated is contrary to the requirements of Rule of Procedure 54.03.
24. Moreover, the Complainant does not present a claim that the Commission
is empowered to remedy. As a regulatory Commission, it has no authority to award
damages except as given to it by statute.3 “Although the Commission is often described
as a quasi-judicial agency, the Commission is not a judicial court. Thus, persons injured
by public utilities have recourse through the courts.”4 Damage claims for trespass or injury
to personal property are tort maters that do not raise a utility customer issue within the
Commission’s jurisdiction.5

3 See Grace Joint Sch. Dist. No. 148, Complainant, No. QWET1004, 2010 WL 2235243, at *3 (June 3,
2010) (“Since the Commission’s inception in 1913, it has not been authorized to award damages under
the Public Utilities Act.”)
4 Id. To this point, Idaho Code § 61-702 provides that “any corporation or person” injured by the conduct
of a public utility may file an “action to recover such loss, damage or injury … in any court of
competent jurisdiction.…” (Emphasis added.)
5 City of Spencer, Complainant v. PacifiCorp DBA Utah Power & Light Company, Respondent, Case No,
UPL-E-91-05, Order No. 24114 (January 1992); Pamela and Scott Bowers, Complainants v. Idaho Power
Company, Respondent, Case No. IPC-E-07-14, Order No. 30615 at 6 (August 7, 2008); Grace Joint
School District No. 148, Complainant v. Qwest Corporation, Respondent, Case No. QWE-T-10-04, Order
No. 31099 (June 3, 2010); ln the Matter of Idaho Power Company's Petition for a Declaratory Ruling
Regarding its Rights and Obligations under Schedule 15, Case No. IPC-E-14-10, Order No. 33065 at 2
(June 27, 2014).

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 10
25. The gravamen of the Madalenas’ Complaint is a claim for damage to
personal property seeking for monetary relief, which is not within the purview of the
Commission.
26. Because the Complaint fails to satisfy Commission rules and seeks relief
that the Commission is not authorized to provide, the Company believes the Complaint
fails on procedural grounds and should be dismissed on that basis. Notwithstanding, as
more fully set forth below, the Company also affirmatively avers that it acted in conformity
with regulatory requirements and consistent with its normal practices in relation to the
Madalenas claim.
B. The Company Handling of and Response to the Madalena’s Claim is
Consistent with the Utility Tariffs on File with the Commission and Normal
Company Practices.

27. Idaho Power is required to follow the Commission’s prior orders as well as
the utility tariffs on file with the Commission. This concept, known as the “filed rate
doctrine,” is a basic principle of utility regulation that states that a utility may charge only
the approved rates and charges it has on file with its regulatory body.
28. Together, Idaho Code §§ 61-313 and 61-315 codify the concepts that make
up the filed rate doctrine for the State of Idaho. Idaho Code § 61-313 provides, in pertinent
part, that no refund or remit of any rates or charges may be made, and no contract or
agreement extended except as specified by tariff and as are regularly and uniformly
extended to all corporations or persons. Similarly, Idaho Code § 61-315 codifies the
concept of non-discriminatory service and prohibits a utility from giving preferential
treatment to any customer or customer class over another.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 11
29. Idaho Power conducted a thorough investigation of the Madalenas’ claim
and request for reimbursement and, based on the information provided by Complainants
and in accordance with the Company’s tariff and standard practices, Idaho Power denied
the portion of the Complainants’ claim related to property damage the Company found
occurred prior to its first visit on August 23, 2023.  Idaho Power’s position, pursuant to
Rule J, is consistent with its normal response to similar claims by other customers.
30. The Company’s decision on the Madalena’s claim was based on the
information the Complainants themselves provided. In going through the timeline of
events and damaged items with Mrs. Madalena on September 12, 2023, she indicated
that the issues that precipitated their calling of an electrician on August 23, 20236 included
the oven beeping, bedroom fans coming on, and the garage door not working. She then
identified issues with the following items as occurring on August 28th: cd player, outlet
fragrances, light bulbs in the garage, two power strips, and a DeWalt charger.
31. Significantly, it was not until after the Company’s Damage Claims
representative explained that only damage that occurred between the Company’s first
and second visits would be eligible for reimbursement that Mrs. Madalena claimed that
the issue with the garage door actually did occur during that time frame. In evaluating the
Madalena’s claim, the Company’s Damage Claims representative considered the
inconsistences and discrepancies in the record, and ultimately, did not believe the record
supported finding that the garage door opener was damaged subsequent to the

6 As a point of clarity, the Company notes that both the Complaint and the Claims Statement completed
by Complainants indicate that the first issue with their electrical equipment arose on August 21st.
However, Idaho Power has no record of a dispatch call for this location on August 21, 2023; rather, the
Company’s records indicate it was contacted about the Madalena’s residence on August 23, and a
technician was dispatched the same day, which is consistent with Mrs. Madalena’s initial statement.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 12
Company’s August 23rd visit.
32. The Complaint highlights another discrepancy underlying the claim for
damages insofar and it indicates that the Company approved “the cost of the two power
strips, which happened during the first event.” The Company’s approval of the cost of the
two power strips was again based on the information provided by Mrs. Madalena, who
listed those items as having been damaged after the initial event.
33. Idaho Power conducted its investigation of the Madalenas’ claim according
to the applicable rules and tariffs and offered to resolve it in a manner consistent with how
the Company handles similar customer claims. A deviation from normal practices to
accommodate a single customer implicates the “filed rate doctrine” and would imply
impermissible preferential treatment of that customer.
III. COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
34. Service of pleadings and communications with reference to this case should
be sent to the following:
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
dockets idahopower.com
Connie Aschenbrenner
Ashley Herrera
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 13

IV. CONCLUSION
35. As described above, the Company believes the Complaint is subject to
dismissal because it seeks relief outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, is procedurally
insufficient, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Moreover, the
Complaint should be dismissed because the Company acted appropriately and in
compliance with its tariffs and normal business practices.
WHEREFORE, Idaho Power respectfully requests the Commission issue an Order
denying the relief sought by the Complainants and dismissing the Complaint with
prejudice. In the alternative, in the event the Commission determines that the Complaint
presents a colorable and actionable regulatory claim and disagrees with the Company’s
findings on eligibility for reimbursement, the Company respectfully requests the amount
of reimbursement be based on assessment the actual cash value of the garage opener
as opposed to the replacement value, which is consistent with the Company’s normal
practices.

Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 21st day of February 2024.

________________________________
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER - 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 21st day of February 2024, I served a true and
correct copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S ANSWER upon
the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:

Commission Staff
Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83714

Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X E-mail [e-mail]

Paul Madalena
105 Sunset Circle
Buhl, Idaho 83316
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X E-mail [e-mail]

_______________________________
Stacy Gust, Regulatory Administrative
Assistant