20230926Notice of Appeal.pdf

«imam/EL)
tn (J
1
(.
7
Sherry Cole Pro Se 3:353 5311.6 A.
350 S.12th W.#14
Saint Anthony Idaho 83445
208—624-4020
In the Idaho Supreme Court of the State of Idaho in and for the Public Utilities Commission
Complaint )
Sherry Cole ')Case NO PAGE-23.12
Appellant )Notice of Appeal
Vs.)Supreme Court No.51148-2023
Pacific Corp d.b.a.Rocky Mountain Power )
Respondent )
To the above Named Respondent Pacific Corp d.b.a.Rocky Mountain Power and the
respondents attorney Joseph Dallas e/ékajl Kaila a;fig]Afs Jar/mo“;@694
and the Clerk of the above entitled Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Filed:09/18/2023
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain,Clerk
By:Kimber Grove,Deputy
Pg)
Notice is hereby given that:
They above named Appellant appeals against the above named Respondent’s to the Idaho
Supreme Court from the final judgement /decision entered in the above entitled action of
dismissal of motion to reconsider on the 22nd of August 2023.Public Utilities President Eric
Anderson,John R.Hammond Jr Commissioner and Edward Lodge,Commissioner.
That the petitioner has a rights to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court,and the judgment in
paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and pursuant to rule 61-627 and I.A.R l4
The Petitioner Sherry Cole is puts forth this motion to reconsider inculpatory evidence ignored
by the investigator and the commission of admission by the respondent on their own letter head
dated January 25,2023 report of their own investigation stating that meters were crossed which
preceded subsequent claims by respondent’s and their attorney to Idaho Public Utilities
Commission s that the meters were never crossed in subsequent Feb and March claims to the
Commission.Which brings in Constitutional 9t“and 14m amendment issues,That was brought up
before original decision in a public comment,Violation of rules of evidence in tribunal action’s
that belongs to a court of law,the plaintiffwas unaware she was in as Public Utilities
Commission from their site say they investigate claims and mediate billing issues.
4.
7%;
,y.
There has been no order sealing all or any portion of the record.
5.
Appellant is requesting all transcript’s and records that the Commission has regarding PAC-E-
23-12 to be transmitted both in hard copy and electronic.
Motion for reconsideration.
Unredacted Letter to Appellant from Rocky Mountain Power,2 bills from Rocky Mountain
Power and any other case related documents and orders.
Kéflodd/Q/y SJMJJZJ
54542 .
/93
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES IS CONDENSED IN THIS CASE AT BAR TO:/.
1:Public Utilities and Idaho Appellate rules,Idaho Code §61-627 I.A.R.l4
2.Letter received by Petitioner,Sherry Cole,dated JANUARY 25TH,2023.this letter admits
wrongful deprivation of Petitioners property (monetary)in overcharge by Rocky Mountain
Power due to crossed meters.Note that letter is on Rocky Mountain Powers own letterhead.
3.Two bills from Rocky Mountain Power,which ambiguously shows refund adjustment was
given.and subsequently the next month was removed.All after initially admitting meters were
crossed.and recharging the credit Petitioners account see (2).
Petitioner finds that is it inconceivable that Rocky Mountain Power can admit an over charge
occurred due to crossed meters,gave relief,and subsequently withdraws the credit.To be
credible action based on the facts of the matter.Respondent stating to the commission that they
Never were crossed,and the Commission accepting it while ignoring inculpatory evidence
already submitted in the Investigations.Which with Constitutional issues rose should not have
been done as a tribunal as it lacks the Jurisdiction for that,it should have been sent to the
appropriate court.
Petitioner is only seeking just compensation,that being the case,Sherry Cole will need proof that
Rocky Mountain Power did not ré-cross the meters after first investigating the matter January
13.2023see(2).The date must be verified as to when overcharge began as they do have records.
Respectfully Submitted
Sherry Cole
(0%DATE fig /,1423
€l-ZRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On 30%;4 0%,2023 I Sherry Cole'sent by certified mail,return
receipt requested to:
/4/07 (A)N-Z’mplg )51C [4%Byflé
Rocky Mountain Power
Hand Delivered/filed with on 32/];4',2023I
3.ldaho Public Utilities Commission Wjé
Z1 ldaho Supreme Court fail 5%
4
1
i;a :2;
%
'ac.Box 25303
ggfigé‘é MOUNTAIN
SaitLakeCity.Utai184i25—0333
”genome.rowemNe YOUR GREATNESS l 9,7
January 253 .2022:
SHERRY COLE
FRANCISCO L SANTEBANEZ
350 S 12TH W TRLR i4 ,
___,SAlNT ANTHONY iD 83445-1752 Accouot#{5048095 001 c-
iuiiuiliiii‘i!IIi*iiiill-iiiiiiiil’ii'ii'ii
Dear Sherry Cole and Francisco L Santibanez:
Recent investigation shows that you were billed incorrectly for electric service at 353 S 32th W Trailer
74,Saint Anthony,idaho.You were billed for a meter that serves a neighboring iocation and not the
meter that provides service to you.This is most often the result of incorrect meter iebeiing or wiring bytheproperty's builder,eiectricien,or owner.We have taken action to fix the probiem so you are biiieo
correctly in the future.
Your bill from May 25,2022 to December 28,2022 has been corrected to reflect your actual usage and
a credit of $1,262.52 will be subtracted from your next bill.
We are committed to providing exceiient customer service and making sure you receive accorate and
"emeiy—billerif'yoo wouio-"tike moreinformation-or‘have anrqoeetions,please-23h us anytime loli—tree ct
i-888—221-70‘w.Any of our customer service representatives wiil ‘oe happy to assist you.
Our secure!convenient,and easy-to-use website empowers you to manage your electric account and
stay informed by signing up for email alerts,text alerts,or both.Once you have established your oniine
orofiie,you can choose to go paperiess and receive monthly email notifications when your bill is reao‘y,set up automatic payments,enroii in Equai Pay,pics much more.Downloading our free meoiée app for
Apple and Android devices is another option for quickly accessing your electric accomi.The aworowdesmanyseif~service channels!including the abiiity to report and track octagee,maize eeymehie.and look up your account history.Get started at wwwrockymouniaihpowernet.
it’s a pieasure to serve you.
Siirioerely=
Rocky Moontain Power
Para mes informacion,flame a!1-888-225-2611 para.hablar con un representanie en espefiol.A
our true strength is
our connection to you
77898 ENV 213 2 cf 2
ORDER NO. 35903 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 22, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SHERRY COLE,

PETITIONER,

vs.

PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER COMPANY,

RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-12

ORDER NO. 35903

cross-connected with
higher power consumption. While acknowledging some remedial actions and compensation by the
Company, the Petitioner believed further compensation was necessary to be made whole.
On July 24, 2023, the Commission issued a Final Order in this case dismissing the
referencing the
found under IDAPA 31.21.01. Order No. 35856.
On July 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a public comment explaining her frustration with the
28, 2023, the Petitioner filed a document intended to be a Petition for Reconsideration .
The Company did not respond to the Petition.
spanning the timeframe the Petitioner believed that the meters
were cross-connected.
The Commission now issues this Order dismissing the , as discussed
in detail below.

ORDER NO. 35903 2
BACKGROUND
1. The Complaint
The Petitioner stated that she has been arguing with the Company for approximately five
years; which she stated started when the Company moved her meter bank (which included
neighboring meters). At some point not clearly specified in the record, the Company inspected the
-connected with her
Petitioner stated that, as part of the inspection, the Company tried to turn off her power, but the
instead. The Petitioner stated that the Company then told her that
a workman would be out to fix the issue. The Petitioner explained that no one came out until she
called the Company in January 2023. After the January 2023 call, the Company then sent someone
out who fixed the allegedly cross-connected meters. The Petitioner stated that she was then
provided a written report dated January 25, 2023. The Petitioner also stated that a $1,620.08 credit
subsequently was applied to her bill for January. Regarding her issue with the Company, the
.
However, the Petitioner explained that when she received her bill for February, she saw
that the $1,620.08 credit had been reversed. The Petitioner stated that the Company told her that
-connected with
different than expected. The Petitioner stated that the Company ignored her after the meters in
question were allegedly fixed. The Petitioner stated that the Company offered her a $450 credit as
a sign of good will. However, the Petitioner explained that the $1,620.08 credit (which she stated
was a credit for six months of usage) should have remained. The Petitioner requested that the
Commission order the Company to reinstate the $1,620.08 credit.
2.
ocess to
accurately read the , which led to an erroneous belief that the meter had been
cross-connected. The Company stated that subsequent testing revealed that the
was working properly and never cross-connected with h s meter. The Company stated
it had offered the Petitioner a $450 credit for any inconvenience. However, the Company stated
that the Petitioner has not identified any legal authority that would require the Company to provide
ORDER NO. 35903 3
the Petitioner with any compensation. The Company thus requested that this case be dismissed
with prejudice.
3.
On June 12, 2023, the
talk to the judge [sic
Comment at 1. The Petitioner expressed displeasure regarding the veracity and presentation of the
evidence in this case and stated that she was seeking an attorney.
THE FINAL ORDER
On July 24, 2023, the Commission issued Final Order No. 35856. After reviewing the
provided the Petitioner with a $450 credit despite the lack of any clear legal obligation to do so.
Order No. 35856 at 3. The Commission also referenced
Rules as found in IDAPA 31.21.01.

On July 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a public comment expressing her frustration and claiming
that the evidence that she submitted was not properly examined. She alleged that the Company
be appealing this decision and suing

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Petitioner noted that she was not an attorney and requested leniency from the
Petition at 1. Petitioner referenced an unspecified three-year
exception that she stated should apply because she contacted the Company as soon as she had
proof after the moving of certain meter banks.1 The Petitioner stated that Staff originally suggested
a higher amount in controversy relevant to her compensation. Petitioner reviewed the narrative of
disputing various
aspects of these based upon her assertion that her meter was cross-connected with her
meter. She also expressed displeasure regarding her interactions with Staff. The Petitioner
requested that the Commission order THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF

1 Utility Customer Relations Rule 203, IDAPA 31.21.01.203, discusses billing errors and proper procedures for
remedying incorrect bills.
ORDER NO. 35903 4
MONEY WRONGFULLY CHARGED ME AND ADDED TO THE BIL1620.08 [sic].Petition
at 4. Petitioner noted her struggle with the legal complexities of this case and asked that the
Commission review the matter in good faith.
While certainly asking for compensation for a total of $1,620.08 for the six months
preceding the discovery of the allegedly cross-connected meters, the record indicates that the
Petitioner argued that the Company is correlated to a sum of $10,870
(for the total amount of time that she was overpaying for energy usage). The Petitioner also
meter was crossed, and that
she would be granted a credit of $1,262.522 that would be applied to her next bill. The Petitioner
also provided two billing statements that showed a credit initially being applied to her account
balance.

Staff noted that it d not believe
-
-
connected meters were fixed and compared that time period with the same time period from
previous years. Staff stated that her bills from this period were very comparable with the
commensurate period for each previous year going back to 2018. Staff also correlated this data
with the average monthly temper
minor differences in the prices for each month can largely be explained by normal temperature
fluctuations. Accordingly, Staff stated that the data does not support a finding the meters in
question were ever cross-connected.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
matter previously determined and provides the Commission opportunity to rectify any mistake
before the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court. Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public
, 1980, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242. Any person or public utility has the right

2 The
second attached bill lists a , which appears to be where the Petitioner arrived at her $1,620.08
request for compensation. Petition, Exhibit 2-2.
ORDER NO. 35903 5
to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined in a Commission order. Idaho
Code § 61-626(1). The petitioner has 21 days from the date of the final order in which to ask for
reconsideration. Id. The Commission has 28 days from the filing of the petition for reconsideration
to enter an order on the matter. Idaho Code § 61-626(2).
Commission Rule of Procedure 332 authorizes the Commission to grant reconsideration
on its own motion by the motion of an interested party. This Rule also allows the Commission to
dismiss issues on reconsideration when those issues are not supported by a specific explanation
relevant to the case. IDAPA 31.01.01.332.
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rule of Procedure 331 states that petitions for
reconsideration unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and quantity of evidence
or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01
reconsideration by evidentiary
31.01.01.331.03.
Having reviewed the Petition, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Petition does not meet the substantive requirements for a petition for
reconsideration.
The Petition largely reiterates information that was already in the Complaint including
cross-connected and provided the Petitioner with a bill credit. After investigation, the Company
determined that no cross-connection occurred and reversed the
-connection. These facts regarding
were already known by the Commission and factored into the
The Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence
to show that her meter was cross-connected, or that she was overcharged for electric service.
Nothing that the Petitioner has presented provides grounds for the Commission to decide that
Order No. 3585
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Therefore, the Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed.
ORDER NO. 35903 6
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by
this Order, or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case, may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 22nd day of
August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC-E-23-12 Cole\PACE2312_recon_order_md.docx