20230918PUC Clerk Certificate of Appeal.pdf

P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A, Boise, Idaho 83714

September 18, 2023

Via E-Mail and Interagency Mail
[e-mail]

Melanie Gagnepain
Clerk of the Courts
Supreme Court
451 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0101

Re: PUC Clerk’s Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.: ______________-2023

Dear Ms. Gagnepain,

Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk’s Certificate of Appeal from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Also enclosed is the Notice of Appeal filed by Sherry
Cole on September 6, 2023, and the $94 filing fee.

I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from: Final Order No. 35856
and Reconsideration Order No. 35903.

If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

Enclosures
cc: Michael Duval, Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC-E-23-12 Cole\Supreme Court\SC_CvrLtr_20230918.docx
Idaho Public Utilities Commission

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

On March 16, 2023, Sherry Cole (“Petitioner”) filed a formal complaint (“Complaint”)
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) alleging that Rocky Mountain Power,
a division of PacifiCorp (“Company”), overcharged her while her meter was cross-connected with
her neighbor’s meter. The Petitioner stated she was inappropriately charged for her neighbor’s
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
Petitioner’s complaint and referencing the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules as
found under IDAPA 31.21.01. Order No. 35856.
On July 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a public comment explaining her frustration with the
Commission’s decision in the Final Order and expressing an intent to sue the Company. On July
28, 2023, the Petitioner filed a document intended to be a Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”).
The Company did not respond to the Petition.
On August 14, 2023, Commission Staff (“Staff”) filed an affidavit regarding Staff’s
analysis of the Petitioner’s bills spanning the timeframe the Petitioner believed that the meters
were cross-connected.
The Commission now issues this Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition, 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
Petitioner’s meter and informed her that it was cross-connected with her neighbor’s meter. The
Petitioner stated that, as part of the inspection, the Company tried to turn off her power, but the
neighbor’s power was turned off 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
Petitioner stated that “[w]e were good at this point.” Complaint at 1.
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
the Petitioner’s meter had actually never been cross-connected with her neighbor’s meter. The
Petitioner stated that her neighbor also called the Company because the neighbor’s bill was also
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. The Company’s Answer
On June 8, 2023, the Company filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”). The
Company stated that the Company’s own technician did not initially utilize the proper process to
accurately read the Petitioner’s meter, which led to an erroneous belief that the meter had been
cross-connected. The Company stated that subsequent testing revealed that the Petitioner’s meter
was working properly and never cross-connected with her neighbor’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. Petitioner’s First Comment
On June 12, 2023, the Petitioner filed a public comment expressing that she “need[ed] to
talk to the judge [sic] about some issues with the procedures with this case. . . .” Petitioner’s First
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
record, the Final Order dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint and noted that the Company had
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 Commission’s Utility Customer Relations
Rules as found in IDAPA 31.21.01.
PETITIONER’S SECOND COMMENT
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
committed theft. The Petitioner also stated that she would “be appealing this decision and suing
them now.” Petitioner’s Second Comment at 1.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Petitioner noted that she was not an attorney and requested leniency from the
Commission when reviewing the legal aspects of her filing. The Petitioner cited “Rules 005, 200,
204, 313” without elaboration. 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
her Complaint and discussed certain exhibits from the Company’s Answer—disputing various
aspects of these based upon her assertion that her meter was cross-connected with her neighbor’s
meter. She also expressed displeasure regarding her interactions with Staff. The Petitioner
requested that the Commission order a reimbursement of “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’s obligation to reimburse her is correlated to a sum of $10,870
(for the total amount of time that she was overpaying for energy usage). The Petitioner also
attached the Company’s letter to her initially informing her that her 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’S AFFIDAVIT
On August 14, 2023, Staff filed the Affidavit of Jon Kruck (“Affidavit”). In this Affidavit,
Staff noted that it had reviewed the Petitioner’s utility bills from the Company and did not believe
the data supported a finding that the Petitioner’s meter was cross-connected with her neighbor’s
meter. Staff examined the Petitioner’s bills from the time that she stated the allegedly cross-
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 temperature for each year. This increased Staff’s confidence that the
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
Reconsideration affords parties an opportunity to bring to the Commission’s attention any
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
Utilities Comm’n, 1980, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242. Any person or public utility has the right

2 The January 25, 2023, letter stated that her credit would be $1,262.52. The “Adjustments” portion of the Petitioner’s
second attached bill lists a “+1,621.08” number, 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 “must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided in it is 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
(emphasis added). Further, “the petition . . . must state whether the petitioner . . . requests
reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
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
information that shows that, at one point, the Company believed that the Petitioner’s meter was
cross-connected and provided the Petitioner with a bill credit. After investigation, the Company
determined that no cross-connection occurred and reversed the bill credit. Staff’s analysis
corroborated the Company’s assertion that there was no cross-connection. These facts regarding
the Company’s previous actions were already known by the Commission and factored into the
Commission’s decision in Order No. 35856. 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. 35856 was “unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law.”
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
ORDER NO. 35856 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 24, 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. 35856

On March 16, 2023, Sherry Cole (“Petitioner”) filed a formal complaint (“Complaint”)
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) alleging that Rocky Mountain Power,
a division of PacifiCorp (“Company”), overcharged her while her meter was cross-connected with
her neighbor’s meter. The Petitioner asserted that she was billed for her neighbor’s power
consumption. While acknowledging some remedial actions and compensation by the Company,
the Petitioner believed further compensation was necessary to be made whole.
On May 18, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons with the Complaint attached. The
Company filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss on June 8, 2023. The Petitioner submitted a
reply in the form of a Public Comment on June 12, 2023.
The Commission now issues this Order dismissing the Complaint.
THE FORMAL COMPLAINT
The Petitioner stated that she has been arguing with the Company for approximately five
years—apparently starting when the Company moved her meter banks. At some point not clearly
specified in the Complaint,1 the Petitioner alleges that the Company inspected the Petitioner’s
meter and informed her that it was cross-connected with her neighbor’s meter. The Petitioner
represented that, as part of the inspection, the Company tried to turn off her power; instead, the
neighbor’s power was turned off. The Petitioner asserted that the Company then told her that a
workman would come to fix the issue. The Petitioner explained that no one came out until she
called the Company in January 2023. The Petitioner stated the Company then sent someone out

1 The Company stated that the Petitioner initially raised her concerns with the Company on January 3, 2023.
ORDER NO. 35856 2
who fixed the allegedly cross-connected meters. The Petitioner stated that she was then provided
a written report that was dated January 25, 2023.2 The Petitioner also stated that a $1,620.08 credit
was subsequently applied to her bill in January. Regarding her issue with the Company, the
Petitioner stated that “[w]e were good at this point.” Complaint at 1.
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
the Petitioner’s meter had actually never been cross-connected with her neighbor’s meter. The
Petitioner stated that her neighbor also called the Company because the neighbor’s bill was also
“different” than expected. Id. The Petitioner stated that the Company ignored her after the meters
in question were allegedly fixed. The Petitioner stated that the Company offered her $450.00 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 in place. The Petitioner requested that
the Commission order the Company to reinstate the $1,620.08 credit.
THE COMPANY’S ANSWER
On June 8, 2023, the Company filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”). The
Company stated that its technician visited the Petitioner’s property on January 13, 2023, and that
this technician did not initially utilize the proper process to accurately read the Petitioner’s meter;
this led to an erroneous belief that the meter had been cross-connected. The Company stated that
the initial net credit provided to the Petitioner was $1,256.45. The Company provided
supplemental exhibits to support the Company’s position.
The Company stated that a February 8, 2023, breaker test showed that the Petitioner’s
meter was working properly and never cross-connected with her neighbors’ meter. The Company
thus stated that the previous credit was provided in error. The Company stated the Petitioner
contacted the Company on March 2, 2023; the Petitioner was very upset at the reversal of the
previous credit. The Company stated that a meter reader revisited the property on March 13, 2023,
and again confirmed the accuracy of the meters in question. The Company stated that on March
15, 2023, it offered the Petitioner a $450.00 credit for any inconvenience. Despite this goodwill
credit, the Company maintained that the Petitioner had not identified any legal authority that would
require the Company to provide the Petitioner with any compensation. The Company thus
requested that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

2 The January 25, 2023, report referenced by the Petitioner was not included as part of the record.
ORDER NO. 35856 3
PETITIONER’S REPLY
On June 12, 2023, the Petitioner filed a public comment in which she expressed that she
“need[ed] to talk to the judge [sic] about some issues with the procedures with this case. . . .”
Public 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.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. Having reviewed the Complaint, Answer, and the Petitioner’s reply, we dismiss the
Complaint. Other than her statements, the Petitioner has not provided anything in the record to
substantiate that she was overcharged. Despite the lack of a clear duty to do so, the Company has
provided the Petitioner with $450.00 for the inconvenience it caused. The Commission finds that
this Complaint should be dismissed.
In matters like these the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules provide guidance
and direction. See IDAPA 31.21.01. The Commission believes that consistent application of these
rules can help to prevent these situations from occurring.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Complaint filed by the Petitioner is dismissed.
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. Idaho Code § 61-626.
///

ORDER NO. 35856 4
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 24th day of
July 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_Final_md.docx