⚖️ Opinion

Findings of Fact

Plaintiff leased commercial retail space for operation of a bookstore business.

On July 21, 2025, plaintiff contacted defendant Pacific Power to establish electrical service for the business location. The court received transcripts and related records concerning that call.

During the call, plaintiff identified the business, confirmed the service address, discussed deposits and billing, and expressly agreed service could begin immediately. The court specifically finds credible the portions of the transcript in which plaintiff stated:

• "Yeah, I'll just start today," and

• "But yeah, I'll just start today."

The court therefore finds plaintiff voluntarily initiated commercial electrical service effective July 21, 2025, and became the responsible customer for the account beginning on that date.

The court further finds:

• the disputed electrical charges accrued after plaintiff initiated service;

• the charges were incurred on plaintiff's own account;

• plaintiff later disputed the resulting balance and refused payment;

• defendant thereafter declined to establish additional future service without payment of the outstanding balance and applicable deposit requirements;

• plaintiff filed a complaint with the Oregon Public Utility Commission;

• the PUC resolved the matter in defendant's favor and found no company violations;

• electrical service nevertheless continued at the premises for months despite the unpaid balance;

• plaintiff continued receiving the benefit of electrical service during that period; and

• the account was eventually disconnected after prolonged nonpayment and lack of an active customer on the account.

• plaintiff's landlord eventually put the service back into the landlord's name and power was reconnected.

Credibility Findings

The court finds significant portions of plaintiff's testimony and written filings not credible.

Plaintiff's pleadings and testimony repeatedly created the impression plaintiff merely intended to establish future service beginning in October 2025 and did not knowingly agree to responsibility for electrical service beginning in July 2025.

However, the July 21 transcript directly contradicts those assertions. The transcript establishes plaintiff expressly authorized immediate commencement of service and knowingly established the account in plaintiff's own business name.

The court further finds plaintiff repeatedly shifted positions throughout the litigation. At various times plaintiff asserted:

• there was no agreement to begin service in July;

• there was no enforceable contract because no written contract existed;

• the factual dispute concerning the July call was legally irrelevant;

• the factual dispute concerning the establishment of service is relevant because plaintiff requested damages for the disputed amount;

• the charges belonged to a prior tenant; and

Those positions are inconsistent both internally and with the objective evidence received at trial.

Legal Analysis

A. Plaintiff Failed to Prove Wrongful Billing

The central premise of plaintiff's case is that defendant improperly charged plaintiff for electrical service before plaintiff became responsible for the premises.

The evidence does not support that claim.

The court finds plaintiff voluntarily initiated electrical service effective July 21, 2025. The resulting charges were incurred after plaintiff established service in plaintiff's own business name. Plaintiff therefore failed to prove defendant improperly imposed another person's debt upon plaintiff.

B. OAR 860-021-0335

Plaintiff relies heavily upon OAR 860-021-0335 and argues defendant unlawfully conditioned future electrical service upon payment of a disputed balance.

The court is not persuaded by plaintiff's interpretation of the rule.

Subsection (1) of the rule generally authorizes an energy utility to refuse service until overdue balances are paid. Subsection (4) separately addresses telecommunications utilities. Subsections (2) and (5), however, create narrower exceptions and limitations specifically applicable to residential customers or applicants. The plain language of subsection (5) makes clear it only applies to residential customers — it would not make sense to include the language "resided at" for a commercial tenant, since that term refers to where someone lives. The administrative rule clearly intended to provide additional protections for residential customers as opposed to commercial or industrial customers.

Plaintiff did not establish residential service. Rather, plaintiff established commercial electrical service for operation of a bookstore business. The court therefore concludes plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the residential protections contained within subsections (2) and (5).

C. Plaintiff Failed to Establish Entitlement to Damages

Even assuming some technical regulatory violation had occurred, plaintiff failed to establish any cognizable legal theory entitling plaintiff to damages in this proceeding.

Plaintiff did not establish:

• breach of contract;

• negligence;

• fraud;

• conversion;

• any statutory private right of action arising from the cited administrative rule; or

• any other recognized basis for monetary recovery.

The court further finds plaintiff failed to prove recoverable damages with reasonable certainty.

The claimed damages consisted largely of:

• generalized frustration;

• time spent disputing the account;

• unsupported allegations of business disruption;

• speculative claims regarding loan denial;

• requests for "equitable" punishment; and

• conclusory allegations of improper corporate conduct.

Those assertions were speculative, unsupported, or not legally recoverable under the theories presented.

D. FDCPA Allegations

In supplemental filings submitted after trial, plaintiff attempted to assert claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act relating to Bonneville Collections.

Those claims are not properly before the court. Bonneville Collections is not a party to this proceeding, and the alleged FDCPA issues were neither properly pled nor litigated at trial. The court therefore declines to adjudicate those allegations.

E. Hearing Time and Opportunity to Be Heard

Following trial, plaintiff submitted filings asserting plaintiff did not receive adequate time to complete presentation of the case.

The court does not find plaintiff was denied a fair opportunity to present evidence or argument.

The hearing notice expressly advised the parties the matter was scheduled for a one-hour personal appearance proceeding. Plaintiff therefore had advance notice of the allotted hearing time before trial. During the hearing, both parties were permitted substantial opportunity to present testimony, exhibits, and argument. The court managed the proceedings in the ordinary course consistent with the scheduled time limitations applicable to small claims matters.

To the extent plaintiff contends the court improperly considered evidence concerning the July 21, 2025 telephone call, the court rejects that argument. The evidence was directly relevant to:

• whether plaintiff voluntarily initiated service;

• whether the disputed balance was plaintiff's own account debt;

• plaintiff's credibility; and

• plaintiff's theory that defendant improperly attempted to impose another person's debt upon plaintiff.

Conclusion

Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant acted unlawfully or that plaintiff suffered legally recoverable damages caused by defendant.

Judgment shall therefore be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ryan Lucke, Circuit Court Judge, Pro Tem