⚖️ Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim
I am the owner of a small bookstore business in Albany, Oregon. In July 2025, I signed a commercial lease for a retail space at 250 Broadalbin St. The lease allowed me early access to prepare the space, but I did not owe rent and was not operating the business until October 2025. I did not open to the public until November 7, 2025.
In late July 2025, I called Pacific Power to set up an account for future service when my business would begin operating. I did not intend to start paying for electricity immediately, and I did not understand that billing would begin right away. At that time, the space was not occupied for business, and any electricity flowing to the unit was residual service from the prior tenant, which Pacific Power never physically disconnected.
In August and September 2025, Pacific Power began sending me bills totaling $999.94 for electricity allegedly provided from July 21 to September 16, 2025. I disputed these charges as soon as I received them, explaining that:
I was not paying rent until October,
I was not operating a business during that period, and
I had not agreed to start billed service in July.
On September 16, 2025, Pacific Power stopped billing and closed the account under my name. However, they later sent the disputed amount to collections, even though the charges were disputed.
When I attempted to establish electrical service beginning October 1, 2025—the date my rent obligation began—Pacific Power refused unless I first paid the disputed $999.94 plus a security deposit. I am willing to pay for service from October forward, but Pacific Power has wrongfully conditioned current service on payment of a disputed prior bill.
Pacific Power claims this debt is based on a July 21, 2025 phone call, but:
There is no written contract,
They refuse to provide a recording or transcript of the call,
They rely only on their internal notes,
They continued to allow electricity to flow without a signed customer.
Because of this dispute, I have dealt with collections notices, threats of disconnection, business disruption, and significant time spent trying to resolve the issue through Pacific Power and the Oregon Public Utility Commission.
I am asking the Court for $2,000 which represents my damages and an offset against Pacific Power’s improper attempt to collect $999.94 for a period when I was not operating my business and did not agree to billed service.
In short, this case is about fairness: a utility should not be allowed to demand $1,000 based solely on its own undocumented interpretation of a phone call, while refusing to provide evidence and refusing to serve a customer willing to pay for current service.
