⚖️ Notice and Statement
Plaintiff's Notice of Procedural Concern — For the Record
Your Honor,
I submit this notice respectfully and without any criticism of the court. I raise the following solely to preserve a complete record and because I believe transparency with the court serves everyone's interests, including the court's own.
At the commencement of today's hearing, neither party was advised of a time limitation. Proceeding in good faith and consistent with my experience in prior small claims proceedings, I allowed both of the defendant's representatives adequate time to present their positions, under the reasonable assumption that the court would redirect the parties if time became a concern.
I wish to draw the court's attention to a specific procedural consequence of that dynamic. The defense devoted the substantial portion of their hearing time to disputing the facts surrounding the July 2025 phone call. That factual dispute is addressed — and largely conceded — in my original complaint, filed January 2, 2026. I stated therein that I did not understand billing would begin immediately, and that I could not verify the precise content of that conversation. I did not claim the call never occurred.
That concession was deliberate and honest. It is also legally beside the point, because OAR 860-021-0335(5) does not turn on whether a verbal agreement was reached. It prohibits a regulated utility from conditioning new service on a balance incurred before the applicant was present and operating at the address — regardless of how that balance was generated. Even accepting Pacific Power's version of the July call as entirely true, the regulatory prohibition stands. I was not at 250 Broadalbin Street SW. Another business was. The meter was never physically disconnected between tenants.
I raised this as a relevancy objection repeatedly during the defense's testimony. Those objections were overruled. I do not raise this as a criticism of the court's judgment. I raise it because the record should reflect that the question the defense litigated — whether a verbal agreement was reached in July — is not the question this court must answer to resolve this case. The question is whether Pacific Power was legally permitted to condition my October service application on that disputed balance. The administrative rule answers that question directly, and the defense offered no substantive response to it.
When the court indicated approximately five minutes before the conclusion of the hearing that time was limited, I had not yet fully addressed damages or completed my closing statement. I note this not to impugn the court's management of the proceeding, but because the record should reflect that my presentation was not complete when the hearing concluded, and that the concurrent supplemental statement is submitted solely to fill that gap.
I am grateful for this court's consideration of these filings and for the opportunity to ensure the record is complete before a ruling is issued.
Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement for the Record
Your Honor,
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before this court today and for the court's careful attention to both parties. I submit this supplemental statement respectfully and solely to ensure the record is complete before the court issues its ruling. I do not raise any of the following as criticism of the proceedings — only to assist the court in having the fullest possible picture of the applicable law and the facts as they have developed since this complaint was filed.
On the Scope of This Supplemental Filing
I wish to note at the outset that my original complaint sought $2,000. I am now asking this court for $10,000 — the statutory maximum. That increase is not arbitrary. It reflects two categories of harm that either postdate the original filing or were not yet fully quantifiable at the time: the March 2, 2026 disconnection of the meter at 250 Broadalbin Street SW, which occurred after Pacific Power had filed its answer to this complaint; and $1,000 in statutory damages available under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k for Bonneville Collections' documented violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Both are addressed below.
The Core Regulatory Violation
The central legal question in this matter is narrow and clearly resolved by existing Oregon administrative law. OAR 860-021-0335(5) prohibits a regulated public utility from conditioning new service on a balance incurred before the applicant was present at the address. I was not present at 250 Broadalbin Street SW when the disputed charges were incurred — a fact the defense did not contest. The premises were occupied by a different business. I respectfully submit that this provision resolves the threshold question of whether Pacific Power was legally entitled to deny me service. It was not.
I want to be direct about something the defense's presentation obscured. My original complaint acknowledges the ambiguity of the July 2025 phone call. I did not claim the call never happened. I stated that I did not understand billing would begin immediately, and that I could not verify the precise content of the conversation. The defense treated this as the disputed question before the court. It is not. Even if Pacific Power's account of that call is accepted in its entirety, OAR 860-021-0335(5) still prohibited them from conditioning my October service application on the resulting balance. The factual dispute they litigated at length today is beside the legal point.
On the FDCPA Violation
After I submitted a written dispute, Bonneville Collections continued collection activity in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), a strict liability provision under which intent is not required. The $1,000 in statutory damages available under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k is a concrete, legally established component of my damages claim, independent of the court's assessment of any other facts in this case.
On Post-Filing Conduct
On March 2, 2026, after Pacific Power had filed its answer in this proceeding, the meter at 250 Broadalbin Street SW was disconnected. A neighboring business was forced to close for several days as a result. I had previously placed Pacific Power on written notice that I was accruing damages at $200 per day for ongoing harm. I do not ask the court to treat that self-assessed figure as automatically enforceable. I ask the court to consider the post-filing disconnection as evidence of the willfulness of Pacific Power's conduct — which is directly relevant to the court's equitable assessment of damages.
On Damages
I am asking for judgment of $10,000. That figure comprises: the void balance of approximately $1,000; $1,000 in statutory FDCPA damages; documented actual damages from the denial of my small business loan application, which I attribute to the collections entry placed on my business credit report during my critical opening months; and the court's equitable discretion in assessing the conduct of a regulated monopoly that escalated adverse action against me at every stage, including after this proceeding was filed.
This was not a billing error. It was a sustained pattern of conduct by an entity with legal counsel, regulatory staff, and full knowledge of its obligations — that chose a different path at every decision point available to it. This court's judgment is one of the few remedies available to a small business owner when a regulated public utility decides its own rules do not apply to it.
I am grateful for this court's time and its careful consideration of this matter.
