PacifiCorp is discouraging regulators from looking too close at its pending request to limit customer lawsuits, arguing any legal shortfalls should be dealt with in court after the fact.
In an opening brief filed Jan. 23 with the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC), the company said its proposal cannot override the right to pursue reasonable damages in Oregon’s Constitution.
It further argued that the laws potentially applying to its proposal are complex and it was “likely not possible” for such a proposal to avoid conflicts with all of them. These same complexities would also require potential conflicts to be addressed case-by-case, said the company, which the judiciary is better-equipped to do.
PacifiCorp argued, because of these factors, PUC should approve its request without further inquiry into constitutional issues. “Those issues, only if or when they arise, are best left to the relevant judicial forum.”
A PUC analysis of the proposed limitations remains ongoing after staff said last year they needed to investigate the unknown legal and policy impacts of PacifiCorp’s request.
Our Town reached out to PacifiCorp for comment but did not hear back by deadline.
PacifiCorp filed a request with PUC Oct. 24, 2023, for leave to add a limited liability clause to its user agreement. The clause would allow only economic damages and only for losses caused by the use of electrical services, and would apply to all current PacifiCorp customers in Oregon.
PacifiCorp’s request was originally schedueld for approval Nov. 29, 2023, and this was delayed until April 9 after PUC staff requested time to conduct an inquiry. They said they had questions about the unknown legal and policy implications of the request, and whether or if it had precedent. Their report is due Feb. 20.
In PacifiCorp’s original filing, it said the limited liability clause was necessary to protect the company’s financial health in light of a credit downgrade in June 2023 due to a wildfire verdict. Last year $92.4 million was awarded to wildfire survivors in Phase I of James et al vs. PacifiCorp and shortly afterward PacifiCorp’s credit was downgraded by S&P Global Ratings.
An $85 million verdict in the same lawsuit was awarded Jan. 23 amid ongoing efforts to determine damages for a class of 5,000. At press time it was unknown if the company’s credit rating would be impacted.
James class members have said PacifiCorp’s PUC request may harm their ability to seek damages. They have been granted intervenor status to participate directly in proceedings.
The Jan. 23 PUC brief did not mention either verdict or the company’s credit rating. Instead PacifiCorp made the argument that high legal liability leads to high service rates, and that it was the role of regulators to prevent the former and avoid the later.
PacifiCorp said its proposal was a “proactive” attempt to “mitigate the impact to utility rates from catastrophic environmental disasters.” It said PUC had the legal right to limit PacifiCorp’s liability or even to “preclude any damages at all” and encouraged the commission to approve its proposal.
