20180223Comments (7).pdf

Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,February23,2018 8:41 AM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Vicky Davis
Name:Vicky Davis
Case Number:AVU-E-17-11
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:
Twin Falls ID,83301
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Comment:In your Final Order No.33979,you reference a six year old complaint file by Bonnie Menth to dismiss health
issues raised by Mary Baenen.Six years is a long time in the field of health when there continue to be studies of health
effects on-going.Her complaint on health issues should not have been dismissed on the basis of an old decision.
The case listed as Menth v Idaho Power Company,Case No.IPC-E-12-04also happens to include Davis v Idaho Power
Company.The complaints of Menth and Davis were filed as separate complaints but the IPUC asked if they could
combine the cases because they were filed at the same time opposing smart meters -but for different reasons.The
issues of Bonnie Menth were health issues.The issues of Vicky Davis were electronic home invasion with equipment
that was essentially surveillance equipment.Smart meters are computerized recording and communications devices.
My response to Idaho Power's Answer to the Summons was a 43 detailed response not including attachments on the
breach of privacy and security enabled by smart meters.
The IPUC's statement to Mary Baenen concerning Avista being a private company and therefore no fourth amendment
violations is disingenuous at best.The IPUC is a quasi-judicial governing body for the utilites.IPUC ordered Idaho Power
to install AMR devicesthroughouttheir service territory and there is no doubt that the IPUC did the same to Avista.
It's clear to me now why the IPUC wanted the Davis Complaint and the Menth Complaint combined into a single case.
Combining the cases buried my complaint (I am Vicky Davis,the complainant in IPC-E-12-04)and the issues that were
brought to the Commission in that complaint.
Since the IPUC in their Final Order on Mary Baenen's Complaint referenced IPC-E-12-04,the issues of the Davis
Complaint in that case apply to Mary's complaint concerning surveillance and privacy issues and the Commission needs
to address those issues.
Unique Identifier:159.118.132.108
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,February23,2018 2:42 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:GregoryAnderson
Name:Gregory Anderson
Case Number:AVU-E-17-11
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:1435 E.17th St.
Idaho Falls ID,83404
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Falls Power
Comment:
To:Idaho Public Utility Commission Secretary
In reference to the right of the consumer to be able to have access to power from utility companies without the use of
so-called Smart Meters.Having dealt with both myself and family with extreme EMF(electromagnetic frequencies)it is
imperative that the State of Idaho Public Utility Commission requires all utilitycompanies within the state to not only
have opt-out policies but to do so without additional costs.I have witnessed family members going into severe irregular
heartbeats and stress requiring emergency room visits and thousands of dollars triggered by EMF(electromagnetic
frequencies)Please allow the consumer the choice's for their individual needs.This is certainly not a one-size fit's all
situation.
Sincerely
Gregory Anderson
Unique Identifier:97.121.19.161
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,February23,2018 8:41 AM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Vicky Davis
Name:Vicky Davis
Case Number:AVU-E-17-11
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:
Twin Falls ID,83301
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Comment:In your Final Order No.33979,you reference a six year old complaint file by Bonnie Menth to dismiss health
issues raised by Mary Baenen.Six years is a long time in the field of health when there continue to be studies of healtheffectson-going.Her complaint on health issues should not have been dismissed on the basis of an old decision.
The case listed as Menth v Idaho Power Company,Case No.IPC-E-12-04also happens to include Davis v Idaho PowerCompany.The complaints of Menth and Davis were filed as separate complaints but the IPUC asked if they could
combine the cases because they were filed at the same time opposing smart meters -but for different reasons.The
issues of Bonnie Menth were health issues.The issues of Vicky Davis were electronic home invasion with equipmentthatwasessentiallysurveillanceequipment.Smart meters are computerized recording and communications devices.My response to Idaho Power's Answer to the Summons was a 43 detailed response not including attachments on thebreachofprivacyandsecurityenabledbysmartmeters.
The IPUC's statement to Mary Baenen concerning Avista being a private company and therefore no fourth amendmentviolationsisdisingenuousatbest.The IPUC is a quasi-judicial governing body for the utilites.IPUC ordered Idaho Power
to install AMR devicesthroughouttheir service territory and there is no doubt that the IPUC did the same to Avista.
It's clear to me now why the IPUC wanted the Davis Complaint and the Menth Complaint combined into a single case.Combining the cases buried my complaint (I am Vicky Davis,the complainant in IPC-E-12-04)and the issues that werebroughttotheCommissioninthatcomplaint.
Since the IPUC in their Final Order on Mary Baenen's Complaint referenced IPC-E-12-04,the issues of the DavisComplaintinthatcaseapplytoMary's complaint concerning surveillance and privacy issues and the Commission needs
to addressthose issues.
Unique Identifier:159.118.132.108
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,February22,2018 6:49 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Mary Maio
Name:Mary Maio
Case Number:(AVU-E-17-11)
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:125 Private Dr.
Sagle ID,83860
Name of Utility Company:AVISTA
Comment:Dear Commission Secretary,
I work in Sandpoint in buildings with Avista's Itron meters (also known as Smart Meters).I am posting this comment
because I am most concerned about the IPUC DENYlNG AN OPT-OUTPROGRAM due to their reasoning that these Smart
Meters are basically consistent with industry standards and the standards of other wireless devices.Just because
another product is available for the public,does not necessitate that Itron Smart Meters are TRULY SAFE.The IPUC is
playing with words here.
I am not finding the IPUC mentioning any specific data that has been acquired by non-industry,highly qualified,third
parties that state that Avista's meters are "safe."Why isn't the IPUC stating that Avista's Itron meters are SAFE,and that
all the electrical and wireless components involved with these Itron meters are trulyNOT biologically interfering with a
human's health and safety?
By law,the UPUC is responsible to regulate utilities to ensure public safety.Please review the dictionary's definition of
SAFETY:the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger,risk,or injury.
The IPUC might want to take note of the former CPUC President Michael Peevey'semail that he sent to Brian K.Cherry
of PG&E.Michael Peeveywrote,"One thought for the company:If it were my decision I would let anyone who wants to
keep their old meter keep it,if they claim they suffer from EMF and/or related electronic-related illnesses....I would
institute such a policy quietlyand solely on an individual basis.There really are people who feel pain,etc.,related to
EMF,etc.,and rather than have them becoming hysterical,etc.,I would quietly leave them alone.Kick it around...."
This email first states that people's health are at risk,and that there is INJURY (pain)-mentally,emotionally,and
physically.Second,does this email sound like Mr.Peeveyis deferring his lawful responsibility to PG&E,the very industry
that he and his commissioners and staff are to regulate?
Last year posted on the web:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-sanonofre-criminal-
20170202-story.html
Criminal probe of utilities commission may get new life.February 2,2017
This article states,"A PG&E natural gas pipeline exploded in 2010,killing eight people and destroying an entire
neighborhood in San Bruno.The Northern California city sued the utility for access to emails and other records related to
the accident."
Note:It is from these investigations I was able to acquire Peevey'semail which I just shared above.
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,February22,2018 6:59 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Eveline Leucht
Name:Eveline Leucht
Case Number:(AVU-E-17-11)
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:P.O.Box 1246
SANDPOINT ID,83864
Name of Utility Company:AVISTA
Comment:I have three smart meters on the outside wall of my kitchen and regardless of your decision in not allowing
people to opt-out on their meters,I am getting sick from them.
My symptoms include:
-it takes hours to be able to get to sleep -my heartbeat has become irregular -my hands and feet are always cold -my
feet stay numb
We do not haveto be subject to illness because of the inhumane behavior on the part of those corporations and
government agencies that support this.They have lost their own honor and noble hearts in selling their souls.
Unique Identifier:72.168.160.171
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,February22,2018 5:24 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Iouise rencher
Name:Iouise rencher
Case Number:)VU 6 4 ~
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:836 n skyline dr
idaho falls idaho,83402
Name of Utility Company:idaho falls power
Comment:I request the Commission to require Utility companies to provide opt-outs for their customers who do not
want RF-EMR emitting meters with no additional monthly fees or other fees.
Unique Identifier:75.167.177.110
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,February 22,2018 4:40 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Mary Vermeeren
Name:Mary Vermeeren
Case Number:AVU-E-17-11
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:11 Buckskin Flat.Rd.
Priest River ID,83856
Name of Utility Company:Northern Lights,Inc.
Comment:Requesting Public Utility Commission to provide opt-out for their customers who do not want RF-EMR
emitting meters with no additional monthly fees or other fees.
Unique Identifier:72.168.160.179
1