20080114Reply.pdf

..
.i~/ :.:./ :.~'" (-7o
.i::; :.::¿00¿00'040 f ep 11 fv ~ f f.t"~i: i:.i
BEFORE TH IDAHO PUBLIC UTIES COMMSSON
PAMLA AN SCOTt BOWE,
Offce ofthe'ScSece Da
ember 5, 2007
.v.
) . .
) CASE NO. IPC~E-7-14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF INGATION
.~tlCOMPLANANS,
IDAØO POWER COMPANY,
REONDEN.
ORDER NO. 30421
On July 3, 2007, tbe Co~o. reve a ."foim" complaint frm Pamla and
Scott Bower (the Bowes) agaist Idaho Powe. The Bowerses' Complant wa suplemente
and/or reitered with additionl inon recved by the Comni~on on July 26, 2007.
constig of addional wrtten inormaton as well as a map of their subdvision. The Bowers
requesd in their Complait tht new rues or laws be en deag with shar trformer
for busiescommercal customer. With th Or the Commsson op an invesgation and
dire the Compay to prvide adcon inormation as more fuy set fort below.
BACKGROUN
In Decbe 2004~ the Bowe obtaed semce frm Idao Power at thr
business, Bowers Trarttion, in Cadwel, Idao. The Bowerses' busess is locted in a
commercial subdivision. A pad-momited tnformer wa placed on their pro, in a recoJ:ed
utility eaent. to ~e their lot. They were i-uied to pay $1,461 for lie extension cost
above the ailowance for teal facilities paid by the Compay in order to estblish theI
serce connecon with Ida Powe.
Around Deember 2006, on the lot adjacet to the Bowerses, TeXT- Wesi.lnc. (Tenaw
West), eslished sece with Idao Power with a line extenson from the sae trsformer
sering the Bowerses. Ten-Wes wa not requi to pay any mODey towar th shar
facilties. The Bowees complane that it was inequitable that the:r had to pay fot a line
exteon to obt servce and Tera-West did not. They claI that they are the Oly lot owners
in their comerial subdivision who år reui to sh sece. The Ra'Wes are also
extrmely upset regarg the eament on thei propert and the enb'onto th$Ù' prer to
hook up Tera-Wes's servce. Additionally. the :Bowers complai th because ofthe shard
usage of the trformer. if their elecc usage increes in the futa i.e., by additiona
NOUÇE OF INSTIGATION
ORDER NO. 30421 ..j
NOTICE OF INESTIGATION
ORDER NO. 30421 2
16/22/2001 Ib: ~~:¿L1l:l:ll:b':t:ab ~UWI:K::t"A\;1: J.l:
'\
-.
conston or buildings on thei lot th they wil agai have to pay for additonal upgrdes _
where Tera-West ha paíd nothng.
DISCUION
Having reviewed the Bower' Complant and aocompanyIg materals. we find
ther is good cause to initia an invesgation into the line exnson nies and policies of Idaho
Power. and more specificaly Rile H of the Compay's approved tan. The Conussion has
the powe ànd autrity to iniiate tls invesgaon purt to Idaho Code §§ 61 ~503, 61..502~
61-501, and 61-612, and may do so upon coplat or upon it OV\ motion.
Pur to oW" authori and on our own motion, the Commssion iintite this
iiwestgation into the Bowerses~ Complaint including Idao Power's lie exension/refud nies
and policies and Rule H of the Compay's approved taff We diect Idao Power Compan to
file a reort with 30 days of the sece date of th Orer responding to the issue xa in the
Complain. The report should generly rend to the Bowe' complaits includig, but not
limite to: The detils suunding the Boweres' sece request that led to a non-refudale
Jine extsion charge of $1~46i as a reult of applyig the Compan's Rule H line exton
taff the details surounding the serce request of Terr-Wes that led to its sece connection
at no chage utizng the sae falities that sere the Bowerses; and an exlanation of how two
customer usng the same failties ca be chaed so differently under Rule H of the Company'sta
ORDER
IT is HEBY ORDERED th Idao Power Company file a rert witln 30 days
of the serice date of ths Or respding to the issues se out above.
NOTICE OF INTIGA nONORDER NO. 30421 2
i'/'/
~,'.
-rl' -
1~1 ~~I ~~~ ( 10: ~~~~ti~tib':tl"b öUWI:l'::t"A'- J. ':
/. ....
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commissjon at Boise, Ida this S"tf
day of Sepember 2007.
ATTEST:
O:lPC-E..7-14_dw
'~
NOTICE OF ~STIGATION
.~PA~Rl IDBN
~d~
MASHA H. SMITH. COMMISSIONER, ~
...~~~. '. '. QMACKARJFO~
1~/ ££/ £~~ ( 1b: ~~:¿l:l:~l:b~l:4b J:1:~S PAGE 82
Pam & Scot Bower
9559 W. Hills Gate Dr.
Sta, ID. 83669-5300
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
7116/07
To Wh It May Conce:
Regading: We ar askig for HELP.
Plea respond, help or give your opion. We need to get some niles and laws pase to prvent
tMs ty of abuse...
We purhasd a commerial lot in Caldwell, Idao. We were told reuire and did pay for aud
instl power to our lot, as did eah lot owner in this comeroial subdivision.
Problem: Except for our neighbor, he works for and instals under giWld utilites for ldao
Power. He built a shop and while we were gone he instcte hi employee to ope our locke
gae. He cut tIie chain; they broke in lUd ilegally enter our pro. He hooked up to our-the
power service box, the equipment we paid for, that is on our prope. The neighbor now has our..
the seice for FREE i i i Idaho power claims this is their eaent so they have the right to give
tJs neighbor the right to trpas and to give him seice for fr, they can do as they --- well
want I r i They hav and continue to bak and proec this neighbor, at our expense.
New rules and update laws nee to be in plae to pr others and to cort this mjustce done
to us. Our opiion, the neighbor has no right to use and ac our propert! Bles use his
positiOl and Idao Power used their power and have claimed a phony caseen rit to give him
our-the serce that we pad for. We ar reting the ri to sue all paes involved now and in
the fie. Neiter par, no one connec or involve and or their reprsentaes etc...they
caot clai a prescrptve eaement righ to use our prpe now or in the :f.
If it is tre and Jaws at in plac, that we are reuir to sh this sece... New rules and laws
nee to be put into place so that it is fair for all partes.
1. The eqipmen shall be instaled on the prope line equally, not on one propert owner
land and lies ro uner the fèce and onto the oter propert owner's Jot-land.
2. No prescriptve eaements or clouding a title on jus one of the tw lot ower's prope
ca be given by Idao Power.
3. The tang of anotheT pers'5 prpert should be ilegaL.
4. Each par reeives the sae amowit of power ..mp.5. Notce shall be given to both-ech lot owner, pror to instling eqipent. Eitl:er in
writing, phone calls et... Breaking and enteng should be ilega.
6. A wren ageement should be reuired for both pares and wit Idao Power. Spellng
out what is exed of and frm each and all paies etc.. .Maing each Jot owner eqUly
responsible for pament and or damages et.. .
i~/~~/~~~( Ib:~~~~l:W;lb':l:'lb tlUWt:::t'Ai.t: ti;:
We would appreia an an as to WH ar WE the ONLY lot owner reuired to shar
SERVICE?
WH ar WE the ONLY part te\Jired to pay for the equipment and instllaton et... ?
WH does Idao Power have the authority or righ to give a neighbor the use of Ol land, the
right to tres... even if it is a legal easent for Idaho Power
When, Mr. Blessinger, torched our gate and tok his crw onto our proper, we feel just as
violat as we would had he done a bome invasion at our home. Our commercial ya is out
offce and work place.
When I went to Mr. Blesinger and pernally to ask him to remove his line off my propert an
argument ensue and he had a religious slur leaving me to believe this is religious discinaton.
It is impossible to undernd this sitution, why Idao power and Blessinger have done this to us
why we ar the only lot owner in this commerial pak-subdivision that is reuire to shar and
only at "oW' expse".
As for hirng an attorney we have been ripp off paid money and no one wit take the cae.
They admit it is a crime "but. .." There is not enough money in it for them and it would cost us
$1,000.00 up to defed this. We wer told you don't ha.ve enough money to fight them. So, we
need to make change with the ,rules and in the laws instead!
Idaho Power copany has the contrl-power and hundred of atrneys paid for by the public-us,
to do as they --well wat II i Their own words! They can do as they --well want and can create
an easemnt if onè is not in place, we do not have a choice or any rights wi rega to tlis. I stll
queston tht! The Idaho Power res; Steve Brown Ga Neal and MC Fhee are jus a few
involved wit this matter. They have given the neighbor the use of OUT land) clouded OUT title,
trespass ilegally, lied to us and committed frud, in our opinion.
The PUC is backig Idaho Power and helping to pro Blesinger, in our opinion, why we
cannot underd!
The lying and the cover-up constly going on in Wasingtn, D.C. ses to be beming the
order of conduct within our justce sym right here in what T would ca1l rural Trere Valley.
Rural people us to have principles,. honest an respect for oter peoples rights and thei
costituonal rights. Ou Jusice systm has tued thir backs on the basics. IS OUR QUALIT
OF LIF IN THS MUCH TROUBLE?
i want to go before the legislat, spe about this problem, cort it, and st this abuse. St
the taing of a persons land and their use oftheír own land. Stop the lar Corpraons exme
poer.. . Keep them frm taing a land.,lot owner rights, sto them from giving your prope to
another when they ---well want tol
Please HELP and rend immedíately with any suggestons etc...~s~
, g~ Bowo.""
Pam & Scott Bowers
10/22/2007 15: 29 2082869846 BOWES PAGE 04
ol,
LISA NORDSTROM. ISB # 5733
BARTON KLINE, ISB # 1526
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
P. O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'
PAMELA AND SCOTT BOWERS,
COMPLAINANTS,
v.
CASE NO. IPC-E-07-14
IDAHO POWER1S RESPONSE TO THE
COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF
INVESTIGATIONIDAHO POWER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
Pursuant to Idaho Public Utilites Commission Order No. 30421, Notice of
Investigatìon. in Case No. IPC-E-07-14, Idaho Power Company ("ldaho,Powr" or the
"Company") submit the following report to the Idaho Public Utilites Commision CØPUC" or
the "Commission").
i.
.
DETAILS SURROUNDING THE BOWERSES' SERVICE REQUEST
Pamela and Scott Bowers own a lot In the 20/26, Commercial Park
Subdivsion located in Cal~eir, Idaho, a Commercial subdivsion recorded wi the canyon
County Recorder on July 13, 2000, as document 200024601 (the "Subdivision"). The
lOAHO POWER'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF INVESlGATlON -1
1~/~~/~~~( lO;~~~~ti~tib':i:ab JjuWt",::"'Al.l: ~o
..
Bowerses. propert is lot 2 of the SubdMsion and Is generally known by the propert
addreS$, 15931 Gunfire Road (the "Bowerses' Lotj.
In December 2004, the Bowerses'reuested underground single-phase
electrical service from Idaho Power for a 200-amp panel located aUhe facilít constrcted
on their lot. Pursuant to their request, Idaho Power placed a Company-owned 50 kVA
pad-mounted transformer within a permanent ten-foot wide public utilit easement wihin
the Subdivision. The easement is located five feet on either side of the lot line beten the
Bowerses' Lot and Lot 1 of the SubdMsIon, the lot located Immediately west of the
Bowerses' Lot (the "Terr West lot") as depicted in the Work Order Map in Attchment 1.
.
Idaho Power sized the trnsfonnerto accommoate the loads antcipated by the Bowerses'
in their servÎce request. The Bowerses' Service Request, attached as Attchment 2,
requested service adequate to cover 30 kWs of 1 Phase Demand and 50 kWs of
Connected Load.
As noted in Attachment 2, the work order estmate for the cost of the new
distribution facilities and installation of the facilties requested by the Bowerses was
$2.660.00, of which the Bowerses paid $1,461.00. Additionally, they were charged an
engineering fee of $144 for the work order design and an Underground Servce Attchment
fee of $102.45.
The $2.660.00 work order estimate was calculated using th~ provisions of
Rule H, "New Service Attchments and Distribtltion Line Installations or Alterations" ("Rule
H"), Section 4, "Charges for Line Installations and Additional Charge~ for Underground
Service Attèhments/' Section a(i) "Line lnstal.lation Charges ft Line Installation Charges
Inside Subdivisions". The Company's Rule H tanf is attached as Attachment 3. The
IDAHO POWER'S RESPONSE TO THE CO~M'SSION'S NonCE OF INVEsATION _ 2
i~i ~¿i ¿~~ ( Ib: ¿~~~l:~t:b':1;4b J:UWt:.l(~l-A(:l: ~b
~
breakdown of the $2,660.00 estimated cost was: (1) $1,121.17 for labor, (2) $1 ,675.06 for
materials, and (3) $226.18 for use of Company equIpment and vehicles.
The total work order cost of $2,660.00 was offset by an Overhead Terminal
Facilities allowance, as specified in Rule H~ Section 4(a)(i), "Line Instllation Charges
Inside Subdivisions," In the amount of $1,199.00. This amount was funded by the
Company. Overhead terminal facilites are generally provided by the Company through the
allowances listed In Rule H and include the transformer, meter, service cable and
underground conduit (where applicable). Generally, the diference beteen the cost of
overhead and underground facilities ìs charged to the customer. In this case, the
Bowerses were charged $1,461 for the new underground distribution facilities (the cost
estimate less the estimated cost of the overhead terminal facilities.)
The applicable, non-refundable Underground Service Attchment charge
was calculated using the guidelines listed in Rule H, Paragraph 4(b). "Underground Serv
Attachment Charge." ihe Un~erground Servce Attchment charge included a $1.05 per
foot charge for the installation of service wIre frm the pad~mounted transfrmer to the
Bowerses' meter base ,and a $30.00 base charge. At a distnce of 69 feet frm the
transformer to the Bowerses' meter base, including the $30.00 base charge, the cot)t of the
service extension was $102.45.
II.
DETAILS SURROUNDING THE SERVICE REQUEST OF TERRA.WEST
Subsequent to the Company's installation of the transformer wihin the
designate public utility easement and unknown to Idaho Power. the Bowerses erected a
security fence around the perimeter of their lot ~nd along the share lot line beten the
IDAHO POWER'S RESPONse TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTice OF INVETIGATION. 3
¡ ¡ I
ie/22/~~~1 1b: ~~i!tll::¿l:b~l:4b ~uwt:~t-AGI: tll
,.;'
~,
Bowerses' Lot and the Terra West Lot That acton completely enclosed the Company-
ownedtransforrerwithin the Bowerses' Lot. Rule H. Secion 2(b), "General Provisions-
Ownership" states that "the Company wll own all distribution Line Installatons and retain
all rights to them." However, Company persnnel could no longer directly accss the
Company-owned transformer from either the public right-of-way or the dedicated utilit
easements wihin the Subdivsion.
In November 2006, Terra West requested that electiical servce be extnded
to its lot located adjacent to the lot owned by the Bowerses within the 20/26 Commercial
Subdivision. At that time, idaho Power determined that the Company-owned trnsfonner
servng the Bowerses' Lot had suffcient 98pacft to serve both t" loads required by the
. C-. ._,...._- .---.-.,.'
Bowerses and the loads anticipated by Terr Wëšl- As a reult, the Company was not
required to instll a second transformer. Instead, seivce to Terr West could be provided
via extension of seivice wire between the existng trnsonner to the Terra West meter
base.
At the time Terra West requested electrcal service, Idaho Power personnel
were unable to directly access the Idaho Power trnsfonner from the public nght-of-wy
and the utility easement along the Bowerses' lot and the Terra West Lot due to the
presence of the security fence erected by the Bowerses. Thatfence essentially looked the
Company's trnsformer within the boundanes of the Bowerses' Lot.
The Company advised Terr West of it inabilit to accss the trnsfonner to
provide the reque~ted service. Terra West advised Company pers~nnel that it would
arrnge with the Bo'Nerses to enable the Company to access the transfnner via the
Bowerses' Lot on a designated date. On that date, December 4, 2006, and in accordance
IDAHO poweR'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTce Of INVSTGATION. 4
1~/££1£~~( Ib:¿~£~l::¿l:b~l:4b J:UWi:~PAGE 1:8
,.
~,
with the representations made by Terra West, the gate to the Bowerses secure propert
was open when Company personnel arrved and Company persnnel entered the
Bowerse' Lot to provide service to the Terr West Lot.
Under the same Rule H taríf provisions as used for the Bowerses' line
extension request, Terr West was charged for the Undergroond Service Attachment
based on the $1.05 per foot charge for installation of service wire frm the pad-mounted
tran$frmerto the Terra West meter base and the $30.00 base charge as defned În Rule
Hi Secton 4(b) , "Underground Servce Attachment Charge." At a distance of 94 feet, the
cost of the servce extension and the base charge amounted to $128.70. Terr West p"id
that amount.
It Îs the understanding of Idaho Power that the facilities instlled by the
Company are serving both customers at a level suffcient to cover the requirements the
Bowerses.and Terr Wes specified within their servce requests to the Company. The
Bowerses' service request specified Schedule 7 service and the Terra West request
specified Schedule 9 service.
III.
EXPLANATION OF HOW TWO CUSTOMERS UTILIZING THE SAME
FACILITIES ARE CHARGED DIFFERENTLY UNDER
THE COMPANY'S RULE H TARIFF
The Bowerses take servce ,under Schedule 7, "Small General, Service," which
is available "at points on the Company's interconnected system Wiin the State of Idaho
where exising facilites at ad,equate capacity and desired phase and voIlage are adjacent to
the Premises to be servd. and addftonaJ investment by the Company for transmission.
substation and terminal facilities (e.g., a transfonnrJ fs not necessary to supply the desired
IDAHO POWR'S RESPONse TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF JNVESTlGAnON - 5
"
!~I ~~I ¿~~ ( !~: ¿~"i:i:"i:O~tl'lO DUWi:r:;:t"~i: t:::
,.
~.
_srmæ.' SCh~~~.~~~~e~~~~~~~~~n~~~I:;RI:~~.:; ... ')
r adjaeënHo-ffe Bowerses' Lot at the time oftheir service request, additional.¡~vestment by ,/
the Company for instllation of the required transformer was necssary.? .-/
. . ..... .... ..._.....-..."- ...., ......._... ..........~-_..- -......-........--........-----..._..__ .0#..._..-....-.-_..,......
Idaho Power Company's IPUC-spproved Rule H applies to requests under
Schedule 7 wihin the Company's service terrry that ureauire the installation, altration,
relocation, removal or attchment of Company-owned distnbution facilities." Under Rule
H, a customer may receive an allowance for the full cost of~ or a porton of the cost of,
certain improvements that are to be funded by the Company. Custmers may also be
eligible for refunds if and when additonal users attch to the Improvements originally
requested and paid for by a customer. Such potential for refund is identied at the time of_.._~."... . .... _......--_.-
the original applicants service reuest In conformance with Secton 3 of Rule H, Idaho
Power contributed an allowance to the Bowerses forthe trnsfonner required as a reult of
their service request. As noted on Attchment 2. that allowance amounted to $1,199.00.
The Bowerses were responsible for the balance of the cost of the improvements without the
potential for refund.
Rule H also sets out mechanisms whereby certin applicants for electrical
servce extensions are eligibfe to receive refunds of the original investment thy made in the
improvements they required. Rule H pennit refunds In three circumstances: (1) for
payments for line installations outside a subdivsion, (2) for line installation c!'arges inside a
subdivsion when a permanent residence connecl to the servce~ and (3) for undeveloped
subdivisions platte~ prior to January 1, 1997. Rule H, Section 6 (emphasis added).
None of these rend opportnities exist for the Bowerses since the 20/26
Commercial Subdivision was platted after January 1, 1997, residential development was not
IDAHO POWER'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTice OF INVESTIGATJON M 6
,.
! g- , "t
1~1 ¿¿I ~~~ I Ib: ~~I-Al.l: 111~~L:;¿L:b':L:4b HUWè=i
anticipated (or permitted) on the Bowerses' Lot and the line extension requestd by the
Bowerses was not located outside of a subdivision. When Terr West request a line
extension wi servce under Schedule 9, existing facilities were available to that business
via the transformer onginally Installed in response to the 8owerses' request. In aceordance
with the tarif, Terra West was only required to pay the line installation charges sét out in
Section 4 of Rule H. Furtermore, because of the restictions of Rule H, Terra West was
not reuired to contrbute toward any of the costs incurrd by the Bowerses for the electrical
service improvements they required and Terra West subsequently utilzed. Atthough the
"costs of new facilites outside Subdivisions are subject to Vested Interest Refunds," RUI~ H ./
is silent as to new faciltIes located Inside non-residential subdivsions. Rule H. 4(a)(i). As
a reutt, the Bowerses were unable to recover any of the Investment they made in the
facilties that supply electrical service to their business and Terra West.
The Commission has requested the Company's explanation as to the
rationale for not having refund provisions for circumstances such as those in this case. As
the Commission may recall, refunds for joint use of terminal facilites (i.e., transfonner,
meter, service cable, and underground conduit) have never been a provision in Rule H or it
predecessor, Schedule 71. In Order No. 27680 issued on Februaiy 6, 1997 in 'Case No.
IPC-EN95-18, the Commission "balanced the competing objectves of fairness and
administrative complex as they pertained to rend provisions for ves~ed intere by
limrting the number of additional applicants and the refund period. (Order No. 26780 at 17.)
Commercial subdivision refund provisions were eliminated in the tarts fied on February
27.1997 to complywilh thatOrder. In this pre~ent case, Rule H provides an allowance in
Section 4(a )(i) to offset the instllation cost but does not enumerate a scenario in Section 6
IDAHO POWER'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S NonCE OF INVESTIGATION. 7
P n "., , å'
i~i ~~i ~~~/ 10: ~~:¿~l::¿l:b':I:'lb J:UWl:t(::i-Abl: 11
Regaring PUC
CASE # IPC-E-07-14
10/20/07
1. We reuesd 400AM servce for: an Offce-30 ft x 40 ft 4-Bay
Shop40 ft x 120 fl Yar lits and witer hook-ups for Semi-
trck. Not 200 AM servce Are you sayig we did Dot
reeive what..e neeed? We ar not in the electrca business
and did not and stl do not und "Watt" and that is what
they told us not Amps for our sece we relied on Steve Brown
to tell 'U the trth
2. Loaton of th box: I seed on the locaton near the fece for a
couple of reons; our buildi nea the midde oftbe lot wa not
built yet wher we origiy wanted the servce box. NOTE
same as most ever lot owner in our commercial sub-division
had their ined. The reason I ased if it wa Ok to put the
box nea the fence wa for th saet of the box...semi-trcks
æid trer coming an going someone..ver could accidentaly
hit it in the dark. We were toI~ Steve Brown we could move it
late, next to our building) .nea the middle of our lot. Is this Dot
tr DOW?
3. Rega Securty Felce: Th side fece wa there betw lot
1 (Hat) and lot 2 (Bwers) When we purhas our lot. We
never fenced off the loop servce box and neve ,have we not
allowe Idaho Power ID.. We gave th a key to our lot and they
locked us out of our own, lot. So, we did stp the open at any
tie entr for the met reader. The oter lot owners have locked.
sety fences and tw have the "box" locaon exatl the sae
as OUI. Are we the only lot OWDer reuired to leave our pte
open to Idaho Power 24-7 ?
4. Fence & Intaon: Lot 1 now belonging to Dre Blesng~
he insted a sety fence sug the Idaho Pow
ServceLOOP Box that is the box that is to servce both lots. He
is preventing Tda,o Power ftm entr, NOT BOWERSlt As for
the servce box we pad for it is on our lot-land witbn the
propert exacy as aU of the oth Jot-land owner in ths sa
commerial subdivisionl Why are we the only lot..land owner
that is being discrated aganst? We have not enclose the
Box as staed on page 4.
10/22/2007 l~: 2~:¿1d1:2I:b~I:'Ib l:Wl:l"o I-Al.l: l:¿
5. Orgial Puhas Agreement: Eve lot own wa inormed by
thei re ese agent th broker, the title company and everne
involved with th sale of the comerial lots in th subdivision.
tbat each lot owner wa resnsible to obtain their own Elecca
Serce at their own expens. and for their ro intende use an
wa shown on a ;m the locon wher their sece box was
alowed. Where the eaents ar located. Mr. Hiat will come
spe with regard to ths and ba a lot more to sayl ! I Why are
you aU pre~dÌDg that the set-back ar is øow an easement?
The othr lot-land owner ar sujec to a shar sece!
6. Drew Blessnger wa given notice by Mr. Hiat th he wa
reuire to puhase his own se,tvce and instl it on his own
prope. Lot i had a power pole with a trormer on it and it
may stl be ther, to ths day, th Blessinger ca us. Instad he
got FREE inlaon and FREE seivice at our~Bowers expense.
We are th only peple in the st of Idao, in tbis commercial
subdvision that have th phony "shar serice" Al lot OWle1
have puhas their PoweSeice and instled the equiment~
box on their prpery in th commerial suivision. No shd
sel'ce with any other neighbor. Some ar nex to the fence and
most ar in the middle of tbe lot the other ar nex to the lot-
owers buiding. Wh ar we the only people be sribjeeted
to this type of np-ff servce?
7. Regaig eaements: I have 8 map th shows wher easen
ar for the commeral subdvision. The map PUC provided
shows the location of the easent. It is exacty where it wa
describe to us next to the road out in frnt of our lots. The side
lines, betwn lots on the map ar for set-baks which mea no-
one ca buid in that ar. The origial eaement for the lots aJ
drwn showi them to be along the road(s). Note; the powe
companylPUC have NO RIGHT to give anyone the right to
trpas onto or into our prpert ever!!! By doing so Idaho
PowlPC grts the neighbo a preve eat to our
prpe afer one year has gone by. Ths clouds our title! Th iswll we fel they liave purseflly mcorpoia the Decembe
4di dat now an why everone involved ha delibetely stled
ths matter. What do we do when we lYh $0 seD? Our lot has
been deval..ed grtl!!
16/22/2661 1b: ~~~I:I:i:Ll:b~1:4b PAGE 13wwt:~
8. Notice: The power copa oX' its reprentaves shuld have
be reui to give us notce as they did give all other
conceed-paes notce for the other lot owner in this same
subdivision. When they hooked up temra seivice and when
they did then peranent sece. They ea ha to obt wrtt
pession to book-up to the neighbors' power box fur
temp sece. We do hae witneses to back eveg tht
we have sad as tr. Why 'Were we never gien notice rOJ'the
tempora semee or the permaneDt servee?
9. Idaho PowerlPUC is in our opinon ar using the rues and
regulatons an ar only showig and discussing the laws that
they ca us to help Blesinge and har us. Idaho Power wil
not prvide us with any inomiation, the ndest and the laws with
rega to Notice before they ente onto or into a peon's prvate,
in our cas locked propert. PUC/Idaho Power are extmely one
sided so they can prot their sub-contrcto and thei wrng
doings. They ar mag fools out of ve intellent peple th
have trted theo in the pas... with a play on words. How do I
obta al of the nilesreations and las so I can protect
o.r rights myself
10. We know it is agst the rues reguations, law to cross over.
into or onto anoter pro with lines. Proof; if it taes our
prope rights away by creg prcriptive eamet rights
what do you think? Co:nt oW' engi Sta Olse. Idao
PoweUC wi not provide us with any iAormtion!!! Sta has
never hear oftbs situon before and he placed a ca to an
Idao Powe executive, higer up and Sta ca tell you what wa
sad! Why are you aD relusin to corree a very simple
situation? Blessinger nees to purchae his own ser~ insit on his ow prl!!
11. Service Boes: Ther is a mai box that I wi ca the WQ
Traformer Box. Ths is the box Blessinger fence in It is the
box that each lot owner pus from. to their own sece box.. It is,
to the be of our knowledge, the box inled by a contrctor for
the commerial subdvion beor the lot owner pm:bae lot~
land. Ths contctor is the one th reives mony back fr
eah lot owner via Idao Powe within a ce number of yea
3-5-10yrs.; I do not know the law-yea as it stds today. TIs is
the box eveione is ""pretendig" that I am colaning abo
This is the box in the eat whe it belongst it wa reui
to be. Ths is the box that we ar to hook up frm. to brQg iii
power to oUf lot. The box we purchased is the one we obt
sece frm it is our bo~ for our innded us, to us~ that
!~/££I£~~I iO: ~~~~t:~t:b':n:l'lb t-Abl: 1'1tlUWl:K::
belongs to Idao Power. The map wi clealy show the detls.
11 is wher Idaho PowerlPUC ar playi with wo~ and in
my opon will be ma fools out of may importt, very
intelligent pele with their lies. If none of this is now tr then a
law~ new rules and reguatons need to be put in plac to
prtect oters in the fu!! lIt is my intet to stop this ty of
harment and abu to the unowig-public. Why
discrimination toward us?
12. Sufcient caacity to sere both paes: Why were we never
informed wben we ordered the servcepower? Wh did we
not recewe any notice that this was to be done? Wh djd the
neighbor not have to reimbnrse us mouey if this is tny
allowed? Pay hal Note; reember no one shaes power with a
neighbor th we ca fid in the sta.. . esially without both
pares knowing about it? Why were we not gien a writtn
share agrement telg each lot owner what is expeced of
each part and how Qlnçh wattge-øps eab reeives bo'W
do you up grde etmetc... '1 They have clouded our title!
13. mega) Entr-Trpassing: Dr Blessinger did have his
employee cu our cha on our gate whie we were out oftown
PUClda Powr have jused th by explai it awy with
th fa th he work with Idao Powe as a subcotor. It is
legal wider one of their laws that Idaho Power can enter in an
emergency. He is a reesenve, so he took it upon, hilf to
order his employee to cu oUr chai brea an ener, when he
knew we wer gone. Ths is how they al cove for hi and got
away with th an could say "it is not ilega and not a crie." If
we did tbi we would go to jai! What kind of an einergt'cy
was this?
14. We did not reuest a schedule 7 or any schedule. . . we were given
what Ida Powe deemed we would get. Steve Brown gave us
the rate-schedue they wante us to have fot OUT servce. Or who
is in chare of that depant, afr we we hook-up th did
tlus. It wa to be 400 amI What happened that our servce
that it went to 200 amps, yet 'We instaDed two (2) 200 amp$
breakers? Wht exactly do we have and what does Blessinger
halTe?
1~/££1£~~( lO:£~¿rll::.l:tl::i:i.i:cuwi:~rH~i: .i~
15. Idao Powe trsform not nece for Bower: I feel this
stent by Idao Powe prves fm When a persn-we
puhae a servce an we pay for the equipment to prvide th
servce that we ar told we have, 400 AM sece capabilties,
enough power to sece the facilites (buidi etc...) an then
Idao Powe latr taes it away.. .gives it to a neighbor FRE...
How would you feel if you paid for an ite and insed it Oil
your propert to ha'Ve it taken-gveo away to a neigbor?
How taD you trly justi th? A law nee to be put into
plac to stp ths fr happeng to anone else
everll!!! I i I t l II l I i l II! I!! II
16. I want an explanation of the statement: Bec exg
eleccal failites we not adjact to the Bowe lot at the tie
of the Bower semce reques additional invesent by the
Compay (Idaho Power) for instation of the requ
trormer wa nec. 711
17. Refu: Th law with rega to inde non-redental
subdiyísi nee to be changed. We did not know we wer
being treate by Idaho Power as the "ongi contractor"
inst eleccity in a commeria subdvision th we did not
own. Four or five other lots ha be puhased befre we
purhas in ths ara. The lotNlan own tht ar purhag
proer nee to be made awa of th beore you puchase wha
you thiDk is eleccal sece fo you-yoW' lot and only your lot!
They need to be inormed of a "sh servce" AAore tley;
puchas serce! Undel' Rule H how many morc~ lot 0W can
they book up to the trsformer we purchased and thought
was for our ÌDtended us? Wh are we the oDIy eouple in th
commercl subdivsion that had this is happeing to?
We never knew, never wer infor.ed at the ongial puhase or at any tie dung our
serce since 2004, durg or afer the inslaton of ou elecca servce that we would
not be treated the sa as ever lot ower had been treated in the commerci
subdvision. And af ths ma another lot owner ha instlled his service he wa
alowe his own seric~ not a sha trormer with another lot ownerl! I ~ is tre
discration agast us!1 !Idaho PowerlPUC ha taen it upon itslf to create a tr
persona hatr for us and refses to corrt ths injusce no matt what it cost the ta
payer etc... We have ben told one trformer ca seice mary hom,es. i want to know
why we ar being singled out ÎI this commercial Slbdiision as the one altd only
designate lot ower that had to provide this semee to a n.eighbor. We did. not
purchase serce for anyone but ourelves, for our lot, for ou intended usel No notce
was ever. given to us wi regar to entr, hooking up another (neigbor) tempy or
permanent a trformer on our prope. We were lied to, mislea and in our opinionths is ftudl
..
10/22/2007 15: 29 2082l:b~l:4b ~uw~::t-All: 1 b
,.
The mates. iniult;c:e in tlus ease is in 0.1, opinjoø;
Idao Power lied to us from the star; we though we pUlhased our electrcal sece,
ined it on our pr the same as all of the other lot owners for our inteded us.
We wer defruded by Idao PowlPUC "spal favors" for subcontrors. Bec he
works for Idaho Power as a sucontetr he has bee given free acs to ou propert if
and when he chooses to enter see the Rule H and he and or his emloyee do so when
they want without our pennsson. They still contiue to desy the fence betwee us.
Ths is Trespsing on our lot-land in our opinon.
No diclosuno1ce wi rega to, having to sha elecca serce or shg th
equipment ever.
We ar being discrimiated ag we ar the only couple-older (retirement ag) lot-
land owner in. tht commercial subdivision that mus shar, we pay for the equipment and
a neighbor gets it :fee an the use of tha equipment that sits on our land.
We ar reuesting a meeting with a judge-sureme cour jusce. someone of lega
auor to reesent us to discu th mattr; so th we may obt the law bok(s). be
able to re\lew the niles and reguations governg Idao Power and the PUC wí rega
to ths matter. In our opinon Idao PowelPC ar coverg up for an proteti
Blessinger and we are not able to obtan any docuents relatg to the rues and
reguons-laws even thoug I have requested them agai and ag. PUCldao Powe
wi not give us examples or names imd addlecs of oter commerial lot owner th are
aware or unawae of a shar service and or ar requi to sha serce. It ap we
ar the only lot in Idaho requi to do ths.
***Idaho Power/PUC refuse to corrt ths matt, at atl cost. No one wil help us to
:rlve ths mattr~ yet if th we done to them. ...
Easy fix was and still is: Blessinger purchases his, own sece, at his own exens or
Idaho ,Power ca, give him fr serce and the box at their expen. In the box. on hi.s
proper and it wil be for his own intended us like evone else in Idaho ha to do. Or
at lea in ths subivisionlI
Beuse, we have been told we have to pay again to have power-serice for our fiity.
Instal another box and we have to leave the box we paid for ther in tht spt for the
neighbor. Af ths mess, ca yon image what we wi be chared? We hav ha to
stop our buildin prjec beaus of ths matt. We can't gute a new owner-buyr
tha there will be any afordable power without a lawsuit tht we don't have the money
for at our age. Ths rases more questions that wil need to be aner soon.
I want to speak beore the legisla., I am askig for help; intrduce new laws to protec
other in the fitue from ths ty of conduct ftrn those in powerf-contrllng
positions.
..
1~1 ~~I ~~~, 10: ~~:¿~tlLl:b::i:ab JjUWc.K~t"Al:1: 11
A. Rules with regad to Trepasig: Uties Compaie and or their sub-cntto or
resetaves mus give notice to th lot-la owner before entr and work ca be
perfonied. Written notice and owner sign th they did reive notice. What is an
emergency?
B. Shar servce: NONE my opinion!!!
Wrien agents must be in place for both proer owner to preent ilegaly tag
ofJand by prescriptive easements and stop the cloudig-title of another's lot-land,
prope. Both partes are given notice Sha sece be equa with rega to th
instalaton fe, descòc who reives wbat and why etc..Stop th one pa pays and
provides the lot-land and the neighbor gets everg fr. No utity lines ca crss into
or onto another's propert without compenon to that lot-land own. People must be
given notice of what is expecte and what will be done what they ar revig forthe
money they pad etc...
C. Reqng Serce:
Property owner should. be told what they are rei'Vg in wrg. Stop the be sad she
said.. .Example; like our 400 Amp service gien to Blessinger
D Futu Serce: Require PUClIdao Powe to disclose wha we actuly have now if it
is or wi be enoug for the offce, shop, tnks and yar lights under ths shared servce.
Ifther is trouble Vlth power who and how do we reolve th? We have had to stp
consnc'on Dot knowing if we will have any or enough servce-power. We have be
told to sue for powe, we have to sta over and instl mother power box and serce but
leave the other box for the neighbor! What do we do øow?
(When the lot owner sout of us ins serce we ar as for "free seice'. to our
lot 600 amp or lager would be gr!)
E. Rules-Regulatons Books: PUC and Idao Power
Open to the public, we nee tô be able to acess them so you as a conser ca lear and
knw the law(s) rues and reguations. Teah their offce peronnel.
This is notice; Blessinge-Ter West, Inc., PUCldao Power or any reresentaves-
relatives etc.. . they shal not be aumaticaly be grd a precriptive eament
right to our prpert or lot-land aftr one year frm the Deember 4th da where
Idao PowerlPUC grte hi acce to our lan and tbe electrca equipment-serce
th we paid for in full. Ou title will not be deeed clouded either. We re the
right to su.
Pleaiic repond with any informatin, names add.-es, e-ltuuJs faxes or phoBe
nmnbers aDY assistace that you JI&Y be able to provide us 'W, as soo 8S you
reejve tbis letter.
Truy,
A. M. Scott Bowe
Pamela A. Bower