20220121Final_Order_No_35292.pdf

ORDER NO. 35292 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 21, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF MARK
PECCHENINO’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY

)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-20-29

ORDER NO. 35292

On July 15, 2020, Mark Pecchenino (“Petitioner”) filed a formal complaint
(“Complaint”) against Idaho Power Company (“the Company”) alleging that the Company
damaged his trees and property. Mr. Pecchenino complained that “the [Company’s] policies and
Section 7 of [Idaho Public Utilities Commission] No. 29. Tariff No. 101 are arbitrary, capricious
and in violation of Idaho Statutes and ordinances.” Mr. Pecchenino also alleged that the Company
violated his state and federal constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment of the US
Constitution and Article I—Declaration of Rights, Section’s 1, 3 and 14 of the Constitution of The
State of Idaho.
At the Commission’s August 13, 2020 Decision Meeting, Staff recommended the
Commission issue a Summons to the Company requiring an answer to the Petitioner’s Complaint
within 35 days and granting Petitioner a 21-day reply deadline.
On September 25, 2020, the Company filed an answer to Petitioner’s formal complaint
and a Motion to Dismiss. On October 5, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply to the Company’s Motion to
Dismiss.
Having reviewed the record in this case, we now issue this Order granting the
Company’s Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint stems from two incidents roughly three years apart. The first incident
occurred between 2017 and 2018. The Second incident occurred on April 27, 2020.
1. Incident One
During the first incident, Petitioner alleged that the Company “topped” four of his
Lombardy Poplar trees—ultimately killing them. Petitioner argued that the death of those four
trees was the direct result of the Company’s trimming practices which did not comply with ANSI
A300 standards. Petitioner also noted that he was not provided notice to the Company’s trimming
ORDER NO. 35292 2
dates and that three other trees were severely damaged by the Company’s use of “lion’s tailing”
trimming during this incident.1 See Petitioner’s Complaint, p. 6.
2. Incident Two
In the second incident, Petitioner alleged that he was not notified when the Company
or its agents would be trimming trees on his property. Id. Petitioner stated that his first notice of
Company activity was when two contractor employees from the tree trimming company knocked
on his door and notified him that they had broken an irrigation pipe. Id. Petitioner claimed that
the workers had no identifying information that provided proof of company employment. Id.
Petitioner also stated that the workers had no permission slip, contract, or other type of identifying
information to signify that they were agents of the Company. Id. at 7. One of the workers showed
Petitioner the broken irrigation pipe. Id. However, Petitioner did not submit a claim for the broken
irrigation pipe to the Company. Id. at 8. Instead, one of the contractor employees offered—and
did—pay for a replacement pipe.2 Id. Petitioner accepted this as a replacement because it was hot,
and he had irrigation water scheduled to be delivered. Petitioner alleged that he felt pressure to
accept the pipe. Id. at 9.
Additionally, Petitioner stated that the tree-trimming company left debris in his hay
field. Id. at 10. He requested that the tree trimming employees remove the debris because of he
and his wife’s disabilities and subsequent inability to do so. Id. However, Petitioner alleged that
the employees refused, stating that he was told it was not included in their scope of work. Id.
Petitioner contacted the Company and informed it of the disability; an employee of the Company
then visited the property and indicated that—per the Company’s policy—the debris was left in
manageable sizes. Id. at 11.
THE COMPLAINT
The Complaint addressed several issues: (1) easement/right-of-way; (2) trespass; (3)
tree trimming policies; (4) due process; (5) Company notice; (6) the Respondent’s complaint
procedure; (7) damage to personal property; (8) the Company’s contractor training; (9) tree
removal policy; (10) inspection of contractor’s or Company’s work; and (11) debris removal policy

1 Lion’s Tailing is the phrase used by Petitioner but is also a recognized term in Arbor work meaning to over-prune a
tree by removing a large number of inner branches.
2 The broken pipe was 8” transfer irrigation pipe. The only 8” replacement pipe located in the geographical area was
gated pipe. The Petitioner accepted this so that water could continue to irrigate his hay field.
ORDER NO. 35292 3
and ADA requirements.3 Additionally, the Complaint included a request for relief along with all
remedies that the Petitioner desired to amicably resolve the Complaint.
Easement/Right-of-Way
Petitioner alleged that the Company’s policies and Rule C of its tariffs, are arbitrary
and capricious by providing no consideration for private property rights and violating state
statutes.4 Petitioner’s Complaint, at 15. Petitioner contended that Rule C implies that the
Company’s employees can enter private property at any time and for any reason. Id. He also
suggested that the Company’s interpretation of Rule C allows its agents and employees to enter
any property outside the easement for any reason. Id. Petitioner cited the Company’s policy and
stated that the Company’s language is arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 16-17.5
1. Trespass
Petitioner alleged that the Company committed trespass when it strayed from the utility
easement to trim his trees, having done so without his permission. Id. at 20. Petitioner claimed
that the Company’s tariff Rule C violates Idaho Code § 18-7001 et seq. Id. Petitioner cited Idaho
Code § 18-7008—criminal trespass and interpreted the statute to allow only power company
employees, not third-party contractors to enter the property and prune trees. Id. See also p. 26.
Petitioner claimed the trees were outside of the easement and the irrigation pipe was farther outside
the easement. Id. at 20. Therefore, in Petitioner’s view, because the Company sent independent
contractors to trim the trees and not its own employees, the Company committed criminal trespass.
2. Tree Trimming Policies
Petitioner claimed that the Company’s publicly posted tree trimming policies are
“arbitrary and capricious” and have “no consideration for private property rights.” Id. at 28.
Petitioner alleged that seven of his trees were “topped or lions-tailed” and that the Company’s
failure to develop ethical standards and policies in addition to providing proper training caused the

4 Tariff Rule C states “The Customer shall, without cost to the Company, grant the Company a right of way for the
Company's lines and apparatus across and upon the property owned or controlled by the Customer, necessary or
incidental to the supplying of Electric Service and shall permit access thereto by the Company’s employees at all
reasonable hours. The Customer shall also permit the Company to trim trees and other vegetation to the extent
necessary to avoid interference with the Company’s lines and to protect public safety.”
5 The Company stated its policy “that it has easements to property allowing it to maintain its lines and that while it
does not need permission to prune, it likes to notify customers when access is necessary for the safety and reliability
of our powerlines.”
ORDER NO. 35292 4
death of the trees. Id. Petitioner asserted that the Company’s failure to comply with, enforce, and
monitor its own policies and contractors jeopardized his private-property rights. Id. at 28-29.
3. Takings (Due Process)
Petitioner alleged that the conditions and the amount offered for compensation of his
dead trees were “unreasonable, unjustifiable, and amounted to a taking without due process or just
and fair compensation.” Id. at 29-30. Petitioner alleged that the $50.00 voucher offered for the
trees was arbitrary and capricious because the Company has no valuation process for the
“condemned” trees. Id. at 29.
4. Company Notice
Petitioner argued that his due process rights were violated because of the Company’s
lack of notice. Id. at 32. Petitioner alleged that the Company’s policies were arbitrary because
they had no noticing requirements and the methods of noticing differed between written policies.
Id. He additionally stated that the Company’s policies lack content and have no effective way to
monitor or prove whether noticing has actually happened either by staff or third-party contractors.
Id. In essence, Petitioner argued his due process rights were violated because he had no opportunity
to grant or deny access to the Company or its agents onto his property.
5. The Company’s Complaint Procedure
Petitioner stated that the Company only has one written publicly available policy for
handling complaints.6 Id. at 33. Petitioner noted that two different staff members from the
Company handled his complaint, and each had a different method for how to handle it—making
the complaint process arbitrary and capricious. Id.
6. Damage to Petitioner’s Personal Property
Petitioner stated in Incident 2, that the tree trimming crew did not know the Company’s
policy on handling damaged property or who was responsible for replacing damaged property. Id.
at 34. Petitioner stated that without a policy, it leaves the customer in a position to deal with a
third-party contractor to replace damaged property. Id. Petitioner asserts that he was pressured by
the third-party contractor to accept a replacement irrigation pipe which was not the same as the
damaged irrigation pipe. Id. at 34-35.

6 The policy states “if it is clear that pruning killed the tree, Idaho Power will cut it to a stump and provide the customer
a voucher to replace the tree.”
ORDER NO. 35292 5
7. The Company’s Contractor Training Requirements
Petitioner stated that the Company’s policies for “contactor training: training
verification, certification, and identification” were “arbitrary and capricious with no merit.” Id. at
39. Petitioner asserted that the policies were ambiguous because they did not define training
specifications or certifications that are required. Id. at 36-37. Petitioner stated the Company’s
policies reference several pruning methods and standards that are not actually followed in the field.
Id. at 38. Petitioner asserted that this lack of training and certifications led to arbitrary and
capricious decisions made by third-party contractors. Id. at 39.
8. Tree Removal Policy
Petitioner alleged that third-party contractors topped his trees—contrary to the
Company’s policies—which killed said trees (making them hazardous trees) then left them for him
to deal with instead of cutting them down per the Company’s policy. Id. at 40. Petitioner quoted
the Company’s policy regarding removal of trees:
“[s]ometimes it’s necessary to remove a tree that has become a hazard to the public
or the energy system. If a tree or trees are classified as hazardous, Idaho Power will
remove the tree and discuss replacement options with the property owner.
Customers may plant a new tree in the same spot only if they select a low-growing,
or Class I tree. Class I trees grow to a maximum height of 25 feet.”
Id. at 39.
Petitioner disagreed that the Company should be the one to classify the trees because it
only benefits the Company and not the Customer. Id. See also Petitioner’s Reply, p. 3.
9. Inspection of Contractor’s or Company’s Work
Petitioner cited Rule C Section 7 of the Company’s tariff as the basis for alleging that
only the Company, but not third-party contractors, could enter the property to trim trees. Id. at 41.
Rule C Section 7 states:
The Customer shall, without cost to the Company, grant the Company a right of
way for the Company’s lines and apparatus across and upon the property owned or
controlled by the Customer, necessary or incidental to the supplying of Electric
Service and shall permit access thereto by the Company’s employees at all
reasonable hours. The Customer shall also permit the Company to trim trees and
other vegetation to the extent necessary to avoid interference with the Company’s
lines and to protect public safety.

Id. (emphasis added).
ORDER NO. 35292 6
Additionally, Petitioner stated that it is the Company that has a responsibility and duty to ensure
its contractors are performing according to stated policies and guidelines—not the property owner.
Id. at 42
10. Debris Removal Policy and ADA Requirements
Finally, Petitioner alleged that the Company’s debris removal policy in relation to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 42. Petitioner stated
that the policy placed an undue burden on the landowner.7 Id. at 43. Petitioner stated that the
Company is a quasi-government entity, and therefore must incorporate ADA compliance into its
policies. Id. He stated that “reasonable accommodation requests without proper consideration is a
violation of [the [ADA].” Id. Petitioner further stated that the Company is not released from
providing auxiliary aid, if available, under the ADA. Id. He complained that no aid was offered,
and no Company policy existed regarding a request for aid. Id.
11. Petitioner Reply
On October 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a Reply brief to the Company’s response which
reiterated the basis of Petitioner’s Complaint.
THE COMPANY’S ANSWER
I. Overview
The Company’s Answer provided background on its vegetation management duties and
practices. The Answer also provided response to certain allegations made in the Complaint.
A. Vegetation Management Authority and Practices
The Company addressed Petitioner’s Complaint by first stating its authority to trim
Petitioner’s trees. The Company cited Idaho Code § 61-302 which requires a public utility to
provide safe and adequate service, facilities, and equipment, promoting “the safety, health, comfort
and convenience” of the public. See Idaho Power’s Response, p. 2. The Company stated that
Commission Rules 31.11.01 promulgate the Safety and Accident Reporting Rules for Utilities
Regulated by the Commission. Commission Rule of Procedure 31.11.01.101 adopts the provisions
of the 2017 National Electric Safety Code (“NESC”). Id. at 3. NESC Rule 218.A states:

7 “Our policy is to chip any small limbs, branches and brush from landscaped settings. Idaho Power will haul this
material away or leave the mulch with the property owner at their request. Any wood larger than four inches in
diameter is cut into manageable lengths for the property owner. Dead wood cannot be chipped and will be left on the
property.”
ORDER NO. 35292 7
“[v]egetation management should be performed around supply and communication lines as
experience has shown to be necessary.” Id. at 3; see also Idaho Code § 52-111.
To comply with NESC Rule 218, the Company performed vegetation management
around distribution lines approximately every three years. See IPC-E-20-02; Idaho Power’s
Response, p. 4. To accomplish its vegetation management, the Company contracted with third
party contractors and required specific training and certification. Id. at 4, ¶ 9. The Company stated
that third-party contractors are its agents and have the same rights and authority as the Company’s
employees, including authority pursuant to Rule C of the Company’s tariff. Id.
The Company stated that its notice requirements are as follows: (1) Prior to any
vegetation management activities, an informational email is sent to all customers who have a valid
email address on record with the Company’s listserv; (2) a contractor patrols the area to identify
areas that need tree trimming to avoid contact with power lines over the next three years. Id. at 4-
5, ¶ 9. The Company or contractor then provides notice to the owner or occupier of the property
where work will occur; (3) the contractor then notifies the affected property-owners in-person or
via door-hanger and pamphlet describing the Company’s vegetation management activities and
contact information for interested persons to call. Id. at ¶ 10. Next, the contractor creates a work
plan in the Company’s vegetation management software that is then provided to the assigned crew.
Id. at ¶ 11.
B. Pruning Practices
Next, the Company responded that its contractors make cuts according to American
National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) A300 standards. Id. at 5, ¶ 12. The contractors follow
directional pruning techniques which means they make cuts that train the tree limbs to grow away
from the power lines. Id. Contractors directionally prune trees, maintain appropriate clearance
from powerlines until the next trimming cycle, and minimize impacts to tree health through this
method. Id. The distance created by the tree trimming depends on the growth pattern of each
specific tree. Id. The analysis includes species, branch structure, local environment conditions, tree
health, access to nutrients and water, potential branch displacement due to wind, powerline
voltage, and possible powerline displacement due to wind. Fast growing trees—including
poplars—are pruned to create a greater distance from powerlines. Id. at 6, ¶ 13. The Company
stated that following these procedures accommodates the different growth rates of these species
and avoids contact with the power lines between trimming cycles. Id. Contractors are trained to
ORDER NO. 35292 8
use their professional judgment in addition to the ANSI A300 standards for each tree requiring
maintenance. Id.
At the contractor’s discretion, if the contractor decides reduction, or crown reductions,
are appropriate, these practices are done in accordance with paragraph 10.38. Id. at 7, ¶ 14.
Paragraph 10.38 of the ANSI A300 standards defines reduction as an “arboricultural term referring
to decreasing branch length, or plant height and/or spread.” Id. at 8, ¶ 16-17. The Company stated
that topping, rounding, and lions-tailing are not performed by the contractors. Id. However, the
Company stated that hazardous trees are those that “pose a real and impending threat of structural
failure that could result in falling across a power line.” Id. at 9, ¶ 18. Hazardous trees that are
within striking distance of power lines and are dead, in poor health, or exhibiting structural
problems are likely to result in falling into the power line. Id. NESC Rule 218 states that hazardous
trees must be removed, either partially, or entirely, during the vegetative management cycle. Id.
C. Debris Cleanup
The Company’s debris removal procedures were stated to include hauling away the
trimmed and pruned deadwood. Id. at 9, ¶ 20. The contractors will leave any wood larger than four
inches in diameter for the landowners’ use. Id. The contractor will cut these pieces into manageable
lengths and leave them on the property. Id. If the wood is in a landscaped area, the contractor will
stack the wood near the downed tree. Id. However, if the wood is located in an un-landscaped area,
contractors are not required to stack the wood neatly, but may do so as a courtesy. See Idaho Power
E-mail, ¶ 2. Deadwood cannot be chipped because it could damage the wood chipping equipment
and present a hazard to the chipper operator. Idaho Power’s Response, p. 9, ¶ 21.
II. The Company’s Specific Responses to the Complaint
1. Public Rights of Way
In response to Petitioner’s first allegation, the Company stated that for power lines
located in the public road right-of-way (“ROW”), it trims branches that cross the vertical boundary
of the ROW. Id. at 10, ¶ 22. The Company noted that the power line referenced in the Complaint
sits in the Ten Mile Road ROW and meets all NESC electrical requirements. Id. The Company
also stated that Section 7 of Rule C requires customers to grant the Company a ROW at no cost
and the ROW grants Company personnel (and its contractors/agents) reasonable access to facilities
located on the customers’ property for maintenance and vegetation management. Id. at 10, ¶ 23.
ORDER NO. 35292 9
Additionally, the Company noted that it has a valid subdivision utility easement for
managing vegetation and trimming trees on Petitioner’s property. Id. According to the Amended
Plat of the McClure Subdivision, wherein Petitioner’s property is located, Idaho Power has a ten-
foot utility easement along the exterior boundary. Id. at 11, ¶ 24-25.
2. Trespass
In response to Petitioner’s allegation of trespass, the Company first noted that in 2018,
the Idaho Legislature exempted certain activities from civil and criminal trespass claims when
individuals have lawful or public safety authority to access the private property. Id. at 11, ¶ 27.
The Company cited Idaho Code §§ 6-207(7) (civil) and 18-7008(6) (criminal) as the statutes that
exempt certain persons from trespass. Id. at 12, ¶ 28. The statutes give examples including “a meter
reader in the scope and course of his employment and power company personnel fixing downed
powerlines.”8 Id.
The Company denied that it exceeded its tree-trimming authority with respect to
Petitioner’s trees, or that it trespassed on the Petitioner’s real property. Id. at 13, ¶ 31. The
Company noted that Brent Van Patten has managed the Company’s vegetation management team
since June 2018. Id. at ¶ 32. Tyler Hopper completed the Utility Vegetation Management
Professional Course and is an ISA Certified Arborist, ISA Certified Utility Specialist, and ISA
Certified Tree Risk Assessor. Id. at 13, ¶ 33.
3. Incident One
The Company’s records suggested Incident One occurred on July 6, 2016. Id. at 14, ¶
34. In response to Petitioner’s claim that the Company’s pruning techniques killed his trees, the
Company denies that its actions in 2016 caused the deaths and declining health of Petitioner’s
trees. Id. at 17, ¶ 36. The Company listed several factors that could cause the declining health,
including water shortage, nutrient deficiency, incompatible soil pH, disease, pests, herbicides
applied along the road for weed control, and ice melt chemicals applied to the road in winter. Id.
The Company admitted that trees 3 and 4 are dead, and tree 2 is in poor health, but denied any
wrongdoing associated with the trees. Id.
The Company stated that its contractor used a bucket truck and flaggers to perform
vegetation management on Petitioner’s property. Id. at 14, ¶ 34. The specific work done, according
to the Company’s records, included side trims on six poplar trees, crown reductions on three poplar

8 Idaho Code §§ 6-202(8) and 18-7008(7).
ORDER NO. 35292 10
trees and a side trim on one willow. Id. The Company stated that crown reductions are an ANSI-
A300-approved form of pruning. Id. at 18, ¶ 37. This type of pruning generally shortens branches
back to the appropriate lateral branch—sometimes to the trunk—to achieve proper clearance. Id.
This style of trimming is clearance pruning and is performed in accordance with paragraph 8.4.1
of ANSI A300 standards. Id.
In response to Petitioner’s allegation regarding notice, the Company responded that its
records indicated that Petitioner received notice about the planned work on May 12, 2016. Id. at
17, ¶ 35. Additionally, the Company provided a survey of Petitioner’s property which provided
specific locations and spacing of the subject trees. Id. at 14-15, ¶ 34. The survey shows road ROW,
distribution line, tree locations, and utility easement to scale. Id.
4. Incident Two - Overview
The Company stated that its records indicated that Incident Two occurred on April 27,
2020. Id. at 20, ¶ 39. The Company admitted that on April 27, 2020, its vegetation management
contractor used a bucket truck and flaggers to perform side trims on five poplar trees and a willow
tree, and crown reductions on two poplar trees. Id. The Company stated that dead tops in trees 1,
5, and 6 were at risk of falling into the Company’s power lines and were removed by crown
reduction to mitigate risk. Id. The Company noted that the performed crown reductions were
consistent with Section 4.2 of ANSI standards by managing risk and tree health and ensuring safe
and reliable service. Id. The Company stated that it did not have the remaining portion of the trees
removed because they did not meet the criteria for a hazardous tree. Id. The Company asserted that
based on its survey, all tree canopies extend into the utility easement and trees 1 through 4 were
planted in the utility easement. Id. One tree, No. 13, even grows into the road ROW. Id. at 21, ¶
39.
The Company responded to Petitioner’s charge that it was not authorized to trim trees
outside of the ten-foot utility easement by stating that based on the survey the Company conducted,
it did not trim Petitioner’s trees beyond the utility easement. Id. The Company stated that
Petitioner allowed his trees to grow into and beyond the utility easement and into the adjacent
ROW. Id. The Company stated it had a right to trim trees where it did. Id. The Company noted
that several of the tree-species planted by the Petitioner are fast growing trees and were planted
either in or near the utility easement which necessitates vegetation management. See generally,
id.
ORDER NO. 35292 11
i. Notice
With regard to notice, the Company stated that it provided notice to Petitioner on either
March 27, 2020, or March 30, 2020, before beginning the April 2020 tree trimming. Id. at 21, ¶
40. The Company’s contractor “confirmed that they walked from the end of the road up the lane
to the front door of the residence and placed the hanger on the door without knocking to avoid
making contact with the homeowner pursuant to social distancing guidelines put in place through
COVID-19.”9 Id. The contractor entered this record into the Company’s electronic database. Id.
ii. Derogatory Statements
The Company denied that it made any derogatory statements as alleged by Petitioner.
Id. at 22, ¶ 41. The Company admitted that discussions involving the Company’s employees and
the Petitioner “involved opinions about completed work, impacts to the trees, proper pruning
techniques, notification practices, and Idaho Power’s easement and rights to prune Petitioner’s
trees on private property.” Id. The Company investigated the specific instances with its vegetation
management contractor and its findings suggest no derogatory statements were made. Id.
iii. The Damaged Irrigation Pipe
The Company denied Petitioner’s version of events on April 27 and 28, 2020 as
depicted in the Complaint. Id. at 24, ¶ 47. The Company stated that Petitioner failed to raise the
issue of the replacement pipe being insufficient or the additional costs associated at the April 28,
2020, meetings with Mr. Hopper and Mr. Van Patten. Id. at 26, ¶¶ 51-52. The Company stated
that it holds monthly meetings with its vegetation management contractors and regularly discusses
damage claims made by customers. Id. Had the Petitioner contacted the Company or the
contractor, the damaged pipe would have been discussed. Id. The Company contacted Petitioner
after the Complaint was filed with the PUC to gather more information and schedule replacement
of the pipe. Id. The Company stated further that on November 23, 2020, the pipe necessary to
repair/replace was delivered and installed to the Petitioner’s satisfaction. See Idaho Power E-mail,
¶ 1.
iv. Property Visit by Mr. Hopper
The Company admitted that Mr. Hopper met with Petitioner the morning of April 28,
2020. During this conversation, Mr. Hopper expressed to Petitioner that in his professional

9 The Company requested any audio or video footage in possession of the Petitioner during these two days to confirm
whether the contractor did in fact provide notice. The Petitioner referenced recordings on page 11 of his Complaint
but declined to provide them in response to Idaho Power’s Production Requests #1 and #2.
ORDER NO. 35292 12
opinion, the work completed by the vegetation management crew was “appropriate and met the
[Company’s] requirements.” Idaho Power Response, pp. 24-25, ¶ 47. Mr. Hopper ultimately
referred Petitioner to his supervisor, Mr. Van Patten. Id. The Company then admitted that during
the afternoon of April 28, 2020, Mr. Van Patten met with Petitioner at his property. Id. at 25, ¶ 48.
During this conversation, Mr. Van Patten determined that the work generally met the Company’s
requirements. Id. However, Mr. Van Patten did suggest that some of the trees (Nos. 13 and 14)
could use additional trimming to minimize possible encroachment between trimming cycles. Id.
Mr. Van Patten also mentioned he would have preferred that the deadwood be cut and arranged
neatly near the base of the trees, even though the deadwood was in the non-landscaped area. Id.
v. Remediation Efforts
The Company stated that it offered to have a crew return to the property and trim more
branches on trees 13 and 14, haul away the dead debris left on the property, and remove the two
dead trees (Nos. 3 and 4), but Petitioner declined. Id. at 25-26, ¶ 49. The Company also offered
standard vouchers for trees 3 and 4. Id. at 26, ¶ 50. The Company noted that after declining the
Company’s offer, Petitioner requested the Company remove all damaged trees and compensate
him with the value of mature trees. Id. The Company stated that aside from trees 13 and 14, all
trees were alive and could be managed with trimming, therefore, the Company did not agree to
Petitioner’s request. Id.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has reviewed the record, including the Complaint, Company
Response, and Petitioner Reply. The Commission has jurisdiction over the issues in this case under
Title 61 of the Idaho Code, and more specifically, Idaho Code §§ 61-501, 61-503, and 61-517.
The Commission finds that Idaho Power’s policies and procedures for tree removal are
reasonable and in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho.
The Commission finds that Idaho Power acted in accordance with its policies and
procedures and in accordance with the Idaho Public Utilities laws.
The Commission finds that the irrigation pipe damaged by the Company has been
sufficiently and appropriately replaced by the Company.
The Commission finds that the debris and deadwood that remained on Petitioner’s
property was not left in a worse condition than similarly situated customers. The Company,
therefore, behaved consistently with its policies. Mr. Van Patten’s desires that it be left more neatly
ORDER NO. 35292 13
was a courtesy but not a requirement under the Company’s policies nor under Idaho Public Utilities
Law.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s requests for relief contained in his
Complaint are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code §§ 61-626 and 62-619.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 21st day
of January 2022.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

KRISTINE RAPER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-20-29\Orders\IPCE2029_final_tb.docx