20200715Formal Complaint.pdf

T.Pc- E' ao- 21
R[G5*VEA
?ij?c.iul l5 Pll 5: 03
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Rule 54
Formal Complaint
Respondent
Idaho Power
Complainant
Mark Pecchenino
2173 N Ten Mile Road
Kuna, ID 83634
Table of Contents
Page #
Summary and Statement of Facts
Site location
Exhibit l, Timeline Incident Summary
Exhibit 2, Subject Tree Identification and Spacing
Incident I
Incident 2
Exhibit 24, Tree Identification
Exhibit 3, Trespassing And Warning Signage
Exhibit 4, Aerial Photograph Of Subject Trees,2017
Applicable Provisions .......
1. Right of Way/Easements
Exhibit 5, McClure Subdivision Plat
2. Trespass
Exhibit 6, Property Line Layout And Distances
3. Tree Trimming Policies
Exhibit 7, Idaho Power Tree Trimming Policy Examples
Exhibit 8, Distance From Power lines
Exhibit 9, Images of Pruned Trees
4. Due Process - Takings
5. Notice
6. Handling Complaints and Review Procedure
7. Damaging Personal Property
8. Contractor Training, Training Verification, Certification and Identification
9. Tree Removal Policy
10. lnspection of work performed by contractors or Idaho Power employee
I l. Debris Policy and ADA Requirements
Exhibit 10, Images of Debris Left Behind from lncident 1 and 2
Procedure Used in Timing ldaho Power StaffSite Review
Tree Valuation Procedure, Methods and Formula Used
Table 1, Condition Rating For Landscape Trees
Table 2, Appraisal Formula And Factors
Calculation Sheets For Tree's, Exhibits 11A through 1lG, Appraised Tree Value
3-t4
3
4-5
5
6
6-14
7
l0
t4
15-43
l5-r9
t9
t9-21
2I
2r-29
23
24
25
29-3r
32-33
33-34
34-35
35-39
39-4r
4t-42
42-43
43
Compensation - Remedy .........
Procedures Used By Complainant 45-56
44
45
46-47
48
49
50-56
2lPage
Summary and Statement of Facts
Dear PUC Commission,
WHEREFORE, Mark Pecchenino, the (Complainant), legal owner of the subject property is
filing a Formal Complaint (Complaint) with the Commission naming Idaho Power as the
(Respondent) for damages to their property (Property) and tees (Trees).
The Formal Complaint filed herein is pursuant to IDAPA 31 - Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, 31.01.01 - Rules of Procedure of The Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rule 54,
Formal Complaints. It is the intent of the Complainant to bring several issues before the
Commission in an effort to arrive at a rational and just settlement of damages, as well as
correcting the Respondent's abusive, arbitrary and capricious policies so other residents in
Idaho, serviced by the Respondent, will not have to suffer the same damages and injustices. This
Complaint will evidence how the Respondent's policies and Section 7 of I.P.U.C. No. zg,Tariff
No. 101 are arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Idaho Statutes and ordinances in addition to
violating the Complainant's 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I - Declaration
of Rights, Section's l, 3 and 14 of the Constitution of The State of Idaho.
The Complainant has years of experience evaluating regulatory compliance. The Complainant
has a Masters Degtee in urban planning and development, and three other degrees; one of which
is in federal regulatory compliance. Additionally, the Complainant has performed hundreds of
regulatory compliance reviews for various jurisdictions in Idaho while working for.Boise City
and other County agencies and as President of Pecchenino and Associates Inc., a land use
planning and consulting frm. The Complainant's experience and knowledge has afforded him
the opportunity to draft Idaho Statutes in addition to personally writing hundreds of land-use
ordinances for numerous municipalities in Idaho. The Complainant is well versed in Idaho
property rights, ordinances and countless State and Federal Statutes.
Site Location
The facts contained herein, specially concern the subject property (Property) sited at 2173 N. Ten
Mile Road Kuna, Idaho 83634. The Property is 5.11 acres in size and takes access from Ten Mile
Road to the west. The Property is owned by The Mark and Raschel Pecchenino Revocable
Family Trust and has been in their ownership since 2002. The subject trees (Trees) located on the
Properly and discussed herein are Lombardy Poplar Trees. They are sited along the northeastern
portion of the Property boundary fronting Ten Mile Road. This Complaint represents and
encompasses two (2) separate incidents approximately three (3) years apart. The frst incident
(lncident 1) occurring between 2017 and 2018 and the second incident (tncident 2) occurring on
Tuesday Api127,2020.
A timeline has been established for lncident I and Incident 2. This timeline is evidenced in
Exhibit 1, Timeline Incident Summary. The Trees damaged by the Respondent are numbered and
identified as Trees I through 7 and evidenced by number and location in Exhibit 2, Subject Tree
3lPage
ldentification and Spacing. They are l,ombardy Poplar Trees, defined as a columnar tree.
Columnar trees are tall with a limited spread (10 to 15 feet) with very nflrow and upright shaped
branches. Columnar ffees such as the Lombardy Poplar's usually have just one trunk .
EXHIBIT I, TIMELINE INCIDENT SUMMARY
Incident I
Between 2017 and20l8 lncident I occurred and complaint made to the Respondent.
Incident 2
Api127,2020
Apil28,2020
l2:58 PM
2:03 PM
2:32PM
5:47 PM
8:03 AM
Damaged pipe reported to the Complainant by Tim and a coworker
with Asplundh.
Replacement Pipe ordered from PipeCo by Tim.
Complainant called the Respondent's Tree Services Deparfrnent, spoke
to woman who said Supervisor would return call.
Complainant received call from Tyler H. A supervisor with the
Respondent's Tree Services Deparftnent. Meeting set for 8:00 AM. on
Apri|27,2020.
Tyler arrives at Property. Tyler claimed no culpability on part of the
Respondent. (See conservation comments in Summary and Statement
of Facts)
Complainant called PUC and started informal complaint, but asked
Mr. Thaden to hold offfiling as the Complainant would try and resolve
the issue one (l) more with a manager from the Respondent's Tree
Services Department.
Complainant called the Respondent's a second time and requested to
speak to Manager. Transferred to Payette ldaho Offrce. Payette
manages said he would have Boise manger call the Complainant back.
(See conservation comments in Summary and Statement of Facts)
Complainant received call from Bret Van Patten, set appointment for
12:00 that day.
Van Patten arrives at Property. Van Patten claimed no culpability by
the Respondent, but offered $50.00 voucher. (See conservation
comments in Summary and Statement of Facts)
Complainant called Mr. Thaden, told him unsuccessful in resolving
issues with the Respondent directly and asked him to start informal
complaint process.
9:01 AM
9:24 ANI
I 1:09 AM
12:02 PM
12:37 PM
4lPage
E)fiIIBM 2, SIJBJECT TREE IDENTIFICATION AND SPACING
t4lla
r
II
F
t!ttE.l,
np
3
d
BoF
E.
A NorlxaxxTogc^IrrIIt ldonflIlcdoa No.
5lPage
Incident I
Incident 1 occurred between 2017 and 2018, during the Respondent's prior three (3) year
trimming cycle from their current 2020 cycle. During Incident 1, the Respondent topped/cut
three (3) Trees in half, identified as Trees 2,3 and 4. Trees 2,3, and 4 are now dead.
Additionally,theycut l/3 offthetopofTree L ThedeathofTrees 1,2,3 and4areadirectresult
of topping and over pruning during lncident l. They also severely over pruned Trees 5, 6 and 7,
using a practice known as lions tailing. This method is not a recommended ANSI A300 pruning
practice. This method of pruning causes harm to trees and leads to declining conditions and low
survivability. The other Lombardy Trees on the Property have not been pruned by the
Respondent and are currently healthy. They also left behind all the debris from the pruning as
evidenced in EXHIBIT 10, Images of Debris Left Behind From Incident I and 2. Some of the
larger pieces of debris were removed by the Complainant at that time as they were left abutting
Ten Mile Road and created ahazard.
The Respondent did not provide notice of the tree maintenance /pruning activities of Incident 1.
The Complainant called the Respondent and voiced his concerns. During that call, the
Complainant stated they had received no notice and that topping and lions tailing their Trees
severely damaged them and would lead to declining conditions and eventually snags. The
Complainant also stated that the topped Trees will die and become snags because they are single
trunk columnar Trees. The Respondent stated there was nothing they could do unless the Trees
were dead. The Complainant was told to wait to see if the Trees died and then call back at that
time.
Incident 2
On Tuesday April 27 , 2020, at I 2 : 5 8 PM, the Complainant answered a door knock. Upon
opening the door the Complainant observed two men who Identified themselves as being with
Idaho Power. Luckily for them, the guard dog was secured as the Complainant was expecting a
delivery that day. They stated that while trimming our Trees th"y, ". . . broke an irrigation
pipe...".The Complainant asked the person whom appeared to be in charge, who later identified
himself as Tim, why they didn't notify the Complainant before entering the Property and
trimming the Trees. Tim looked at the second individual, who later identified himself as "the
flagger and notice person" who said, "I don't know why I didn't notice you, I was supposed to do
that ..." He then said " ... an individual in a passing car even stopped and asked me if I had
noticed the property owner. I told him I didn't, and he replied you should." He then went on to
say, "I don't know who the man in the car was or why I didn't give you notice."
The Complainant meet them in the field to inspect the damaged irrigation pipe. Upon arriving,
the Complainant saw the two men who came to the door and a third man. At that time, the
Complainant noticed they had topped three (3) more Trees, Trees 5, 6 and 7 see Exhibit 2A, Tree
Identification. The Complainant also noticed that the three (3) individuals did not look like ldaho
Power employees as they presented thernselves, their vehicle markings did not indicate Idaho
Power. The Complainant asked them specifically if they were ldaho Power employees and they
replied "we are contractors working for Idaho Power, not employees." The Complainant asked if
6lPage
any of them had any documentation indicating they were contractors or agents working on behalf
or under the authority of Idaho Power? They all replied, "no." The Complainant asked if they had
any Idaho Power documentation or policies related to tree trimming services, methods,
instruction or anything to that extent? Again they replied, "no." The Complainant asked who
their contact person was at Idaho Power? They had no name or depart name to offer.
EXHIPIT 2A, TREE IDENTIFICATION
Tree Identillcatlon No.E
All the Poplar trees to the left of Tree 7, are all healthy and have been untouched by Idaho
Power.
The Complainant then asked if they had a contact number or phone number for any supervisor or
manager at Idaho Power? They had none to offer but said. ". . .they could look up Idaho Power's
phone number on their cell phones." It was clear they were not Idaho Power employees and at
best alleged contractors. The Complainant asked Tim, who is your employer and he stated
Asplundh. The Complainant then asked, if they had any identification from Asplundh indicating
they were employees and/or had a work order authoizngthem to trim the Trees on the
Propert/ They had no identification to offer not even a business card. At this point, the
TlPage
Complainant considered calling the Sheriff and having them arrested for ffespass and destruction
of private property. Setting this aside for the moment, the Complainant asked more questions.
The Complainant asked Tim what is your title? He replied, "I'm just a tree pruner." The
Complainant looked at the third unidentified man and before the Complainant could ask him the
same question, he replied, "H.y, don't look at me, I'm new, and I don't know anything, I'm just a
helper." The other man already identified himself as the "flagger and notice person". The
Complainant then turned to Tim and asked if he had any documentation, memorandums, plans,
policies or specific instructions from Idaho Power or Asplundh on how he was supposed to trim
the Trees on the Property? He replied, ". . . I have no documentation of any kind." The
Complainant then asked Tim how he determined the manner and methods to prune the Trees on
the Property? Tim stated, "I prune whatever I think needs to be pruned. If I feel a tee might fall
on a power line, I cut it down to the height of the phone lines." He stated earlier that he started
cutting the tops offin sections when one of the topped pieces he cut fell on the irrigation pipe, so
he stopped work as he could not control the fall of the cut pieces. Implying that if the pipe had
not broke he would have continued topping all of the Poplar Trees that day not just 5,6 and7.
The Complainant then shifted the subject to the damaged irrigation pipe. The Complainant was
concemed due to their lack of identification and paperwork as he didn't know who would be
responsible for the damaged irrigation pipe or how this matter would be handled. Tim, the
individual who claimed responsibility for damaging the 8" by 30 'transfer irrigation pipe
identified himself only as Tim and that he worked for Asplundh but had no documentation or
identification. The Complainant asked Tim, if you don't know anyone at Idaho Power how are
we going to deal with the pipe? Tim stated, "...I'm sorry for damaging your pipe and I'm going to
pay for the damages out of my own pocket ..." Tim then stated, "It would not have happened if I
had the right equipment ..." Tim describe how the Trees on the Property were well off the road
and how his truck only has a l0-feet boom and that he needed a bigger truck with longer boom.
Tim went on to state that he called his boss and asked for a truck with a longer boom, but his
boss declined and told him to "just get the job done." Tim then said, "The Trees were so far off
the road in order to top them I had to hang off the boom." Tim then said, ". . . and this is very
dangerous and I could not control the falls. . . and this is how the pipe got broken." He then
stated that he was lucky as the other sections that fell missed the pipe. The Complainant thought
to himself good news for me, otherwise he would have kept topping all the Poplar trees on the
Property. Tim then said, "I'm glad more pipe was not damaged because I looked up the cost of a
replacement pipe online before coming to your door."
The Complainant told Tim, the reason the Trees are so far off the road is that they are well
outside of the l0-foot utility easement and that they were trespassing and have destroyed private
property in the process. The Complainant told them the Property is signed with "No Trespassing"
signs and the Complainant would have appreciated being noticed. The Complainant then stated
that access may have been denied if they mentioned they were going to top more Trees on the
Property. See Exhibit 3, Trespassing And Warning Signage.
Note: Trees 1, 5, 6 and 7 were all mature Trees when topped. The planting
location of the Trees was no accident. The Complainant planned all development
and landscaping on the property to the last detail, including the landscaping plan.
The Complainant considered the Respondent's transmission line, the easement, as
8lPage
well as other considerations and factors when planting the Poplar Trees and the
other fees along the Property frontage. The center of the Trees topped are 5'-6"
outside of the utility easement and 21'away from the nearest power transmission
line. This is why they were planted in a line 15'-6" west of the property line and
outside of the easement. By doing this, the Complainant provided for their
maximum spread (15 feet) with a safety margin of 5'-6". At maturity the branches
would have a 5'-6" safety margin (21' -15'-6" : 5'-6 ') from the nearest power line.
Thereby limiting the need for the Respondent to trim these Trees. These facts are
evidenced in Exhibit 2, Subject Tree ldentification and Spacing and Exhibit 8,
Distance From Power lines.
Tim went on to apologies more and restated he would pay for the pipe out of his pocket. The
Complainant told him these pipes are expensive and that Idaho Power should pay for the
irrigation pipe. Tim said, "If I call my boss and tell him what happened I will get suspended for
three (3) days without pay. .. and it's cheaper for me to pay for the pipe." Tim continued to
pressure the Complainant to allow him to purchase a replacement pipe and not involve Asplundh
or the Respondent. He said. "Involving my company could take considerable time . . . three (3)
or more weeks to get a replacement pipe." This statement concerned the Complainant as at that
time. Kuna was experiencing unseasonable hot weather and the Complainant had irrigation water
coming and scheduled for three (3) days. Secondly, the Complainant could not wait three (3) or
more weeks to irrigate the hay field and trees on the Property. Based on Tim's statements, not
knowing who had liability in this situation, the heat, irrigation water coming, and the possibility
of a three (3) or more week delay the Complainant decided to settle with Tim. The Complainant
started to call local irrigation pipe companies from the field to obtain pricing and availability.
The Complainant made three (3) calls to different irrigation companies before one was identified
as having a pipe in stock, all the other were sold out. However, that company, PipeCo had no 8"
tansfer irrigation pipe in-stock and they were the last company within 100 miles of the Property.
They did have a few pieces of 8" gated irrigation pipe available. They indicated that due to the
Covid-19 shutdown they were out of stock on the ffansfer pipe and they did not know when more
would be available in the future and they would have no more this year. They also indicated that
they only had 6 pieces of gated pipe left and that was moving quickly.
Note: A transfer irrigation pipe is a solid pipe used to move water with minimal
loss. A gated pipe has holes or gates every 3O-inches and is used to irrigate via
comrgates through the gates. When using gated pipe to transfer water the pipe
leaks via the gates. Additionally, the gates are not preinstalled in the pipe which
adds additional costs and labor prior to installation.
Due to PipeCo's statements, and the other concerns previously evidenced herein, the
Complainant had no other option available but to obtain a gated irrigation pipe. The
Complainant's rationale for the gated pipe was that a leaky pipe would work until a proper
transfer irrigation pipe became available. The Complainant handed Tim his phone as PipeCo was
still on the line. Tim took the phone, ordered the pipe and paid for it with a credit card. The
Complainant cannot verifu if it was his personal credit card or a company credit card. The gated
pipe was delivered later that day. The Complainant paid $100 to have the broken irrigation
transfer pipe removed, disposed of and the installation of a gated pipe.
9lPage
EXHIBIT 3, TRESPASSTNG AND WARNING SIGNAGE
Prior to leaving the field, the Complainant noticed the hay field was covered with tree debris.
The Complainant asked Tim to clean up the mess they made while trespassing and to remove the
debris from the hay field. The Complainant also asked him to remove and haul off the other
debris. Tim told the Complainant that removing the debris and hauling it off was not part of their
work, but the responsibility of the Complainant. The Complainant told Tim, he and his wife were
disabled and that removal of the debris would be a hardship. The Complainant then asked for a
reasonable accommodations request and restated the hardship. The Complainant also mentioned
they would have to hire someone to remove broken irrigation pipe and reinstall it. The
Complainant also told Tim that some of the debris pieces were too large and long for someone to
handle. He was apologetic, but again stated this was not part of their work but they would
remove the wood from the hay field and throw it behind the broken irrigation pipe (which is
outside of the easement). The Complainant found his terminology, "not part of their work"
confusing since they had no documentation or policies related to tree trimming services,
methods, instruction or anything to that extent. The Complainant did not know what the
Respondent's policy was regarding debris at that time. The Complainant also asked Tim to stop
topping trees and that he was going to call Idaho Power immediately regarding the topping and
trespass issues. The Complainant told Tim, that he did not want him to get hurt by hanging off
his boom or damage any more irrigation pipe or Trees on the Property. The Complainant was
also concerned about liability. If Tim fell and was hurt or killed who would be liable? It was
obvious by Tim's statements that Asplundh didn't care about their employee's safety.
The Complainant then left the area and immediately called the Respondent at2:32 PM. After
being transferred to four (4) different departments, the correct departrnent was found. A female
answered the phone, the Complainant asked if she was with the Tree Trimming Department? She
replied, "yes." The Complainant asked to speak to a supervisor, she said, ". . . none were
available due to the Covid-I9 virus." She said she would have a supervisor call. The
Complainant received a call on Apil27,2020 at 5:47 PM from a man who identified himself as,
"Idaho Power returning your call". He would not give his name to the Complainant and when
l0 lPage
asked he replied, " Why do you need it." It wasn't until the lnformal Complaint was filed that the
Complainant discovered his name was Tyler H. During the phone call, the Complainant
reviewed the issues of lncident 1 and Incident 2 with Tyler, but did not mention the damaged
irrigation pipe. He agreed to meet at the Property only if he could do it on his way to work the
following morning at 8:00 AM, April 28,2020. The Complainant agreed to meet with him in the
morning and suggested he look at the Trees prior coming to the house, Tyler agreed. That
morning, the Complainant waited on his front porch well in advance of the scheduled arrival to
secure the guard dog and to observe Tyler's review. The Complainant wanted to observe and
document how much time Tyler would spend reviewing the Trees and the Property. Tyler arrived
at 8:03 AM, the Complainant observed his arrival and timed his review of the Property and
Trees. He spent exactly l-minute and 59 seconds making his review. (Please see, Procedure
Used in Timing Idaho Power StaffSite Review.)
When Tyler arrived at the porch, the Complainant briefly restated the concerns but did not
mention the damaged pipe. The damaged pipe was still in the field and easily seen if the site was
properly reviewed. After hearing the restated concems, Tyler swiftly denied any culpability upon
the part of the Respondent, including the dead Trees (snags) that died as a result of topping
during lncident 1. Prior to his visit, the evening of April 27th,the Complainant researched and
found the Respondent's tree trimming policies on their website. The Complainant wanted to be
well versed on their policies prior to the meeting. The Complainant asked Tyler why he wasn't
noticed? Tyler said, "The trimmers left a brochure on your door prior to starting work". The
Complainant told him that he did not receive any notice or brochures from the trimmers. Tyler
then stated, ". . . then they would have knocked on your door and noticed you that way." The
Complainant told him they did not, and that in fact, the tree trimmers from Incident 2 stated they
failed to provide notice and that they had no ldaho Power brochures or documentation of any
kind with them. Tyler then stated "... then you would have been noticed a week ago, by our
staff." The Complainant told Tyler that he and his wife were both disabled and very rarely leave
the Property. The Complainant also said that due to the Civid-l9 lockdown that they had not left
the Property for almost 60 days as they both have underlying health conditions. The Complainant
also told Tyler, they have a guard dog that lets them know when someone is on the Property and
that a notice person would not have been able to get out of their car without one of them calling
the dog off. The Complainant did not tell Tyler about their hidden driveway alarm or video
surveillance. Tyler replied, "Well then, (long pause) we would have sent you an email regarding
the matter." The Complainant told him, he received no emails from Idaho Power in the last 6
months except those acknowledging their online payments as the Complainant checked his
emails prior to this meeting. The Complainant then stated that according to Idaho Power policies,
notice is required. Tyler then said, "So you lied, you did received the notice and brochure." The
Complainant told him he did not lie and that prior to his arrival he went to Idaho Power's website
and found their policies and read them. What customer service supervisor would call a customer
a liar? The Complainant should have stopped the conservation here, but changed the subject
wanting to resolve the issues in a timely manner.
The Complainant changed the subject to the debris left behind. The Complainant told Tyler that
the debris left behind were not cut into manageable pieces as required by their policy. The
Complainant also stated that their policy of leaving debris behind is a hardship as they are
disabled. Tyler simply replied, "In my opinion, the debris left was cut to manageable sizes" and
11 lPage
he ignored hardship and disability comment. Then the Complainant stated that he would like
Idaho Power to remove the four (4) snags. Referring to Trees 1,2,3 and 4 and that when
removing them to also remove the debris left behind from lncident I and Incident 2.The
Complainant then told Tyler you cannot top a columnar tree as it is well documented topping
trees will severely damage them resulting in a snag within a few years." He quickly replied, ". .
you are wrong" and went on to say, ". . . topping trees is an acceptable practice of pruning and
tree management used by Idaho Power and it doesn't harm trees in any manner." He then stated,
"Idaho Power had nothing to do with my dead Trees." He then turned and walk away as if the
porch was on fire. He didn't even wait for a response to his last comment. Apparently he was in a
hurry to get someplace and my questions and so called ignorance was an annoyance to him as he
stated several times that he was a licensed arborists, implyrng the Complainant wasn't and
therefore knew nothing about trees.
Immediately after this meeting, at 9:01 AM, the Complainant called the PUC. The Complainant
spoke to Mr. Curtis Thaden, who was courteous and professional, something the Complainant
had not experienced with the Respondent. Mr. Thaden went over the PUC informal complaint
process and took the Complainant information. He said he would start the informal complaint
immediately. The Complainant thanked him, and asked him to hold off frlling the informal
complaint. The Complainant told Mr. Thaden he would contacted the Respondent and ask to
speak with a manager in an effort to resolve the issue one (1) more time without involving the
PUC. The Complainant then told Mr. Thaden that if he was not successful in the second attempt
he would notifu him immediately so he could start the informal appeal. Mr. Thaden agreed to
wait for the Complainant's callback. He then gave the Complainant his office and cell phone
number instructing the Complainant to call him at any time as he was working from home due to
the Covid-19lockdown.
After concluding the call with Mr. Thaden, the Complainant called the Respondent for the
second time at 9:24 AM. The Complainant had the same experience as the first call, but finally
reached the correct department. A man answered the phone, the Complainant told him he was
calling about tree trimming services and asked if this was the correct department. The man
replied it was, the Complainant then asked to speak to a manager. The man replied,I am a
manager. The Complainant then went over incident I and incident 2 in detail including the
damaged pipe as the man seemed genuinely concerned unlike the previous calls with the
Respondent. The man was courteous, professional and apologetic and agreed to come right over
to review the Property and Trees and to discuss options in person with the Complainant. This
was the first Idaho Power employee thus far that was professional and didn't insinuate that the
Complainant was bothering them with trivial tree concerns. The Complainant gave the man the
Property address and asked for his name. He then replied, "I'm sorry, you have the wrong office.
I'm located in the Payette office, and that's not my area but I will immediately call the Boise
office and have a manager call you right away." The Complainant thanked him, never getting
his name and waited for a call from the Boise office.
12 lPage
The Complainant received a call from Mr. Brent Van Patten later that day at 11:09 AM. He
identified himself as a manager. He said he was in the area and could stop by the Property
around noon. The Complainant agreed and suggested he review the Trees prior to coming to the
house as he did before with Tyler, he agreed. Like the other appointment, before his arrival, the
guard dog was secured and the Complainant waited on the front porch for his arrival. The
Complainant observed his arrival at exactly 12:02PM. He parked his vehicle on Ten Mile Road
close to the same spot as Tyler, about l0 to 15 feet away from Tree 1. Van Patten spent a total of
2 minutes and 38 seconds reviewing the Trees before coming to the house. The Complainant's
conservation with Van Patten was very similar to that of Tyler, except he immediately called the
Complainant a liar regarding the notice issue at the begiruring of the conservation. He stated
"...you were noticed, I have proof . . . you're a liar." He then went on to tell the Complainant that
regarding trespass, "You have no property rights and Idaho Power can enter your property, any
part of your property, any time they want without your permission or notice." this was going
nowhere so the Complainant asked about the tree topping practice as the Complainant knew it
was against the Respondent's policies to top trees and not an acceptable practice as defined by
ANSA 4300. Van Patten boldly stated, "Idaho Power has every right to top your Trees and that
willow trees do very well when topped, so topping your willows would have no impact on
them." The Complainant then mentioned that Idaho Power's policies states you don't top ffees.
Van Patten knew of no such policy. The Complainant told him, Tim with the tree trimming
company indicated that he was not an arborist nor did not mention any specific training when
questioned. The Complainant then stated, it is my understanding that Idaho Power only uses
highly trained professionals, arborists or qualified contractors to prune trees. The Complainant
went on to state that only approved pruning practices such as directional pruning, side clearing or
side clearing L cuts as outlined in their policies and ANSI ,4.300 are approved methods and
topping was prohibited. He simply replied, "He (referring to Tim) had better have been trained
or there will be trouble." It appeared Van Patten didn't understand the tree trimming terminology
mentioned by the Complainant. He also didn't know the difference between a willow tree and a
poplar tree, two very distinct and different trees. Only poplar Trees had been topped not any
willow trees. Since he seemed confused about the terminology mentioned by the Complainant
and the species of the topped Trees the Complainant asked if he was an arborist, Van Patten
replied he was. (The Complainant has subsequently discovered that Van Patten is not a manager
nor an arborist.) He went on to tell the Complainant that the Trees died because they were in
poor health due to lack of water and poor management on the Complainant's part. The
Complainant told Van Patten that a photogaph was available showing the Trees were healthy
prior to their pruning and toping before Incident l, see Exhibit 4, Aerial Photograph Of Subject
Trees, 2017. He did not want to see the photo nor did he care he had made his decision. It was
obvious that during his review he didn't notice the broken irrigation pipe, the hay field, or the
irrigation ditch running along the Tree line used to water them. In his 2-minutes and 38 second
review he made all of his observations and drew all his conclusions. He made his assessment, the
Complainant was wrong and a liar, and the Respondent had no culpability.
13 lPage
Note: The Complainant's field is bermed so it can be flood irrigated. The hay field
and Trees are flood irrigated weekly or every other week with 3 to 6 inches of
water over a 3-day period, 2-days on weekly watering. This inigating practice has
been used on the Property since it was purchase by the Complainant. The hay
fields and tees on the property are irrigated every two weeks or more often as
needed depending on the heat. The Complainant has Irrigation paperwork to
confirm these facts.
EXHIBIT 4, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SUBJECT TREES, 2017
Arial image of subject trees 1
tkough 7 showing all in good
health prior to topping by Idaho
ar--'tftr-k tr
- #e*,*
dr\
;
Prior to leaving, the Complainant mentioned he had called the PUC. When hearing this, Van
Patten stated that some of the debris left in the field was not left in manageable pieces and he
offered to have the crew come back and cut them down with an added condition to top more
trees. He stated, "ln my opinion, . . . they did not prune aggressively enough . . . and needed to
do more . . ." He reaffirmed that Idaho Power would not remove the dead Trees as it was not
their fault they died. But he did offer one (l) $50.00 voucher in compensation. The Complainant
knew this offer was in conflict with the Respondent's policies and that the voucher amount didn't
even cover the original cost of one (1) Tree. The Complainant told Van Patten the initial cost for
one (l) Tree was over $80.00 many years ago and that they came from Washington State. The
Complainant also stated that the cost mentioned didn't including shipping or installation. He
replied, "That's our policy, $50.00." The Complainant asked him if he thought that was a fair
and reasonable amount for a large growth tree. Van Patten replied, "Paying for the true value of a
tree would be too costly for Idaho Power and its rate payers. The Trees were topped as the posed
ahazard to the power line and our customers."
Immediately following Van Patten's departure, the Complainant called Mr. Thaden at 12:37 PM
and told him to proceed with the informal complaint.
14 lPage
Applicable Provisions
l. Right of Way/Easements
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TANFF NO. 29
Idaho Power Company I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. l0I Original Sheet No,
Section 7. Rights of Way.
"The Customer shall, without cost to the Company, grant the Company a right of
wayfor 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'
Company's lines and to protect public safety."
"Idaho Power has easements to the property that allow us to maintain our lines.
While we do not need permission to prune, we do like to notify our customers
when access to their Trees or property is necessary for the safety and reliability of
our power lines."
"Idaho Power is obligated to keep lines clear to provide power to the community
and our customers. We can, as a last resort, pursue legal means."
The policies shown above are ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious. TariffNo. 101, section 7 is in
violation of several state statutes. It implies the "Company" can enter private property any time
they want". . . thereto by the Company's employees at all reasonable hours." lnfact,Idaho
Statures have only granted the Respondent authority to enter private property without the
expressed permission of the landowner in the event of an emergency. The Idaho Statute, states
emergency purposes only, "... power company personnel fixing downed power lines;" The
Idaho Statute also states, "company personnel" which by definition, excludes 3rd party
contractors. It specifically states that only, " power company personnel " can enter property
and only during an emergency. Tree trimming for line maintenance work does not represent
an emergency ot "downed power lines. ".
8-1A-1: DEFIMTIONS:
EASEMENT: A right of use,falling short of ownership, and usuallyfor a certain stated
purpose, as deJined by ldaho Code section 50-1301.
15 lPage
PLATS AND VACATIONS
50-1301. DEFINITIONS
(2) Easement: A right of use,falling short of ownership, and usuallyfor a certain
stated purpose;
TITLE 50, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER 13, PLATS AND VACATIONS
50-I302. DUTY TO FILE. Every owner creating a subdivision, as defined in section
50- 1301. Idaho Code, shall cause a land survey and a plat thereof to be made which
shall particularly and accurately describe and setforth all the streets, easements,
public grounds, blocks, lots, and other essential information, and shall record said
plat. This section is not intended to prevent the filing of other survey maps or plats.
Description of lots or parcels of land, according to the number and designation on
such recorded plat, in conveyances orfor the purposes oftaxation, shall be deemed
good and validfor all intents and purposes.
TITLE 67, STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65, LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6518. STANDARDS. Eqch governing board may adopt standardsfor such things
as: building design; blocks, lots, and tracts ofland; yards, courts, greenbelts,
planting strips, parks, and other open spaces; Trees; signs; parking spaces;
roadways, streets, lanes, bicycleways, pedestrian walkways, rights-of-way, grades,
alignments, and intersections; lighting; easements for public utilities; access to
streams, lakes, and viewpoints; water systems; sewer systems; storm drainage
systems; street numbers and names; house numbers; schools, hospitals, and other
public and private development. Standards may be provided as part of zoning,
subdivision, planned unit development, or separote ordinance adopted, amended, or
repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in section
67-6509, Idaho Code.
A plat thereof to be made which shall particularly and accurately describe and set
forth all easements. Easements for public utilities Standards may be provided as part
ofzoning, subdivision, planned unit development, or separate ordinance adopted,
qmended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided
in section 67-6509, Idaho Code.
Furthermore, Tariff l0l, Section 7 implies the right to enter all private property without
exception. ". . .Customer shall, without cost to the Company, grant the Company a right of way
lSlPage
for the Company's lines and apparatus across and upon the property owned or controlled by the
Customer, necessary or incidental. . ." This exception is in violation of State Statutes, Ada
County Ordinances and several Federal and State Constitutional Rights. This section also uses
the wording. ". . .the Company.. . " which is defined as Idaho Power not a third party contractor.
Secondly, the terms "necessary or incidental" are arbitrary and capricious and not defined. The
terms, "rrecessary or incidental" are clearly not defined as emergency or requiring immediate
action but rather necessary or incidental action. Necessary or incidental actions do not authorize
Idaho Power to violate private property.ights or authorize trespass. Idaho Statutes have clearly
defined access to private property, by power companies, outside of an easement, as only being
allowed to repair a downed power line in an emergency situation.
Idaho Statutes and Ada County Ordinances define Right-of-way as easements which are defined
as, "(2) Easement: A right of use, falling short of ownership, and usually for a certain stated
purpose; " the Respondent's "necessary or incidental" language doesn't provide a specific stated
purpose just something that's "necessary or incidental." The easement for the Property is l0-feet
wide and runs parallel to Ten Mile Road and the Property line as evidenced in Exhibit 5,
McClure Subdivision Plat. The lO-foot easement is the only portion of the Property where the
Respondent would be allowed for maintenance work without property owner consent. This
easement doesn't transfer to 3rd party contractors as they are not the "Company" or a public
utility. Transferability is not granted by Idaho Statutes or Tariff l0l, Section 7.
A Right of Way or Easement is also defined as a privilege to pass over the land of another,
whereby the holder of the easement (a public utility) acquires only reasonable and usual
enjoyment of the property and the owner of the land retains the benefits and privileges of
ownership consistent with the easement. State statutes and ordinances have clearly defined
easements and enjoyment is not granted to the entire Property as claimed by Van Patten, but
confined to the easement.
A right of way is a strip of land upon which power companies construct power lines; in this
context, the term refers to the land or right of way itself, not the right of passage over all
property. No power lines or apparatus lie within the Property easement or the Property. The
easernent is for maintenance work only and runs parallel to N. Ten Mile Road and adjacent to the
front Property boundary. The Trees on the Property were planted outside of that easement, 5-feet
6-inchers to be exact as evidenced herein. The Respondent had no permission given or implied
by the Complainant to enter the Property to top Trees or damage irrigation piping. They ventured
outside of the prescribed easement and damage personal property and Trees.
The Respondent has a policy which states, "Idaho Power has easements to the property that
allow us to maintain our lines. While we do not need permission to prune, we do like to notify
our customers when access to their Trees or property is necessary for the safety and reliability of
our power lines." This policy statement acknowledges the Respondent's understanding of
property rights and easements located on private property. However, some of the language is
arbitrary and capricious. The specific ambiguity is,"we do not need permission to prune" arrd
'we do like to notifu our customers when access to their Trees or property is necessary." This
language has been interpreted by the Respondent's staff that they have the right to enter private
lTlPage
property outside of an easement without permission. Again Idaho Statutes have already
identified the only exception as a downed power line not tree ffimming. This language, '. . - like
to notify our customers when access to their Trees or property is necessary. . . " does not
diminish the fact the have no right to enter private property outside of an easement. This policy
also states "their Trees" implying the word uTrees'being capitalized designating ownership by
the "Company," or is the Respondent implying through this language that they own the
"Trees" in or along an easement. The fact that the Respondent,'like to notify" does not grant
or imply permission to trespass or ". . .access to their Trees or property. . ." The policy should
have been written to read:We do not need oermission to Trees within the easement-
however. we would require permission work outside of the easement. If work outside the
easement is planed or required. the Company will request written approval from the property
owner at the time of noticine and prior to any commencement of work. If the prope4v owner
declines permission. the Company may seek a judicial remedy.
Furthermore, the policy suggests that by noticing they can do what they want on the Property
without regard to private property rights or trespass issues. The policy states. ". . .we do like to
notifu our customers when access to their Trees or property is necessary.. . " They are attempting
to circumvent private property rights and statutes by implying that by "notify our a$tomers "
somehow relieves the Respondent from trespass laws as stated by Van Patten. Permission or
consent to enter private property cannot be granted through a notice or door hanger. It must be
expresses verbally or in writing by the property owner. This policy also fails to define what
"notify" means. According to Tyler and Van Patten a simple (dumbed-down) door hanging
brochure granted the Respondent consent to enter private property, including the Complainant's
Property. Furthermore, their policy only addresses the "Company" and their right to access, there
is no mention of 3rd party contractor having any rights.
ln conclusion of this section, the Complainant maintains the Respondent's policies and Tariff
101, Section 7 are arbitrary and capricious with no consideration for private property rights and
they violate State Statutes. The Respondent only has access to easements for a certain stated
purposes as defined by Idaho Statute. Falling short of ownership, easement access can be
denied by the property owner. In such an event, the Respondent ". . . can, as a last resort,
pursue legal means. " The Respondent understands this, and in a separate policy states this fact.
Without notice, a property owner has been denied their due process right under the l4th
Amendment and State Constitution. The right to deny access. A simple brochure left on a door
doesn't imply or grant permission to enter private property. Assuming this is their method of
"notify" as their method is not specifically defined in any of the Respondent's policies. Tree
trimming maintenance does not constitute an emergency whereas a State Statute has granted an
exception. But that exception only applies to the Respondent not 3rd party contractor. Failure to
gain property owner permission to venfure outside a prescriptive easement is trespass.
lSlPage
EXHIBIT 5, McClure Subdivision Plat
AIOG! iOAD
,
raQltl ra.Gl.lia lJraa (.(, r,/t)
PLAI OFMcCLI.'RE SUBDMSIONrilE6rrtarrAsuqrtq r& u.,uoIlY,gtIr9et
EIOIEEEt=F=E-tEr-]4rE
t frJfr6aaDC
ttfltl ts
a
d
c
E
1
i
a
ldt
a
aL4X t
3tlllrirtIki
Fi
Ei
It
I
\I
I
*zgral;P*'aa'
taafl---dd-
, *oaq.a.@-r-
a tat-taEta-
-------aarutl-
CI'VI DA?A
!J,)F+S{En "-.-}><_rsr
t
Subject Property Lot2 location evidenced by red arow
2. Trespass
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TARIFF NO. 29
Idaho Power Company I.P.U.C. No. 29, TariffNo. I0l Original Sheet No, Section 7
Rights of lltay.
"The Customer shall, without cost to the Company, grant the Company a right of wayfor
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 ovoid interference with the Company' Company's lines and to protect public
safety."
"Idaho Power has easements to the property that allow us to maintain our lines. While
we do not need permission to prune, we do like to notify our customers when access to
their Trees or property is necessaryfor the safety and reliability of our power lines."
19 lPage
"Idaho Power is obligated to keep lines clear to provide power to the community and our
customers. We can, as a last resort, pursue legal means."
The Respondent went outside of the l0-foot easement without the Complainant's permission and
destroyed private property and committed Trespass with Malicious Injuries to Property.
Exhibit 6, Property Line Layout and Distances evidences the topped Trees were 5'-6" outside of
the prescribed l0-foot easement. The broken irrigation pipe wasl l'-6" beyond the prescribed l0-
foot easement.
TITLE 18, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, CHAPTER 70
TRESPASS AND MALICIOUS TNJURIES TO PROPERTY
(c) Any other person with a legally prescribed right to enter or remain upon the real
property in question.
(7) Examples of the exclusions in subsection (6) of this section include, but are not
limited to: power company personnel Jixing downed power lines; acting pursuant to
the provisions ofchapter ll or chapter 12. title 42. Idaho Code.
Idaho trespass laws are very specific, and Tariff 101, Section 7. Rights of Way is in violation
of Title 18, Crimes And Punishments, Chapter 70, Trespass And Malicious Injuries To
Property. Only power company personal are exempt from trespass in the event of an
emergency. Power company personnel can trespass only to "fix downed power lines. " Tree
pruning maintenance does not exempt the Respondent from trespass as evidenced herein.
Secondly, Title 18, Chapter 70 specifically state "power company personnel", not 3rd party
contractors are exempted. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission TariffNo. 29 and State
Statutes do not grant access privileges to 3rd party contractors only the "Company," which is
defined as Idaho Power.
ln conclusion of this section, the Complainant maintains the Respondent and their alleged 3rd
party contractor unlawfully entered the Property without permission or the knowledge of the
Complainant. Whereby an irrigation pipe and Trees (private properry) were damaged or
destoyed while engaging in Trespass with Malicious Injuries to Property. Policies aside
Trespassed with Malicious Injuries to Property was committed and the Respondent is
responsible for damages.
20 lPage
EXHIBIT 6, PROPERTY LINE LAYOUT AND DISTANCES
PRO?ATY l,lIIS T,AYOUT
lliSr{ifrriq ftrinsSabrd fm Propstl.. lim
LU)KlN(i S(,Lilll. SLU ut
Norhtsfffilcad o
FoF6 l,r. ardm fcEbrl ! lis f^n t oFr! lE
i4 r.I; Iil i
i
J-ro
t
Ii
a'
a'---
a
IrI
lrfrLd.*lE *r$aLd.. il..
3. Tree Trimming Policies
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TARIFF NO. 29 ldaho Power Company
I.P.U.C. No. 29, TariffNo. I0I Original Sheet No. i IDAHO Issued by IDAHO POWER
COMPANY Issued per Order No. i0508 John R. Gale, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Effective - March I, 2008 1221 llest ldaho Street, Boise,ID RULE C, SERWCE AND
LIMITATIONS (Continued) . Point of Delivery Service Requirements (Continued)
Section 7. Rights of Way.
The Customer shall also oermit the Companlt to trim Trees and other veqetation to the
extent necessary to qvoid intederence with the Comoany' Companv's lines and to orotect
public sa.fetv.
21 lPage
Tariff 101, Section 7, states, "The customer shall permit the Company to trim Trees. . . to the
extent necessary. . ." This wording is arbitrary and capricious and conflicts with other
Respondent policies in addition to infringing upon private property rights. The word "Company"
is capitalized and specifically referrers to Idaho Power, the Company. Nowhere in this Tariff is
the term "Company" defined to mean anything other than Idaho Power. 3rd party contractors are
not defined as "Company." by any definition therein. Their wording, "to the extent necessary" is
arbitrary and capricious. The Respondent is a Quasi-Public Corporation and required to develop
ethical standards and administrative regulations that comply with federal and state laws. ln
addition to providing responsible development, planning and execution strategies that provide
assurances and protection ofprivate property rights through reasonable standards and policies.
Tariff l0l, Section 7 and other policies fail to meet these standards. Their policies make claim
and state assurances to their customers, such as how trees will be properly pruned to maintain
safe and reliable power. They even provide specific tee timming diagrams of approved fee
trimming methods, but these methods are not being applied by the Respondent. These policies
are ambiguous, arbitrary, capricious and poorly enforced. Policies such as, "Idaho Power prunes
Trees to clear our power lines, ensuring the safety and reliability of the energl we deliver. Trees
and limbs that contact our lines can cause power outages and dangerous situations for homes,
motorists and pedestrians, children climbing Trees and our linemen " It further states that "Idaho
Power has been recognized for decades for our line clearing work by the National Arbor Day
Foundation. The Tree Line USA Utility award commends the companyfor caringfor the health
of Trees while removing branches and limbs growing too close to power lines." Yet another
policy states, "We clear the Trees along our lines on a regular maintenance cycle. The shape,
size and growth rate of Trees affect how often they need pruning. Generally, our crews prune to
create clearance to lastfor at least three years and to avoid problems with snow overloading
branches in winter."
The Complainant will break these policies down starting with their pruning methods policy. If
you continue to reading their pruning policies they state, "Directional pruning allows us to train
the tree to grow awayfrom power lines b)t removine onl:r the branches that misht contact the
lines. By selectively pruning the tree's branches instead ofpruning the entire top. much of the
tree's naturalform is retained.". The Respondent has provided images of approved pruning
methods to their customers as evidenced in Exhibit 7, Idaho Power Tree Trimming Policy
Examples. Their policies also state, "This practice is betterfor the health of the Trees." and that,
"It is also more cost ffictive because it doesn't have to be done as frequently. " They also
reinforce these policy statements and reassurances to their customers by stating, "The U.S. Forest
Service and International Society of Arboriculture recommend directional pruning." and that
"only directional pruning will be used, instead of pruning the entire top . . ." as provided by their
policies and compliance with those standards evidenced in Exhibit 7, Idaho Power Tree
Trimming Policy Examples are the best methods for the health of trees in accordance with ANSI
A300 standards.
22lPage
EXHIBIT 7, IDAHO POWER TREE TRIMMING POLICY EXAMPLES
Dlrcctional Pruning
Under Lines
Side Oearing
Decidnons ('ti Gn)
Side Clearing
Deciluor.rs
The pruning methods evidenced herein and in Exhibit 7, Idaho Power Tree Trimming Policy
Examples were not used when trimming the Trees on the Property as they were topped and over
pruned. The policy examples evidenced in Exhibit 7, Idaho Power Tree Trimming Policy
Examples do not include topping trees. According to Van Patten, a proclaimed Idaho Power
Manager and arborist, he stated that topping was an acceptable standard and a policy used by the
Respondent. ln fact, he emphatically proclaimed the Respondent had the right to top the Trees
on the Property outside of the prescribed easement.
When questioned by the Complainant, Tim, Tyler nor Van Patten were aware of the
Respondent's no topping policies or the ANSI A300 standards which strongly discourages tree
topping due to the impact and survivability of topped trees. Tim only stated his policy, top them
below the phone line. Tyler stated it was an acceptable practice used by Idaho Power. While
Van Patten doubled down and reaffirmed that Idaho Power can do whatever they want to the
Trees on the Property. Their comments regarding topping trees along with the fact that they
topped Trees on the Property evidence the Respondent's policies are arbitrary, capricious, not
being applied, enforced or monitored for compliance.
ln review of another policy, regarding limbs and branched touching energized lines their policy
states, ". . . branches and limbs growing too close to power lines." This policy statement is
arbitrary and capricious as it does not definition the wording "too close." What is too close?
Another policy states, "Trees and limbs that contact our lines can cause power outages. . ."
Based on these two policies and the arbitrary and capricious wording one could intemrpted these
policies to mean branches and limbs will be trimmed so they do not touch power lines, not to
close nor to far, butjust enough.
23 lt'age
EXHIBIT 8, DISTANCE FROM POWER LINES
lux;t:s Ht(;llt-t(;ll't t\(; Drsr,\\( ]: FR(]\t P(r\l]:Lt.tr.'];s
i ri"* "t -. cnnr( lrhl pr,F-d\ hfr. Iil.itl.ln$n{hr'\s,ilJ!''lF{lr(6 i
\.f,h"rl\ \rdN ,,t lr..r sJ l}trlr,,ulc, lIrn.hL\
shnsrU . Jr{m{( ol : 1,16 li{ li'n h'.r6r
Frs(rlB llra. rN\ scr. tr{ t^fJ
Shn$nt . ( h\\ : \\ 'lhushh s 'llr$ lB'
(\1.\ ltrfhl tir thN F_.rc' r! tlr ti{ h h$ a
$ rd(a (il,.pr thJ (trrr '{}r1 rn!. th' .:a'.
frnl hul n'{ JruB{ I hrl lr( r\ ^{ ,,il ,,[i l'"".r"." * r' * ',i.'6*.r',* ]
l*.'rrng r.lnr.urc. rrm ' r,, li ri< |Llyr'"ry1'l l
\or hrxr l.t$-{,
-
: ld sf,Bit.l lkrL ifl Pldoc lthtt Shoit
How far back from the power line is considered "growing too close" is a tree limb or branch 1-
foot or perhaps 2l-feet "growing too close." This policy is arbitrary and capricious and Exhibit 8,
Distance From Power lines (each dash mark shown in Exhibit 8 references a 2-feet length or
measurement and that measurement is in scale with the image) evidences this point. The Poplar
Trees and their limbs along the front Property are from 2-feet to l0-feet away from the nearest
power line and 2l-feet from the center of the Tree trunks topped to the centerline of the closest
power line. Apparently, the pruner(s) had a different interpretation of the Respondent's policies
and the wording "too close". Trees were topped and over pruned that were 2l-feet away from
the nearest energized power line.
Exhibit 9, Images of Pruned Trees will further evidence the Respondent's arbitrary and
capricious policies. Just south of the Property on Ten Mile Road, trees were pruned by other
Asplundh crews. This work was observed by the Complainant and the work was completed
during same time frame in April as the Trees on the Property. The photos in Exhibit 9, Images of
Pruned Trees evidence the distanced from the power line to the pruned trees. The photos
evidence these trees were pnmed at various distances from the power line and no trees were
topped. Some of the trees evidenced even exceeded the height of the power line. The trees
,\N
24 lPage
evidenced in Exhibit 9, Images of Pruned Trees are all sited within the easement and some abut
the power line. None were topped even those exceeding the power line in overall height. Many
of the trees branches and limbs are very close to the power line. Based the facts exhibited herein,
what rational was used by the Respondent to justiff topping the Trees on the Property. The
topped Trees were well away from the nearest power line (21-feet) and well outside of the
easement.
EXHIBIT 9, IMAGES OF PRUNED TREES
IMAGES Or kuND fffJs locATED Ot\ TrN llrl.D RoAD Sotml Or THE $lBrDc{
TIlATWmf, kLND SAr'3 THE SAr,c TnornrJlrf,wEEx
Plq$ ndq m) of lhctH shown e rrlls tha lha powqli6. Nm of the rco rhow scc roppcd my of
hcm c in cle proximily ro thc powclirc& rpprcxinrroly 2-li!cl c dm. Thc imga show dhcricul pun-
ing All rro u witNn thc l0-fod sility c.med, Howcva !m ofdr re wcc toppcd ud m loppcd tre
Eld bc lqrGd o T6 Milc Road, chq than lhc ruticd b6 qnlird ir lb. Fml Comphirr l6lcd d 2173
N. To Milc Rod
As evidence herein, Tim believed the Trees needed to be topped due to their height, "I prune
whatever I think needs to be pruned and if I feel a tree might fall on a power line I cut it down to
a point around the phone lines." Tyler thought the Trees were pruned properly, while Van Patten
thought they needed more aggfessive pruning and the crew need to come back to pnrne more.
This evidence further demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of these policy.
Another policy states, uEach crew has at least one certified arbortst or person who has
completed an advance course in arbortcultural traintng."While another policy states they, '1 . .
hire qualified line-clearing contractors to keep our power lines clear." As evidenced herein, Tim
25 lPage
did not mention any special training and stated he was not an arborist. How does the Respondent
define training? What excused Tim's crew from completing, "an advance course in
arboricultural trainingT" When Van Patten was asked this question he could neither confirm
nor deny Tim's crew was trained or even qualified. He just stated that, "He had better have been
trained," referring to Tim. Once again as evidenced herein, the Respondent's policies are not
being enforced nor audited for compliance by their staff. What benefits and protections do these
policies provide their customers if they fail to train, enforced or audit them? Who are "their
crer,y" as mentioned in their policies and how is that term defined? Does it refer to Idaho Power
crews, as some policies clearly state,"Company" and'cre|es'implyrng that the Respondent
does the line clearing work while one (1) policy mentions the word "contractor." This policies
and wording are arbitrary and capricious and serve only to mislead their customer's with a false
sense of security and assurance of proper tree pruning and workmanship. No one the
Complainant spoke with including some with the PUC were aware that the Respondent was
using 3rd party contractors for line clearing purposes. How about you Commissioners, were you
aware of this practice?
Another policy states, "These crews create necessary line clearances while considering each
tree's species, size and natural shape. " How does the Respondent consider "species, size and
natural shape", where are their policies and training documentation to veriff this policy and
how "species, size and natural shape" are considered? If the Respondent's crews are trained,
what standards and guidelines were used to aid them in determining how to prune trees based on
"species, size and natural shape. " ln the 2002, while the Complainant was developing the
landscaping plan for the Property, he noticed that the local nurseries were limited in their
varieties and species of trees. The Complainant wanted a greater variety planted on the Property
than locally available (100 trees and over 40 species were proposed for planting). Therefore, the
Complainant had to purchase trees from out of state. These trees were not common to the Boise
area, including the Trees killed by the Respondent. Does the Respondent's training include
examples of all "tree's species, size and natural shape" as claimed in their policy or just those
species common to the Boise area? Likely not, this is just another example of a poorly written
policy designed to provide assurances to the Complainant's customers suggesting their trees will
be properly pruned.
Another policy states, lVe do not "round" Trees over becouse it's not good for the health of the
Trees. Wefollow the ANSI A300 tree pruning standard and use a method of pruning called
directional pruning. This method is endorsed by many in the tree-care industry as being the best
techniquefor the health of the tree. Directional pruning removes each limb where it joins
another limb or at the trunk. This procedure is dffirent from "rounding" Trees over, where
limbs are cut at random points, normolly leaving unhealthy "stub" cuts. Directional pruning
involves cutting a limb back to another limb so future growth is directed away from power lines.
With the directional technique, tree growth causes minimal impact to public safety and electric
service."
26 lPage
Tree practice of tree topping is the removal of the whole tops of trees including large branches
and/or trunks from the tops of trees. The practice of Topping is also commonly known and
describe as: Rounding, Rounding Over, Heading, Hat-Racking and Tipping. If the Respondent's
policies state,"We do not "round" Trees over becouse it's not goodfor the health of the Trees."
and that they adhere to ANSI A300 tree pruning standards, then why were the Trees on the
Property topped?
Has evidenced herein, the ANSI ,4'300 standards clearly states in an Advisory Notice within the
standards that, "Certain pruning practices are not acceptable and can injure trees such as:
Topping and Lion's Tailing. . . " Both of these practices were used on the Property during
Incident 1 and Incident 2. Both Tyler and Van Patten stated that topping trees was a common
and acceptable pruning practices in the industry and used by Idaho Power. Both went on to stated
topping had no impact on the health or survivability of a tree. Idaho Power policies clearly state "
toppingu and "Rounding" are unacceptable, so why is there a disconnect between these policies
and the Respondent's staff? The ANSI ,4'300 standard is evidenced herein in Section 8.
Contractor Training, Training Verification, Certification and Identification.
The Complainant has inserted an article to further evidence topping or rounding trees is not an
acceptable practice as claimed by the Respondent's staffand that it does in fact cause harm to
trees. This article was written by award winning author Joe Lamp'I. The article discusses the
impact of tree topping. Below are some excerpts from his article with key points underlined:
Tree Topping - What You Don't Know is Killing Your Trees, By Joe Lamp'l
Source: https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/tree-topping-what-you4ont-hrow-is-killing-your-Trees/
Toppins is considered the most hafl4ful tree pruninq practice lqrown - Infact,
it's regarded as such a serious crime against noture, one organization's major
efforts over the past two decodes has been to stop this "torture ond mutilation."
Toooins Stresses Trees - When a tree is topped. up to I00o% qf the leaf bearing
crown is removed. As leaves are thefood source-for any tree. the absence qf this
food suppllt can temporaril:t starve the tree. As a defensive action, the starving
tree responds by rapidly sending out multiple shoots from latent buds below
each cut. This action is the tree's surttival mechanism to put out a new flush of
leaves as soon as possible. Moreover. if the tree does not have sufficient stored
enerqtt reserves to respond in this walt. it will seriousllt harm the tree. even
leadinq to its premature demise.
Toppins is Expensive - Eventually. when the tree dies because qf the e.{fects qf
the cumulative stress and damage. even more mone.v will likely be spent to
remove it.
27 lP age
The Respondent's policies acknowledge topping as being unhealthy for tees as evidenced herein.
So what justification does the Respondent have for topping the Trees on the Property and
ignoring their policies?
Note: The Complainant has used the term overpruning throughout this
Complaint. Over pruning is defined as removing too much foliage from the upper
canopy of a tree, resulting in over exposing bark tissue to the sun. This practice
causes damage to the bark and the underlying vascular system known as
'osunscald." Smooth-barked trees, such as Lombardy Poplar are more susceptible
to sunscald injury, which further reduces a tree's health and longevity from over
pruning. Over pruning also damages the tree's foliage by limiting food production
through photosynthesis. When to much is removed the tree starves. Lombardy
Poplar don't have a typical canopy. They have a central trunk or column with
small minor limbs with very small branches that are spaced far apart stemming
from the trunk growing vertically and parallel to the trunk. An open canopy tree
has a low central trunk with several lateral spreading limbs and branches to
protect the tree from the sun and provide food. Removing some limbs and
branches from an open canopy trees has less of an impact upon the tree as other
limbs and branches protect the tree from the sun and provide food, unless of
course the tree is topped. The Trees on the Property had to many limbs removed
and/or were topped which caused their decline and sunscald. This stress of over
pruning is evidenced as it caused an inordinate amount of epicormic sprouting
which diminished the Trees growth of the Trees tops and limbs.
Another pruning policy states, "Sometimes it's necessary to remove a tree thot has become a
hazard to the public or the enerqt qtstem. If a tree or Trees are classified as hazardous, Idaho
Power will remove the tree and discuss replacement options with the property owner. Customers
mav plant a new tree in the same spot orly if theJt select a low-srowins. or Class I tree. Class I
Trees grow to a maximum height of 25 feet."
The policy is arbitrary and capricious as the wording "
is not defined. How is "hazard" or "hazard to the public" ot "ltezard to the energ/ system."
defined? What is the policy and process to determine a tree is hazardous? Tim, indicated that the
Trees, being over 40-feet in height were a hazard and his justification for topping them. Tim,
according to Idaho Power policies is supposed to be a "qualified line-clearing contractor and a
certified arborist or person who has completed an advance course in arboricultural training."
Do these qualifications qualify him to arbitrarily classifu trees as hazardous?
ln conclusion of this section, the Complainant maintains the Respondent's tree trimming policies
are arbitrary and capricious with no consideration for private property rights. The Complainant
has evidenced numerous facts and statements made by the Respondent's staff that support these
conclusions. Photographic evidence has also been introduced that also support these conclusions.
The fact that seven (7) Trees were topped and over pruned on the Property also evidence those
conclusions. The evidence contained herein, demonstates the Respondent's failure to develop
ethical standards and policies in addition to provide proper training. They failed to comply with,
enforce and monitor their own policies and 3rd party contractors thereby jeopardizing the
Complainants property and property rights. The Respondent's policies are misleading and
28 lPage
provide a false sense of security by implying the Respondent crews are Idaho Power employees
and that the Respondent's employees perform the tree line maintenance work. The Respondent's
employees are perceived by their customers to be better trained, held to higher standards and
provide responsible liability assurances while 3rd party contractors do not.
4. Due Process - Takings
"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"
"Sometimes it's necessary to remove a tree that has become a hazard to the public or the
energl 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 f they select a low-growing, or Class I tree. Class I Trees
grow to a maximum height of 25feet."
The Complainant has previously discussed the word "hazard" "hazardous" and "determined to
be a hazard" in this Complaint. Now the Complainant would like to address specifically their
policy wording, "voucher to replace the tree" and "Replacement Options" and their policy,
"Customers may plant a new tree in the same spot only f they select a low-growing, or Class I
tree."
Trees were severely damaged and killed by the Respondent on the Property as evidenced in this
Complaint. The evidence and statements of Tim and the Respondent's staff evidenced herein
indicate Trees on the Property were topped as they were deemed as being a "hazard to the public
or the energl system" and therefore classified hazardous by the 3rd party contractor and
reaffirmed by the Respondent's manager Van Patten. The Respondent claimed no culpability
regarding the damaged and dead Trees, just that they were classified has hazardous. Van Patten
also stated, "the topping of the Trees werefor the benefit of all power users". This wording
"hazardous" and 'for the benefit of all power users" sounds like condemnation of the Trees by
a quasi-public corporation. When making these comments to the Complainant, Van Patten
offered a $50.00 voucher in restitution for the condemned Trees while claiming no capability on
the part of the Respondent.
The amount offered and the Respondent's condemnation of the Trees is arbitrary and capricious.
There are several court cases concerning this exact issue, some involving trees that were
commended without just compensation. What are the Respondent's policies, rational and
methods used to determine condemnation, hazardous and tree values? Their policy states $50.00
per trees, regardless of type, condition and size. How was this amount determined and what
valuation standards were used or considered? The value of the Trees damaged and killed by the
Respondent on the Property have been calculated at $8634.38. The valuation process used by the
Complainant is evidenced in the Procedures Used By Complainant Section, Tree Valuation
Procedure, Methods and Formula Used and Exhibits I lA through 11G, Appraised Tree Value.
29 lPage
Not only are their valuation policy arbitrary and capricious, their "Replacement Options" policy
is in violation of the Complainants property and Constirutional rights. It that their policy states,
"Customers may plant a new tree in the same spot only if they select a low-growing, or Class I
tree." Not only have they condemned the Tree on the Property, they are placing conditions on
receiving what they consider just compensation. Secondly, a voucher is not compensation but an
attempt to circumvent their responsibility and proper compensation. The Respondent's $50.00
voucher also comes with conditions. Those being the Complainant can only replant or use the
voucher for "a low-growing, or Class I tree." Therefore, if the Complainant doesn't comply with
this policy demand, they will not receive any compensation. Compensation is not a voucher but
cash and with no conditions attached. What authority does the Respondent have to regulate any
compensation or the type of trees that can be planted on private property? None. There are no
State Statutes or Ada County ordinances that limit a property owner as to where and what type(s)
of trees they can plant on their property.
The Respondent's policies and actions are a clear example of a "Takings," condemnation without
just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection
under the law. Trees are property and have value, they are also a commodity in the United States.
The Ada County Assessor's office consider landscaping (which includes trees) in determining
property values. The Respondent's replacement fee schedule of $50.00 per tree is unreasonable,
unjustifiable and amounts to a takings without due process or just and fair compensation. Tree
value standards and methodologies have been established by the courts. These methods are based
on standardized methods and procedures. What are the Respondent's evaluation methods and
standards? As stated by Van Patten their policy is $50.00 and that, "Paying for the true value of a
tree would be too costly for Idaho Power and its rate payers." What Federal or State Statutes
exempt the Respondent from fair and just compensation for condemnation or destruction of
private property? Their polices violate the l4th Amendment of the US Constitution, and the
Constitution of The State of Idaho, Article I - Declaration of Rights, Sections 1. Inalienable
Rights of Man, Section 3. State lnseparable Part of Union and Section 14. Right Of Eminent
Domain.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone, by virtue of public
position under a state government, to deprive another of property, life, or liberty, without
due process of law, or deny or take away the equal protection of the laws. All state
legislation, and state action of any kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws is
prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states
from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection.
30 lPage
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
ARTICLE I _ DECI,,ARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION l.INALIENABLE NGHTS OF MAN. All men are by naturefree and equal,
and have certain inalienable righ*, among which are enjoying and defending life and
liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing
safety.
SECTION 3. STATE INSEPARABLE PART OF UNION. The state of ldaho is an
inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the
supreme law of the land.
SECTION 14. RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The necessary use of landsfor the
construction ofreservoirs or storage basins,for the purpose ofirrigation, orfor rights of
wayfor the construction of canals, ditches, flumes or pipes, to convey water to the place
ofusefor any useful, beneficial or necessary purpose, orfor drainage; orfor the
drainage of mines, or the working thereof, by means of , railroads, tramways, cuts,
tunnels, shafts, hoisting works, dumps, or other necessary means to their complete
development, or any other use necessary to the complete development of the material
resources of the state, or the preservation of the health of its inhabitants, is hereby
declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state. Private
property may be takenfor public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained
in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefore.
ln conclusion of this section, the Complainant had no protection under the law, as stated by the
Respondent's policies and Van Patten. Due process only applies to the Respondent if it serves
their needs and bottom line, as clearly evidenced by Van Patten's comments. In the Respondent's
words, through their manager Van Patten, "You have no property rights . . . and that, "Paying for
the true value of a tree would be too costly for Idaho Power and its rate payers." There are
exemptions in the Federal or State constitution indicating that just compensation is determinate
upon the Respondent's profitability and bottom line. Lastly, it has been evidenced herein that the
Respondent has no tree valuation process, only an arbitary amount of $50.00. The policies
reviewed in this section are arbitrary and capricious and Trees were condernned without fair and
just compensation in violation of Constitutional Rights.
31 lPage
5. Notice
"The area supervisors, Idaho Power utility arborists and staff notifying customers in
advance about the line clearing project are all certiJied arborists."
"We leave door hangers on each customer's door before crews arrive for routine
maintenance work scheduledfor the area. We are unable to provide prior nolification in
emergency situations."
"Idaho Power is obligated to keep lines clear to provide power to the community and our
customers. We can, as a last resort, pursue legal means."
The Respondent's noticing policies are conflicting, arbitrary and capricious. One policy states
"The area supervisors, Idaho Power utility arborists and staffnottfiing customers.. . " This
sounds like a crew of at least three (3) staff members: The area supervisor, their utility arborist
and staff (other unidentified staff) provide notice. While another policy states, "We leave door
hangers . . ."
The Respondent failed to notice the Complainant of their lncident I and lncident2 tree trimming
activities. No notice of any manner or tlpe was given. What is their actual notice policies and
procedures? It has been evidenced herein that a 3rd party contractor crew member indicated it
was his responsibility to notice and this was affirmed by Tyler's comments. Van Patten indicated
that Tyler was the area supervisor. If this is correct, why didn't Tyler, the Idaho Power utility
arborist, and staffnotifu the Complainant in advance of the line clearing and tree trimming
activities as one policy states. The first time the Complainant met Tyler was on Apil28,202O
when he came to the house for a meeting. Their notice policies are arbitrary and capricious and
the Respondent's management staff don't know what the noticing policies are.
The policy, " . . . arborists and staffnotifying customers in advance about the line clearing
project. . ." or "before crews arrive." How is "in advance" afld/or "before crews arrive."
defined. l-day, l-week or perhaps 2-weeks in advance. What does "before crews arrive" mean,
the day of arrival as indicated by the 3rd party contractors "crew notice person" when he came to
the door to talk to the Complainant about the damaged pipe, or l-day before the crew arrives or
perhaps l-week or 2-weeks before. These policies are conflicting, arbitrary and capricious.
Secondly, they have no policy or method to prove notice was given. Any and all work on private
property, including work in an easement located on private property by a government agency or
quasi-government agency, or quasi-public corporation must provide notice. The property owner
has the right to refuse access to their property and any easements therein. Idaho Power knows
this otherwise they would not have a policy stating, u. . . We can, as a last resort, pursue legal
means." This policy refers to a property owner denying access for line clearing when noticed.
The Complainant, not being noticed, was not afforded that right of due process nor the ability to
deny access. It is evidenced herein that the Respondent's ernployees and their 3rd party
contractor were confused about the noticing policies. Van Patten simply called the Complainant
a liar, and stated "...you were noticed, I have proof." The Complainant asked to see this proof but
32 lPage
none has been provided. This was likely a bulling tactic used to intimidate the Complainant and
no proof is available. The Complainant has provided evidence herein that no notice was made.
ln conclusion of this section, it has been evidenced that the due process rights of the
Complainant were violated by the Respondent's failure to provide notice. It was also evidenced
herein that their noticing policies are conflicting, arbitrary and capricious. The two policies
mentioned are ambiguous, and have been interpreted differently by Tyler, Van Paffen and the 3rd
party contractor. Their policies have no noticing time frames that are measurable and their
methods of notice differ between the two policies. The Respondent's policies lack content and do
not consider all situations such as how HOA's would be noticed when trees are located on
common lots, or how property owners that rent their property and reside off-site are noticed.
They have no policy in place to monitor or prove noticing has occurred by their staffor by 3rd
party contractors in conformance with their policies and standards.
6. Handling Complaints and Review Procedure
"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".
This is the only policy the Respondent has regarding tree trimming complaints. They have no
other published policies or procedures indicating how a customer can make a complaint
regarding their tree trimming crews or damaged property. The policy they have and the process
used by the Respondent as evidenced in the Summary and Statement of Facts section is arbitrary
and capricious. It is further evidenced herein that their staff have different approaches and
opinions regarding how to handle a complaint and render a determination. The process described
herein by Tyler and Van Patten clearly indicate an arbitrary and capricious approach. The only
similarities between the two is that they both denied culpability and used bullying tactics and
name calling on intimidate the Complainant. It has been evidenced herein that the complaints
lodged by the Complainant directly to the Respondent were handled differently by staff, Tyler
and Van Patten. In regards to Incident 2,their comments and review of the Property differed.
The Complainant received no written or formal evaluation in writing on how they determined the
Respondent had no culpability or reasoning for their final judgment. It was all done on the
Property in a matter of minutes. When the Complainant disagreed with their decision, the
manager Van Patten stated the Complainant had no property rights and the Respondent could do
want they wanted with Trees on the Property. A classic bulling tactic, deny any culpability,
threaten, demean the customer, show superiority by calling the customer a liar. When this doesn't
work offer a small token, such as a $50.00 voucher to appease the customer. When the
Complainant and the Respondent's staffcould not arrive at a mutual agteement the Respondent's
staffdiverged to a take it or leave it approach, referring to the $50.00 voucher. They offered no
other review options such as the PUC's informal complaint process, just their take it or leave
period.
Their policy, "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". is arbitrary and capricious. As evidenced
herein, the Complainant called the Respondent after lncident l, regarding dead trees. They
33 lPage
instructed the Complainant to wait until the Trees died completely and became snags. They
implied, snags were required to claim dead trees, but again offered no other options such as
appeals or the PUC. Cutting a 3O-foot columnar tree down to 8-feet wasn't considered killing the
tree. There were no limbs left, just barren trunks, but that wasn't considered dead by some
arbitrary decision made by the Respondent's staff. What standards are used to determine if the
Respondent was responsible for killing a trees? How is, "If it is clear. .. " defined? The word
"clear" and this policy is arbitrary and capricious and provides no definable conditions or
standards. This policy clearly allows the Respondent to deny culpability in every complaint if it
rtot "clear" to their staffhow the tree died. The word "clear" is an adjective and defined as,
"Easy to perceive, understand, or interpret, clear and precise directions." Where are the
Respondent's clear and precise policies, they have none. If they do, it's not clear to the
Complainant what those policies are.
In conclusion of this section, it is evidenced herein that the Respondent has no policies on how to
handle complaints. It has also been evidenced the Respondent's staff make their policy
determinations and renders decisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner. They provided no
written reasoning or analysis for the Complainant to review, consider or discuses with the PUC.
During Incidents I and2, complaints were handled differently and the methods and decisions
rendered were arbitrary and capricious. However, they all used similar bulling and denial tactics
leading the Complainant to believe there must be some intemal policy as to how complaints are
dealt with. Regarding the Incident 2, the Respondent's staff took less than three (3) minutes to
determine the Respondent's pruning and topping had no impact on the Trees or culpability on
their part. This is definitely a speedy process for the Respondent with formal policy or reasoning
provided to the Complainant other that he was uneducated, not an arborist and a liar.
7. Damaging Personal Property
The Respondent has no policy regarding damaged property resulting from their line clearing and
tree trimming work. Personal properly was damaged on the Property during lncident I and
lncident 2.The trimming crew could not state or produce the Respondent's policy on how to
handle damaged property or who was ultimately responsible. What is the Respondent's policy
regarding private property damaged by the Respondent or a 3rd party contractor? Their policy of
killing a tree was previously discussed, but that policy didn't mention other property that may be
damaged. With no policy for other property beside trees, the Respondent failed once again to
provide reasonable assurances and safeguards for their customers. This leaves their customers to
deal with the Respondent's 3rd party contractor. At a minimum, the trimming crew should of had
a contact name and number for a Respondent's staff person. The Respondent should be the one
handling these situations with the customer. In regards to this Complaint, the Respondent should
have been notified by the crew and should have met with the property owner to resolve the
damage. Instead, the Complainant was pressured by the 3rd party contractor to make a quick
decisions in order to limit further damage to the Property. The Complainant was forced to settle
as pressure was applied by Tim an Asplundh employee. Tim knew the Complainant was
concerned about the hay field being damaged along with the other trees on the Property resulting
34 lPage
from the broken irrigation pipe. Realizing this and other factors evidenced herein the
Complainant settled quickly out of despair. Why should any Idaho Power customer be put into
this situation. The Respondent should have a policy to deal with these types of issue and they
should be the ones who deal with their contractors, not their customers.
In conclusion of this section, it has been evidenced herein that the Respondent has no policy to
deal with damaged personal property. Their 3rd party contactors use bullying tactics and threats
of prolonged settlements in order to obtain a speedy resolve to benefit the 3rd party contractor.
This quasi-public corporation failed again to develop ethical standards and to provide reasonable
protection for their customers when private property is damaged by the Respondent or a 3rd
party contractor.
8. Contractor Training, Training Verification, Certification and Identilication
"Idaho Power hires quali/ied line-clearing contractors to keep our power lines clear"
"Each crew has at least one certiJied arborist or person who has completed an advance
course in arboricultural training. "
"We do not "round" Trees over because it's not goodfor the health of the Trees. We
follow the ANSI A300 tree pruning standard and use a method of pruning called
directional pruning. This method is endorsed by many in the tree-care industry as
being the best technique for the health of the tree."
"Each tree is dffirent and must be considered individually. Trees with trunks close to the
power lines require much heavier praning than Trees locatedfortherfrom the line."
"Some techniques that are appropriate on hardwood Trees cannot be used on some
sofnuood species. When pruning, our experts make every attempt to provide sfficient
clearance for the tree to remain safe until the next routine maintenance (roughly every
three years)."
"Directional pruning removes each limb where it joins another limb or at the trunk. This
procedure is dffirent from "rounding" Trees over, where limbs are cut at random
points, normally leaving unhealthy "stub" cuts."
"Directional pruning involves cutting a limb back to another limb sofuture growth is
directed awayfrom power lines. l{ith the directional technique, tree growth causes
minimal impact to public safety and electric service."
The Respondent's policies state that they hire, '1 . . qualified line-clearing contractors. . . 't
while another states, 'Each crew has at least one certified arborist or person who has completed
an advance course in arboricultural training. " these policies are ambiguous, arbitrary and
capricious. Are the crews trained or just qualified. How is "qualified" defined and how are these
35 lPage
line-clearing contractors qualified? The other policy provides more ambiguous language as their
policies do not differentiate between crew or contractor. When their policies mention crews are
they talking about the Respondent's employee crews or 3rd party contractor crews?
It has been evidenced herein their 3rd party contractor did not have , " . . . at least one certified
arborist.. . " or have ". . .completed an advance course in arboricultural.. . " So why is the
Respondent sending untrained 3rd party contractors into the community to trim trees that have no
training or knowledge of proper pruning methods or the Respondent's policies? Van Patten
could not confirm nor deny the Asplundh crews were trained and the Respondent doesn't verify
training of crew members. This evidence clearly demonstrates the Respondent's lack of respect
for private property rights and their customers. When considering the qualifications of a 3rd
party contractor, how does the Respondent's evaluate the contractors qualifications? Their
policies state they only hire "qualified contractors", what are those qualifications? Are the
qualifications based on the bid amount, and the lowest bid wins and therefore qualifies the
conffactor? Does the Respondent take the contractors word that their staffis qualified? This is
what Van Patten implied and what about the "advanced course in arboricalture."
Let's look at this in a different angle. If there is no certified arborist on the crew does the
Respondent provide the ". . .advance course in arboricultural training?" If they do, what is the
training and how does the Respondent ensure all the crews in the field are qualified and trained?
Does the Respondent perform audits to ensure all crews are trained? How are new hires trained
and audited? Are the fiained crew given certificates of completion indicating they passed the ". . ,
advance course in arboricultural training? " Tim had no certification to show the Complainant.
Before being certified in their ". . .advance course in arboricultural.. . " are the trainees required
to pass a written test, and if so, what in the minimum passing score? If they are not tested, how
can Idaho Power ensure their qualifications and training? These are all reasonable questions a
property owner would ask before hiring a crew to trim their valuable trees, so what is the
Respondent doing to protect and safeguard their customers trees and property?
Their policies also mention several pruning methods and statements that they do not round trees.
This has been discussed in a previous section, but the Complainant would like to review a few
additional points related to training. From reading the Respondents' their policies, they state they
conform to ANSI ,4.300 standards. The Complainant then assumes their crews are trained on
these standards. An assumption is all it is, as their policies do not state what the crews are trained
on, just that they have been trained in an ". . .advance course in arboricultural.. . ". How is
"advanced" defined when compared to a standard course? Is this more smoke and mirrors by the
Respondent to provide assurances to their customers that their tees will be properly pruned?
If the crews are trained and the contractors are qualified why are their crews rounding trees
(toping trees) in noncompliance with the Respondent's polices and ANSI ,4.300 standards. Their
policy states, "We do not "round" Trees over becquse it's not goodfor the health of the Trees.
Wefollow the ANSI A300 tree pruning standard and use a method of pruning called directional
35lPage
pruning. This method is endorsed by many in the tree-care industry as being the best technique
for the health of the tree."
It has been evidenced herein, that training was not provided to at least one (1) line clearing crew
and that crew doesn't appear to be qualified either as evidenced by that topping of the Trees on
the Property and Tim's statements. It has also been evidenced herein, that the Respondent is not
following ANSI 4'300 standards as claimed in their policy statements. The ANSI A300 standards
evidenced below applies to pruning and trimming operations related to aboveground utility lines.
ln those standards, they have an Advisory Notice that states, " Certain pruning practices are not
acceptable and can injure Trees: Topping: The reduction of a tree's size using heading cuts that
shorten limbs or branches back to a predetermined crown limit. Lion's Tailing: The removal of
an excessive number ofinner, lateral branches from parent branches."
It has been evidenced that both of these practices were used during Incident I and Incident 2.
Tyler, the supervisor and Van Patten, the proclaimed manager and arborist for the tee trimming
departrnent indicated they had no knowledge of the topping policies or the standards described
above. If they don't know their own policies or standards how can they perform their duties and
make field decision regarding culpability? Both Tyler and Van Paffen stated topping trees are a
standard practice used in arboricultural and by the Respondent. It has been evidence herein that
this is not a standard practice in arboriculture nor allowed by the Respondent's policies. The
Complainant's Trees were topped. The damage has been done and the Complainant has to live
with the Respondent's lack of training and poor management. Nothing can bring the Trees back,
nor can they be replaced with Trees of similar size. The visual impact, loss of property and
property value coupled with the sadness of losing these beautiful Trees cannot be put into
monetary terms. The saddest part is that the Respondent really doesn't care as evidenced herein
by their staffs comments. There is no burden or consequences upon the Respondent or their
staff. Any monitory damages awarded will be paid by the ratepayers. The Respondent will
simply pass the costs down the line to rate payers and continue to do what they want. Their
customers, in their mind, and as stated by Van Patten, "You have no rights and you should be
grateful Idaho Power provide you with electrical power." It appears they do have all the Power!
ANSI A3OO
This part of the Aj00 standards applies to pruning and trimming operations
Part I Pruning addresses:
. Pruning objectives
o Pruning systen$
. Pruningspecifications
t Pruning cuts
o Pruningpractices
. Palms and similar plants
. Pruning definitions
3TlPage
A300 Pruning standards recognize, but are not limited to, thefollowing pruning
objectives:
. Manage risk
c Manage heqlth
. Develop structure, such qs to: Improve branch and trunk architecture Promote or
subordinate certain leaders, stems, or branches; Promote desirable branch
spacing; Promote or discourage growth in a particular direction (directional
pruning); Minimizefuture interference with traffic,lines of sight, or infrastructure,
or other plants; Restore plants following damage; and/or, Rejuvenate shrubs.
. Provide clearance, such as to: Ensure safe and reliable utility services; Minimize
current interference with trffic, lines of sight, infrastructure, or other plants; Raise
crown(s) for movement of trffic or light penetration; Ensure lines-of-sight or desired
views; Provide access to sites, buildings, or other structures; and/or, Comply with
regulations.
c Manage size or shape
. Improve aesthetics
o Mqnage production offruit, Jlowers, or other products
t Manage wildlife habilat
Advisorv Notice:
Certain pruning practices are not acceptable and can injure Trees:
Topping: The reduction of a tree's size using heading cuts that shorten limbs or
branches back to a predetermined crown limit.
Lion's Tailing: The removal of an excessive number of inner, lateral branches from
parent branches.
Rooster-Tailing: The over-thinning of palms, usually by removing too many lower,
live fronds.
The Respondent has additional policies one would assume are incorporated into their "crew"
training. "Each tree is dffirent and must be considered individually. Trees with trunl<s close to
the power lines require much heavier pruning than Trees locatedfartherfrom the line." " Some
techniques that are appropriate on hardwood Trees cannot be used on some softwood species.
When pruning, our experts make every attempt to provide sfficient clearancefor the tree to
remain safe until the next routine maintenance (roughly every three years). These policies are
arbitrary and capricious as well. Their wording "Trees with trunla close to the power lines. . ."
is ambiguous and leads to an arbitrary and capricious judgment call upon the pruner as the word
"close" is not defined. The next policy mentions "sfficient clearance." It fall is the same
category as the previous statement as the word "sfficient" is ambiguous and leads to an
arbitrary and capricious judgment upon the pruner. This has been evidenced in Exhibit 8,
33lPage
a
a
a
Distance From Power lines and Exhibit 9, Images of Pruned Trees. Van Patten stated, " trees
with tnrnks close to the power lines require much heavier pruning than trees located farther from
the line." The Complainant's Trees were topped and the trunks of these Trees areZ2-feetfrom
the nearest power line. While others located on Ten Mile Road, south of the Property were
trimmed and not topped that are within Z-feet of a power line.
It has been evidenced herein, that the lncident 2 trimming crew had no guidelines,
memorandums, notes, guidance or expert input of any manner from the Respondent on how the
Trees on the Property were to be pruned. This has been evidenced by the Complainant, and
reaffirmed by the crew as he asked for these documents and they had none to offer. So who was
the expert mentioned in their policy making the decisions regarding the pruning of the Trees?
Tim stated he was not an arborist. How is this arbitrary and capricious policy interpreted, ". . .olr
experts make every attempt to provide sfficient clearance.. . ", how is "sfficienr" defined? Who
are the "experts" and how is "sfficient clearance" defined? Where are the dimensional
standards? Without clear dimensional guidelines and standards for specific tree types and
species this policy is arbitrary and capricious.
In conclusion of this section, it has been evidenced the Respondent's policies sited are arbitrary
and capricious with no merit. They are ambiguous and do not differentiate between crew or
contractor and the associated training for each. There is no policy or defied training
specifications, certification or testing requirements. The policies do not define what constitutes a
qualified contractor. ln fact, their policies seem to be written more to provide assurances to their
customers rather than guidelines for their crews, staffand contractors. The Respondent's policies
reference several pruning methods and standards and these standards are not being used by the
Respondent or 3rd party contractors. Other policies reference terms such as "close to the power
lines" and "sfficient clearance". These terms are ambiguous and lead to arbitrary and
capricious judgments by the Respondent's staffand 3rd party contractors. It has been evidenced
herein, that training was not provided for one (1) crew. Furthermore, how can crews be trained or
contractors qualified with arbitrary and capricious policies? The burden of the Respondent's
incompetence has been placed on the property owners, and more specifically this Complainant
with no burden or consequences placed upon the Respondent or their staff.
9. Tree Removal Policy
"Sometimes it's necessary to remove a tree that has become a hazard to the public or the
energ/ system. If a tree or Trees are classiJied 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 f they select a low-growing, or Class I tree. Class I Trees grow
to a maximum height of 25 feet."
This policy has been previously discussed to some extent, but the Complainant wants to address
another point directly related to this policy. [f the Trees on the Property were considered"a
39 lPage
hazard to the public or the energl system." as evidenced herein, then why didn't the Respondent
"remove the trees and discuses replacement options" with the Complainant instead of denying
any culpability? The arbitrary and capricious nature of this policy has been discussed in section
4. Due Process - Takings. Statements were made suggesting the Trees are taller than the power
line and therefore ahazard as evidenced herein. One possibility why they didn't follow this
policy is that they top the Trees to save the Respondent money. When they die they can claim no
culpability, like they have made in this Complaint. Therefore the removal and replacement of the
dead trees would be at the burden of the property owner not the Respondent. The Respondent's
knows the Formal Complaint process is complicated and arduous so they gamble that a formal
complaint won't be filed and many won't ever file an informal complaint.. This fact is evidenced
by the PUC records.362 complaint calls were made to the PUC regarding the Respondent. Of
those calls or:Jry 241resulted in a PCU complaint process. This means that33% of the complaint
calls regarding the Respondent to the PUC did not proceed with a complaint. It is unknown how
many complaints were made directly to the Respondent as the PUC doesn't track them. tn 2018
and 2019, 28% and 40% respectively of the complaint calls regarding the Respondent to the
PUC did not proceed with a complaint. That's an average of 34o/o annually. With these
percentages why would the Respondent ever claim culpability for any issue or follow policies
when they win34%o of the time. They have no competition and there are no other options for
their customers but to take it or leave it as so eloquently stated by Van Patten.
ln conclusion of this section, the Respondent failed to comply with their policy by removing the
hazardous Trees, Trees they designated hazardous. Perhaps the noncompliance with this
policy was not ignorance, but an effort to save the Respondent money by circumventing
and manipulating policies to their benefit. The Respondent's policies and practices take
advantage of their customers. They know many of their customers won't file a complaint
and others don't know about the PUC complaint process let alone have the background or
time to file a formal complaint. The PUC's formal complaint process places the burden
upon the customer, when the process should be place the burden on the Respondent.
When a direct complaint is made to the Respondent or an informal complaint is made to
the PUC, the Respondent should be responding in writing what their policies are and how
they have complied with them. It should not be the Complainants responsibility. The
Respondent has to take some responsibility for their actions. 362-complaints were made
to the PUC regarding Idaho Power in2017.272-complunts were made in 2018 and 210-
complaints were made in20l9.ln total, 844-complaints have been made to the PUC
regarding the Respondent in the last 3 years. How many complaints were made directly
to the Respondent? Who pays for these complaints? The rate payers, their customers.
The PUC retains three (3) full time employees to handle complaints. The rate payers pay
for these employees. The Complainant maintains the Respondent doesn't care about their
customers as they do not have comprehensive policies. Additionally, the manner in which
they bulling their customers clearly demonstrates they only care about their bottom line.
If they did care about their customers they wouldn't have so many complaints. The
Respondent knows that34%o are not followed through by the customer so they save
money by default. The Respondent's poor management and customer service is rewarded
by the current PUC complaint process. Formal complaints cost more to process, than
informal complaints. You have to consider the Commissioners salaries and the AAG's
review costs that amount to thousands of dollars. Who pay these costs, the tax payer, not
40 lPage
the Respondent another win for them. The Respondent's abuse and unethical practices
need to stop. The Respondent needs to respond to each and every complaint in writing as
mentioned above. If they are at fault, the Respondent should state what action(s) they will
take and the specific time frame required to correct or draft new policy(s) to correct the
oversight. This process would lead to less complaints and more efficiencies thereby
reducing user rates. If the response is questionable, then the customer would be able to
seek formal compliant review based on a written response from the Respondent. If the
complaints are reviewed properly by the Respondent the likelihood of formal complaint
being filed with the PUC should be very low thus saving tax dollars and leaving the
Commission to pursue other matters.
l0.Inspection of work performed by contractors or Idaho Power employee
"Each crew has at least one certified arborist or person who has completed an
advance course in arboricultural training."
" Tariff 101, Section 7. Rights of Way. The Customer shall, without cost to the
Company, grant the Company a right of wayfor 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 vegetatton to the
extent necessdry to avoid interference with the Company' Company's lines and to
protect public s afety. "
The PUC has not authorized the Respondent to use contractors for line maintenance work related
to tree trimming services only "Company" personal. The only approved Tariffthat addresses tree
trimming is, Tariff 101, Section 7. Rights of Way. This section clearly states, ". . . the
Comoanv's emolovees at all reasonable hours. The Customer shall also oermit the Comoanv
to trim Trees and other veeetation. . .'t Nowhere in this section is the word contractors used.
The word Company is capitalized and defined as meaning Idaho Power as the Company. The
Respondent uses contractors and has no policies that provide assurances to their customers that
their work is in compliance with the Respondent policies and standards. Their policies imply line
maintenance tree trimming work is performed by the Respondent's employees as evidenced
herein. The Complainant mentioned to Mr. Thaden that the Respondent uses 3rd party
contractors to perform line malignance tree timming work and he was not aware of this fact.
The Respondent's customers should have some assurances that work being contracted out is
managed and supervised by the Respondent's staffto ensure compliance with their policies. If a
3rd party contractors work doesn't need to be checked then why does the Ada County and Idaho
State have inspectors? To inspect the work of licensed and nained contractors for compliance
with State standards. How is the Respondent any different, they are a quasi-public corporation.
At a minimum the Respondent should perform random inspections and these inspections should
41 lPage
be documented. The burden of compliance should not rest upon the property owner to ensure
compliance as they don't develop the standards.
ln conclusion of this section, it has been evidenced herein that the Respondent is a quasi-public
corporation with certain duties and responsibilities. Their complicity and lack of supervision in
regards to their contractors has been evidenced herein. It is the Respondent's responsibility and
duty to ensure their contractors are performing within stated policies and guidelines. More
importantly, the Complainant has found no approval from the PUC authoizng Idaho Power to
use contractors for line maintenance work related to tree trimming services. The only approved
Tariffthat addresses tree himming is, Tariff 101, Section 7. Rights of Way. This section clearly
states, " ComDanv's emDlovee" arrd "
vegetation". Nowhere in this section is the word conffactor used. The word Company is
capitalized and defined as Idaho Power the "Company". Company is not defined as Idaho Power
and/or its contractors but singularly as Idaho Power, the Company.
11. Debris Policy and ADA Requirements
"Wood larger than four inches in diameter will be cut into manageable sizes for the
property owner and left behind. Small pieces of wood and branches are chipped at the
job site and hauled away or left behind at the owner's request.".
This policy is arbitrary and capricious. How is the term ". . .manageable sizes.. . " defined. Tyler
stated, the debris left were cut to manageable sizes while Van Patten stated some of the debris
was not cut to manageable sizes. Van Paffen offered to have the crew come back and cut them
down. Since the term "manageable sizes" are not dimensionally defined it leads to arbitrary and
capacious decisions by the Respondent's staff, and their 3rd party contractors as evidenced by
their comments. Their comments clearly evidence the arbitrary and captious wording as they Tin,
Tyler and Van Patten each had different definitions of what constitutes "manageable sizes."
This policy also states, "Small pieces ofwood and branches are chipped at the job site and
hauled away.. . " this policy is also arbitrary and capacious as no dimensional standard for
"Small" are def,rned. How is small defined, less than 4-inches? A lot of small debris, smaller that
4" was left on the Property. The Complainant was told the debris cleanup was the property
owners responsibility. Exhibit 10, Images of Debris Left Behind from lncident 1 and Incident 2
evidence all sizes of branches were left behind, some as small a l/4-inch in diameter. The policy
states branches larger than 4-inches will be left behind, btt "Small" branches will be hauled
away. Why were branches smaller that 4-inches left behind?
Lastly, the Respondent's policy of leaving debris behind creates an undue burden and hardship
for the property owner. In regards to this Complaint, both property owners are disabled. The
Complainant mentioned this to Tim, Tyler and Van Patten when asking for and making a
reasonable accommodations request, which was to remove the debris. All denied the
Complainant's reasonable accommodations request. The Respondent's policies do not take into
42 lPage
account Reasonable Accommodations Requests, ADA requirernents or Undue Hardship Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Respondent is a quasi-government corporation.
Therefore, they are in violation of ADA guidelines by not developing policies and procedures
that incorporate ADA compliance. By denying the Complainants "Reasonable Accommodations
Request" without proper consideration is a violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The ADA does not require provisions for auxiliary aid that would result in an
undue burden or in a fundamental alteration in the nature of their tree trimming activities.
However, they are not relieved from the duty to furnish an alternative auxiliary aid, if available.
No such aid was offered and no policy exists addressing the availability or consideration of an
alternative auxiliary aid.
In conclusion of this section, it has been evidenced herein that this policy is arbitrary and
capacious and places an undue burden and hardship upon the property owner. The Complainant
also reviewed other locations on Ten Mile Road south of the Property and observed Asplundh
tree trimming crews during the same time period as Incident 2. No noticeable debris was left
behind by those crews. Lastly, It has also been evidenced herein that the Respondent violated the
Complainant's ADA rights and that they are noncompliant with ADA Statutes. The Respondent's
have no ADA policies, specifically those regarding a Reasonable Accommodations Request and
Alternative Auxiliary Aid.
EXHIBIT 10, IMAGES OF DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND FROM INCIDENT I AND 2
IMAGES OF DEBRIS LEFT BEHINI' FROM INCIDENT T AND 2
43 lPage
Compensation - Remedy
Below outlines the compensation the Complainant is requesting from the PUC by the
Respondent:
The Respondent shall remove seven (7) Trees from the Property, Trees identified as
Trees 1,2,3,4,5,6 and7. Removal shall include all tree material including stumps. When
completed, the removal area grounds shall look natural in nature, when compared to the
immediate sunounding grounds adjacent to the Tree removal area.
2. The Respondent shall remove all debris left behind from Incident I and Incident 2.
3. The Respondent shall pay compensation for the seven (7) Trees they maliciously topped
while trespassing. Whereby killing Trees and damaging private property in the sum of
$8,624.38. (The valuation amounts shown are not an arbitrary compensation amounts, but calculated
using approved mythology, the same or similar methodology used by many regulatory agencies and courts.
See section Procedures Used By Complainant, Tree Valuation Procedure, Methods and Formula Used.)
4. The Respondent shall replace and provide the Complainant with an 8-inch by 30-foot
white polyurethane transfer irrigation pipe that was damaged and $50.00 for installation
costs.
5. The Respondent shall reimburse the Complainant $100. The amount paid to have the
damaged transfer irrigation pipe removed, hauled offand a temporary gated irrigation
pipe installed.
6. The PUC shall, require a letter of apology from the Respondent, specifically Lisa A.
Grow, President and Chief Executive Officer of IDACORP, Inc. The letter shall be
addressed to Mark and Raschel Pecchenino. The letter shall include language apologizing
for the Respondent's poor handling of this matter. Acknowledging the time spent noticing
them of their poorly written policies, staffbulling, and the stress and hardship the
Respondent has caused the Complainant and his family. It shall also acknowledge
cultural change is required within the organization and its policies. Including the bulling,
vicious nature and unprofessional manner documented herein by the Respondent's staff,
namely Tyler H. and Van Patten. Their actions were inexcusable and should not be
tolerated or allowed by the Respondent.
7. The PUC shall require the Respondent to correct the arbitrary and capricious wording as
documented herein and their polices, including Tariff l0l, Section 7. These changes shall
be reviewed by the PUC and incorporated into a Tariff to ensure the new tree trimming
policies are complete, appropriate and measurable. Including but not limited to noticing
and a tree valuation policy. These new policy and Tariffshall be submitted to the PUC
within 6 months of the PUC's completed action of this Complaint.
44 lPage
Procedures Used By Complainant
Procedure Used in Timing Idaho Power Staff Site Review
The Complainant has always strived to create accurate and detailed record of events in his work
and this Complaint is no exception to that rule. Such as the stopwatch timing of Tyler and Van
Patten. The mythology and procedure used for both timings are as follows: The time for Tyler
and Van Patten each commenced upon them fully exiting their vehicle and completing one (1)
step. The timing stopped upon them returning to their vehicle and touching their door handle to
re-enter their vehicle. Both parked their vehicles within l0 to 15 feet of Tree number 1 as
described herein.
The Commission may be curious as to why the Complainant timed Idaho Power staff. There are
three (3) reasons. The first is how the Boise office handled Complaint l, from the person
answering the phone call to their stated policy. Also, the manner in which the woman in the
Boise Tree Department answered the phone and handled the conservation regarding Complaint
2, to the subsequent return phone call from Tyler. The person answering the phone in Complaint
l, and the woman answering the phone in Complaint 2, in addition to the return call from Tyler
appeared to be burdened and bother them. In that the Complainant's phone calls were trivial and
a waste of their time. Tyler indicated that he didn't really need to see the Trees as topping was a
standard practice, and the mess left behind was my responsibilif. He also stated that having to
come by to review the Trees was, ". . . out of my way. . ." The Compliant insisting upon a site
meeting and his response " . . . I will stop by if I can do it on my way to work tomorrow
morning. . ."
Secondly, based on the cumulative attitudes described above, the Complainant believed that a
PUC complaint of some form would likelybe the end result. This is something the Complainant
was trying to avoid due to the time and effort required for such a stenuous undertaking and why
the Complainant tried to resolve the issues with the Respondent directly.
Lastly, through the Complainants years of experience in writing legal petitions, findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and numerous appeals, the Complainant understands the importance of an
accurate and precise record and the due diligence upon his part. The Complainant has a
reputation of being accurate, precise and detailed oriented. The Complainant is methodical in his
work and he documents everything including conservations as soon as possible after having them
in order to create an accurate record of events and facts. This is the Complainant's everyday
practice whenever calling a service provider with a question or concern. Unfortunately the notes
form lncident l, could not be located from storage and a general time frame was used. This is an
example of a customer in that 43Yo grotq that didn't follow-up with a PUC complaint in the
2017-2018 time frame. However, the PUC was not called so the actual percentage is unknown as
the PUC doesn't ffack complaints made directly to the Respondent.
45 lPage
Tree Valuation Procedure, Methods and Formula Used
The Complainant has provided the myhology and standards used to determine the values Trees I
through 7.The process used by the Complainant is a widely used and accepted method. The
Complainant has used these standard when developing ordinances and guidelines on the subject.
The Complainant's valuations are not arbitrary but rationale, standardized and outlined herein
this document. In the United States, municipalities and courts utilize recognized methods for fee
appraisals and values. These standardized and accepted method are also used worldwide. The
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), is a professional nonprofit registered in the State of
Illinois as a 50lc (5) nonprofit. This organization provides the basis for most standards used in
the United States. The ISA is recognized as a professional organization. One of the most
common and easiest method used by municipalities and courts is the Multiplicative or Parameffic
Methods, also known as the Tedesco Method. (rMethods of Tree Appraisal: A Review of Their
Features and Application Possibilities, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2012.38(4): 13G-140,
Authors': M.A. Grande-Ortiz, E. Ayuga-T6llez, and M.L. Contato-Carol.
This method is considered to be simple and fair. These variables are separated qualitatively to
avoid errors ofjudgment. To simpliff the Tedesco Method and better define subjective
categories B,U and D organizations such as Purdue University have developed a tables that
define variable conditions, see Table 1, Condition Rating For Landscape Trees. Table l, provides
defined condition ratings regarding tree structure, health and form along with associated formula
values based on the assigned condition rating.2 There are 6 condition ratings, Excellent, Good,
Fair, Poor, Very Poor and Dead. Using Table 1, Condition Rating For Landscape Trees and the
formula in Table 2, Appraisal Formula and Factors the Tree values were calculated. The
valuation calculations for each Tree can be seen in Exhibits l lA through I lG, Appraised Tree
Value.
CR ratings are defined in Table 1, Condition Rating For Landscape Trees. All ratings are based
on a scale or value of 1.0 to .10 with 1.0 being the highest rating or value and .10 being the
lowest rating or value. The CR values assigned were based on Table l, Condition Rating For
Landscape Trees. The F value is the functional limitations of a tree. This is a depreciation factor
that is associated with the location and site of the tree and any factors that may limit future
growth and health. An .80 rating to was assigned to Trees 2,3 and 4 and .95 rating to Trees l,
5,6,7 based on their proximity to the power line easement. The E value or extemal limitations
value used considered environmental conditions such as water availability, utility vegetation
management, local ordinances, the utility easement or right-of way and the Trees life expectancy.
Lombardy Poplar trees have a 50 plus year life expectancy. The majority of the Trees were
planted in 2004. The Trees planted in 2004 are 16 years old as of 2020. The Trees border the
Complainant's hay field and are flood irrigated every 2 weeks at a minimum, with 3 to 6 inches
of water for 3 days. The E value was based on the following facts; l.) Life expectancy, 2.) No
ordinances prohibiting this class of tree near power lines, 3.) They were planted well outside of a
public utility easement, 4.) The Trees have a 50 year life expectancy, their remaining life
expectancy is 34 years. The formula for life expectancy was calculated as Life Expectancy/l.0 or
.02 point values of reaming life, (34 x .02:.68). Therefore, the E factor for all the Trees
valuations were set at a .68 value.
46 lPage
The per foot valuation of the Trees or UTC value is based on the largest specimen available at
wholesale pricing. The Trees are Lombardy Poplars and were purchased from Washington state.
Several wholesale nurseries were contacted in Idaho and none carried this species. One out of
state nursery had this species in a 5 to 6 foot specimen at a cost of $79.95 or $13.32 per foot,
plus shipping and tax. Another nursery had a 7-foot specimen at $99.95 or 514.27 per foot, plus
shipping and tax. The Complainant, used a conservative UTC Value of $13.00 per foot in the
calculations, where a UTC Value of $14.27 should have been used. A conservative UTC Value
was used to stifle any attempts to claim the values were padded. The difference between the
conservative and actual UTC value used amounts to a net loss of ($843.51) to the Complainant.
Nurseries Contacted
Baxter Wholesale Nursery- None Available
R.D. Nursery - Onty Robusta Poplar Available
Jayker Wholesale Nursery- None Available
Circle D Farm Sales Inc. - None Available
Willow Creek Wholesale Nursery- None Available
Fast Growing Trees - [n stock 5 to 6 foot at79.95 or 13.32 per foot based on 6-feet.
TyTy Wholesale Nursery -In stock 7 foot Lombardy Poplar Tree $99.95 or 14.27 per foot.
47 lP age
Tnclpgnid.[NR-473-W
loblc l. Condlfion Rodngfor Londsapefna
Ihh tablc il a gcnad np6€ot tion t0 esrist in fomula valua lhr ter (onditicr ritingr drsoibcd bdow arompas hcm da tccl hcdth, fum, and aborc- and
b€low.grou$ rEudrnc. [idr f€ton havtrnycomb&ution of the following hcdth or firxtunlinucs, ilrrfr uothcnnol nr.nlbncd.Ihcryc'ion of rynplomr and
iryris u$xtiur.lhc rppoinr$ould roido individualtnc pcicl dran<tedsuoand usc crdnhg cftumrtrncc aa nilonauc rolctodehmin€atrcll(ondltiql.
' Sor..", Tree Appraisal and the Value of Trees, Author Lindsey Purcell RCA, BCMA Urban Forestry Specialist, Purdue
University Department of Forestry & Natural Resources Forestry and Natural Resources, Contributor Jeffrey Ling RCA,
TPAQ Arborwise, https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-473-W.pdf.
ilov. 2019
Coltdltlor
RdrS
Ir.a Structurr
Cantldr, tfrl @tdt onlffiA Uwk
colld/fpq an&*andaortrlrW ord
.',1,ng(,,,,,t
tt.iL.nh
cdtrJderaor*rt 5dlorcr - M*qvrgor,ktw, t(,,ftlre,Wofrry, drdnr,,t tM
rxtarbfi.
fb..Fomr
@tl,lfud,rg,,7,,dttq8r
orldorprodfont\
FonnsleVrloo
Excellent
noot phtc undisturbcd rnd clear ofany
obttructionr.Trunk flarc hrs normal
dcrrclopmcnt. No visit e trunk d.f€{ts or
cavltl6. Brandr ipacing/structure and
atta(hmcnts ara ftee of any dcfects.
Pcrfr<t spa(imrn whh crccllant fom and
vigoi, rbng wirh . well-balanced crorn.
Trunk is sound rnd rolid. No .pp.rcnt pcrt
problemi Nomel to cxcccding ihool lcngth
on new gro$rth. Normal lcaf size and <olor.
Exceptlon.l llfe ?xp€ctancy for lha tpacl6.
ldc.l tra. for th.t 3p.cl.3.
lncludlng shapa tnd
c.nopy sytnm.try, haalth,
lnd dcmity. Outrt.nding
function on the slte o,lmtlon.
r.G.90
Good
Root pLtc app.aE norm.l, with only
mlnor dlmaga. Posslble slgnl of Toot
dylfundlon eround trunk 0.r.. Mlnor trurlk
dltcctr from prcvlous iniuty, wlth good
mlrgng. Good br.nch h.Ut; mlnot dl.b.*
wlth soma 3lgni of pravloB prunhg. Co-
dominant ttam formation mry bc ptlt€rtt
rcqulrlng mlnor corractlon3.
lmpcrfcct canopy dcn3ity in tO96 ot has
ofth. trcc. Lr<k nrturd iymmltry. Lrtj
thrn halrthc normal grgufth r.ta tnd mlnot
d:6dcncy ln lcrf dar€logncnt. Fil p.n
lssues or damage. and conttolbbh f ptrr.nt.
Normal branch and nam dcElopmantwlth
hclhhy gro,yth. Typlol lf. .xpcdancy fot th.
3pad!r.
Ncrdy ldc.l tr.c for th.t
speclcl lndudlng shapc end
Ganop,y syrnmatry, hcahh,
.nd dcnrlty. Functlon5 wdld thr rlt! or lo(atlon..9G.75
Fair
Root plrta re\rarl! prcvious damegc ot
diiturbancc. Oytfuncrlonel roots may be
vislblc around thc maln rtcm. Evid?nca of
trunk damrge or cavltics, with dccay or
defccts prarenl .nd lcas thrn 3(}()6 of brrk
ections mirsing on trunk. Co-dominant
stemr.rc p.a3rnt. Br.nchlng habll .nd
atta(hmcntr indicatc p@t prunlng
or damaga, whlch rcquirat modcrate
cdlections.
Crown d.clln? .nd dicb.ck up to 3095 of
the (anopy. Pod o\crall tyrnmatty. Lcat
slzc rmallcr and color tomcwhat chlotrotlc.
Shoot axtcndons indlcatc rom? stunting
and 3tie3rcd grotrrlng (ondltlon3. Oblrlou3
signJ of pert problems contributc to a l6t€t
condiilon. Some dccay ara.3 found in thc
mlin stcm .nd bran(has. Ealow-.var.ga litc
cxpcctancy for tha Jp€<iet.
A(c.ptruc tra. tot th.t
3pccle3.Ttcc shapc and
symmctry arc ldcquata,
with romc rub3tantial
lsymmatry ln rhape rnd
cenopy fum. May havc
conrldarablc concarnt for itiu* rnd funcllon on thc tita
or lcrtion.
.75-.50
Poo.
Root pLta dlnurbancc and defccts
lndlc.tc m.jo. drmrga, wlth glrdlhg rootr
around thc trunk llarc.Trunk rcverlt morcfl.n 5g16 of beik iectlon mlstlng. 8r.nch
struCturc har Poor anachmcntr, with
tcacral rtructurrlly lmpo^anl branchc3
d.rd or brokln. Canopy.cvcal, 3lgnt of
d.mrgc or prcvious topplng ot llon-talllng,
wlth m..lor cone€tllll tction rcqulrGd.
Lacklng a full oown, wlth mote than 5096
dccllnc and dlcback that.spcclally.fut
hrgcr brenches. Stuntlng obrrious, *,ith
littlc .vidanca of grornh on ,nallar rtcms.
Laaf rlza and <oktr rerrcals orcnll strcss
h th! pbnt. lnsc<l or dl!..sc lnfcstatlon
may bc sclrca!. Extcnshr€ da<ay or hollow
chaiact ristkr, Low llta ar(Pcctanry fot tht
ipadcr.
Poor trcc for thet rpccbs.
Hlghly lrrcgul.r c.nop},
rh.pc and undcdr.bL form
maka it unattrtctlva and
dy*rnction l on tha titaot
locallofi.
.50-30
Vary Poor
Scv.r? damag€ within the toot pl.te and
root collar exhlbits major dafcctt thsl could
lGad to tr.a dcath or tallur.. A malorlty ot
the b.rt or trunl ig affadcd, ?hhai deca)rcd
or mlsilng. Bran(hing Ir rnramely poor
or rararely topped, with r€v€rc diaback
in crnopy. Llttla or no opportunity fol
maligation ofany trea part5.
Morc than 7095 of the canopy is in rarate
dcclinc o; dcad. Canogy density is cxtremcly
low, with chlorotk and nacroll( dlrue
dominrting th. c.nopy.sev.re dc(ay in the
trunk and m.jor br.nder. Root pltt dlmagc
with . majority of roolr d.meged, dit .t d
or misting. V.ry low life exp€ctrn<y fot th"
rpc(icr.
Disagrccablc trcc for
that ip.chr. with hlghly
dlmlnithld functlon .nd
a6theti( .pplrl on the sitc oi
locrtion..30..r0
Ocrd .10 or l.$
48 lPage
TABLE 2, APPRAISAL FORMULA AND FACTORS
Value:Vb x BA x S x E x I x T x R
Vb The value/market price for tree per cm2 of basal area.BA The section of the basal area.
S A variable defining the location.
E The health and aesthetic value.
I An index that reflects the tree's environmental compatibility.
T The ratio between life expectancy and age of the tree.
R The percentage or reduction in value due to the damage to the tree.
(1) Basic Reproduction Cost = CSA x UTC
CSA = The cross-sectional area ofthe subject tree.
I-ftC: The unit tree cost, determined by the Regional Plant Appraisal Committee (RPAC) or local
wholesale cost.
(2) Depreciated Reproduction Cost : CR x F x E x BRC
CR: The condition rating ofthe subject tree.
F: The functional limitations rating of the subject tree.
E: External limitations rating
BRC: Basic reproduction cost
(3) Total Additional Costs = cleanup, installation, maintenance.
Such as costs associated with the removal of the subject tree, the installation of a new tree, along with
post-planting care costs for a determined time.
(4) Total Reproduction Cost: DRC + TAC
DRC = Depreciated Reproduction Cost
TAC: Total Additional Costs
(5) The Final Appraised Value: Final Value
49 lPage
Calculation Sheets For Treers, Exhibits 1 Through 7
EXHIBIT I1A, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. I
Assigned
Values
CSA Area
UTC Value
140.45
$r3.00
tr'inal Basic Reproduction Cost $1,825.E0
Assigned
Values
CR Value
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
0.8
0.8
0.68
$1,825.80
Final Depreciated Reproduction Cost $794.s9
Assigned
Values
Total Additional Costs $0.00
DRC
TAC
Total Reproduction Cost
9794.59
$0.00
$794.s9
:l
!i:t
Final Appraised Value $79459
* The TAC cost is set at $0.00 as it is ass.med in the calculations above that Idaho
Powet will do the removal of the subject tree and associated cleanup and debris
removal. Ifnot, the tree value shall need to be recalculated, Costs associated with the
installation ofa new tree, along with post-planting md care costs shall be provided by
the appellant.
** Typically, the Final App,raisal value is rounded to the nearest $ I 000.00. In our
calculations we did not do this.
50 lPage
EXHIBIT 11B, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. 2
Assigned
Values
103.18
$13.00
tr'inel Besic Reproduction Cost $r34r.40
Assigned
Values
CR Value
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
tr'inal Depreciated Reproduction Cost $583.78
Assigned
Values
Total Additional Costs $0.00
CSA Area
UTC Value
DRC
TAC
Total Reproduction Cost
0.8
0.8
0.68
$1,341.40
$s83.78
$0.00
$583.78
*
rt rt
Final Appraised Value $583.78
r The TAC cost is set at $0.00 as it is assumed in the calculatioas above that Idaho
Power will do the removal of the zubject tree and associated cleanup and debris
rernoval. Ifnot, the tree value shall need to be recalculated. Costs associated with tte
installation ofa new tree, along with post-planting md care costs shall be provided by
the appellant.
i* Typically, the Final Appaisal value is roundcd to rhe nearest $1000.00. In our
calculations we did not do this.
51 lPage
EXHIBIT IlC, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. 3
Assigned
Values
CSA Area
UTCValue
45.86
$13.00
Flnel Besic Reproduction Cost $s96.18
Assigned
Values
CRValue
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
0.8
0.8
0.68
$s96.r8
Final Depreciated Reproducdon Cost s25946
Assigned
Values
Totel Additional Costs $0.00
DRC
TAC
Totel Reproduction Cost
s259.46
$0.00 *
8259.46 **
['inal Appretsed Yalue $259.46
' Thc TAC cost is sct at S0,00 as it is assumed in the cdculatims above fta Idaho
Power will do tte rcmoval of thc subject tree and associaled clemup aod debds
removal. Ifnot, the tr,ec value shsll need to b€ recalculat€d Costs associated with the
insalhtim of a ncw trcc, aloog wilh post-pleting md care costs Sall bc povidod by
the appellmt
'* Typical$r, the Final Appaisal valuc is rotmded to the ncucst $ I fi)0.00. In our
calculations we did not alo rhis.
52 lPage
EXHIBIT 11D, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. 4
Assigned
Valucs
38.54
$r3.00
Final Basic Reproducdon Cost $500.96
Assigned
Values
CSA Area
UTCValue
CRValue
F Value
E Value
BRCCost
DRC
TAC
Total Reproduction Cost
0.95
0.8
0.68
$500.96
Flnet Deprectetcd Reproducdon Cost S25849
Values
Totrl Addtdonel Cogts $0.00
Assigncd
$258.89
$0.00
$2s8.89
*
**
FindAppreiscd Value $25tr9
t lhe TAC coBtis sct d $0.00 as it i3 assumcd in thc cakulrios sbove ltd Uaho
Powcr will & thc rcooval of tho subj€ctfte ad associatcdolcmrp aod &tris
rqnoval. If no! ttc trce vahr shall ncd to be rccalculated" Cogts .ssoci&d with thc
inrnallatio of a rew tcc! ahog vilh pmrpl$ting md carc costs sbsll be govidod by
thcepcllat
'r Tlpically, thc Final Appraisal vatuc is rorndod to lhc ncrcst $1000.(n' h our
cabulrios we didrot do this.
53 lPage
EXHIBIT IlE, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. 5
Assigned
Values
f inal Basic Reproduction Cost
CSA Area
UTC Value
CRValue
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
DRC
TAC
Total Reproduction Cost
390.13
$13.00
$5,071.66
Assigned
Values
0.95
0.8
0.68
$5,071.66
f inal Depreciated Reproduction Cost $2,621.03
Assigned
Values
Total Additional Costs $0.00
$2,621.03
$0.00
$2,62t.03
*
*rf
f inal Appraised Value $2,621.03
* The TAC cost is set at $0.00 as it is assumed in the calculations above that Idaho
Power will do the removal of the subject tee and associated cleanup and debris
removal. Ifnot, the tree value shall need to be recalculated" Costs associated with the
installatim ofa new tree, along with post-planting and care costs shall be provided by
the appellant.
*a Typically,theFinalAppraisalvalueisroundedtothenearest$1000.00.lnour
"nlsnlations we dd not do this.
54 lPage
EXHIBIT lIF, APPRAISED TREE VALIJE
Tree No. 6
Assigned
Values
286.62
$13.00
tr'inel Besic Reproduction Cost s3,726.11
Assigned
Values
CRValue
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
Finel Deprecieted Reproducdon Cost $1rD5.66
Assigned
Values
Totrl Additionel Costs $0.00
CSA tuea
UTCValue
DRC
TAC
Totel Reproducdon Cost
0.95
0.8
0.68
$3,726.11
$1,925.66
$0.00
$1,925.66
*
**
f inal Appreised Value $1,D5.66
* Thc TAC cogt is s€t at 00.(n as it is assumed in the calculatims above that Idaho
Powcr will do the raoval of the subj@t tlee and associatcd clorry md dEhris
rcmoval. If trot, lhc troc vahrc shrll n€cd to be r€calculated- Coer aseociated vith the
instrllatio of a new rpc, along wilh post-phnting md carc coots shall bc providcd by
therypcllmt
.. Typically, thc Find &rprafud value is mundcd to the ncaest $t000.00. In or
calcultions we did not & tfiir.
55 lPage
EXHIBIT lIG, APPRAISED TREE VALUE
Tree No. 7
Assigned
Values
CSA Area
UTC Value
326.11
$13.00
tr'inal Basic Reproduction Cost 8423e.4e
Assigned
Values
CRValue
F Value
E Value
BRC Cost
0.95
0.8
0.68
$4,239.49
Find Deprccietcd Reproduction Cost S2lm.yl
Assigned
Values
Totd Addttionel Costs $0.00
DRC
TAC
Totel Reproduction Cost
$2,190.97
$0.00
82,190.97
*
*rf
Find Appreised Yelue $2,190.97
. The TAC cost is sct at 00.00 as it is assurcd in the calouldims abovc ttd ldaho
Powcr will do thecmoval of thc ubject tree and associated clcmup od debris
rqnoval. Iftrot, th€ tloe yahrc shall nccd to be recalculatotl Costs associatod witt the
installitim of a ncw t€e, almg wilh post-plmting md carc costs shall be povided by
the appellmt
** lpically, the Final Appra.isal valuc is mutrd€d to thc ncucst $1000.(n, In our
calcultios we did nort do fiis.
56 lPage