20201005Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss.pdf

&fi*f;tvEs
Mark Pecchenino
Complainant
fffi$ SCT *5 #l $ lrl+
:i.,.1j4*i F#HLIC,:i r;i;is c*eAe+[$$ffi
October 2,2O2O
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Boulevard
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714
Re Case No. IPC-E-2O-29
Mark Pecchenino vs. Idaho Power Company
Dear Ms. Noriyuki
Attached for electronic filing, the Complainant's response to Idaho Power
Company's Motion to Dismiss. If you have any questions about the attached
documerrt, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Complainant's Response to Idatro Power Motion to Dismiss 1 | P a g e
Dear Commissioners,
I would like respond to Idaho Power response and their lacks substantive
evidence, misleading statements and conjecture. I apologise if some of my
statements seem cynical but their response did nothing more than make statement
after statement that the Complainant was a fabrication of conjecture and falsehoods.
It would appear that Idaho Power considers themselves as the champion of
truth and accuracy beyond approach. Perhaps their overpaid legal team thought
their response would send me quietly into the night with my tail between my
legs like a frightened dog. I'm not an attorney so the langue used in my response
will be in plain and easy to understand without.
l. Response to items I through 21. Idaho Power restated the same arbitrary
and cupreous policies stated in the Complaint and apparently fabricated
some new policies. As evidenced in the Complaint their policies and procedures do
not promote, " . . . the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its
patrons, employees and the public, and as shall be in all respects
adequate, efficient, just and reasonable." Their policies are arbitrary,
capricious and misleading. The Complaint evidences several policies and
procedures that are not just or reasonable such as their $50.00
reimbursement fee which is arbitrary and their response failed to mention
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 2 | P a g e
how this amount was determined. Secondly, the fact that Idaho Power makes the
sole determination as to the death of a tree resulting from improper pruning by their staff
or contractors is not fair or reasonable. Lastly, the fact that they impose specific tree
species that can only be replanted when using the $50.00 reimbursement voucher is
also not fair or reasonable. Their policies clearly provide a one sided
advantage and convenience to Idaho Power and their bottom line. They are
not just or reasonable to their customers. The Complainant's trees were
deemed a threat andhazard as evidenced in the Complaint. Also evidenced
in the Complaint were images of trees of similar height and closer to the
powerline south of the Subject Property. These trees were not topped. What
made them less dangerous or hazardous? Idaho Power failed to answer this
question in their response. In their response, they failed to define any of their
policies with one exception. They did provide some definitions of Hazardous.
Their definition of ahazardous is anything they consider that may interfere,
or threatens a power line as an unwritten and arbitrary policy.
Again their response keeps citing the same policies as the Complainant but
fail to address the arbitrary and cupreous nature of these policies such as
"maintain appropriate clearance from powerlines until the next pruning
cycle" "minimize impacts to tree health, and comply with the ANSI
A.300."
As evidenced in the Complaint they have not defined clearance standards and
those standards are not addressed in ANSI 4300. They don't want to define
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 3 | p a g e
the clearances because they would have to comply with those standards with
their poorly trained crews. For Idaho Power its better to have arbitrary and
capricious policies to help with their poor training efforts, complaints and
possible litigation. What does Idaho Power consider appropriate clearance,
the response failed to mention or address this issue. As evidenced in the
Complaint, the clearance standard used are arbitrary and varies from
maintenance crew to maintenance crew. If they follow ANSI 4300 standards
as claimed, why did they top the trees on the Subject Property. This is against
ANSI 43000 standards. Do the subject trees look to have a "natural
appearance", maybe they didn't look at the pictures before writing the
response.
The response uses the phrase "appropriate clearance" oflen which is
arbitrary and cuprous. How is appropriate defined? The response failed to
demonstrate or define appropriate. But in their so called factual statements
they asserted the Subject Trees were properly pruned. So how is the
Commission to make an justified assessment of their pruning without specific
facts and dimensions. Their response suggests that Idaho Powers words are to
be considered without question as factual and that the Commission doesn't
need to be bothered with the details like dimensional clearance specifications.
I guess they cannot provide what they don't have. After all, if their
mechanical engineer, who manages the maintenance crews says they were
pruned correctly to an "appropriate clearance" then it must be factual.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 4 | P a g e
2. Motion To dismiss. Idaho Power stated that, "Complaint made general
allegations in a narrative format. Consequently, Idaho Power generally
denies Complainant's allegations and answers written in such nanrative,
including the numbered paragraphs and statements included in Idaho
Power's Section I above. To the extent Mr. Pecchenino's allegations contain
legal conclusions, a response is not required by Idaho Power." They also
site several legal submission numbering requirements. Prior to drafting the
Complaint, the IPUC was contacted and asked if any specific formatting
requirements are required. As evidenced below and as shown in Insert 1. the
IPUC stated in an email on June 2,2020 the following:
The next step in the process allows you tofile aformal complaint. A
formal complaint can befiled when the outcome of an informal complaint
is not satisfactory. Theformal complaint must be in writing, state the
focts and specify how you would like the problem to be resolved. Unlike
an informol complaint, which is hondled by the commission's stffi the
commissioners must consider aformal complaint. The commissioners will
decide whether it is appropriate to accept theformal complaint. If it is
accepted, aformal legal proceedingwill be started. If the Commission
does not accept theformal complaint, then nothingfurther will be done.
In summary, yourformal complaint should state:
1. The name of the utility or person the complaint is against.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 5 | P a g e
2. AfuU statement of thefacts constituting the acts or omissions of
the utility or person against whom the complaint is filed, and the dates
when the acts or omissions occuwed.
3. The specific provision of statute, rule, order, notice, tariffor other
controlling law that the utility or person has violated.
4. What action or outcome should be taken to resolve the complaint.
The address to send theformal complaint to the Commission is:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
There was no stated requirement that requires specifically numbered allegations
or complaint formatting. Secondly, the Complaint was accepted by the
Commission.
3. Production Requests from Idaho Power. Idaho Power failed to provide
requests made my the Complainant prior to the formal complaint process
despite repeated requests from IPUC staff. Now they are maintaining that
the Complainant has not provided videos of notice or recordings of
conservations with Idaho Power staff so the Complaint and his statements
contained in the Complaint are false. The Complainant stands behind his
rational in denying Idaho Power's production requests. The IPUC could
have disagreed with the Complainant rational and ordered him to comply,
they did not. The Complainant will clariff the requests since Idaho Power is
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 5 | P a g e
now claiming the Complainant fabricated everything. It is clear Idaho
Power did not take the Complaint serious and failed to read the entire
complaint which clearly states how the complaint was drafted.
As evidenced below and as shown in Insert l.
In regards to the video surveillance tape. Our system doesn't store months
worth of data. This is why the Complainant and the IPUC requested this
information during the informal complaint stage. The Complainant was
stone walled by Idaho Power as no date of notice was provided despite
multiple requests by IPUC staff. Now, several months later they are
forthcoming with dates and demand this evidence. How covenant for them,
now that no video tape evidence is available. Did they expect the
Complainant to sit through 100's of hours of video tape because they failed
to provide a date? The complainant did not do this as there was other
insurmountable evidence other that a video based on their original noticing
statement. The only response from Idaho Power regarding notice, as
evidenced below and as shown in Insert 2 was by the IPUC in an a May 6,2020
email to the Complainant. The email stated, "Additionally, the Company
claims a Company representative knocked on the door to provide notice and
left a door haneer. thoueh the door haneer did not provide specific dates."
The Complainant maintains this never happened and Idaho Power failed to
substantiate their claim of notice in their response. Instead they sited two
new methods. All their noticing claims and methods will be discussed later
in this response document. The even admit in their response they still don't
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 7 | P a g e
know the exact date or time of Notice and chastised the Complainarrt for not
providing them with this information. It would appear they don't have the
proof.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 8 | P a g e
Insert l, IPUC June 2, 2O2O Email
F ofli:Sdtl:to:Sublct:
Cudis Theden lcun6 Thad6ooprc xt ho gdl
Tucaday. Juna 02. 2020 I 40 AM
MARK PECCHENINO
R€ Appcal
HiMark,
fhank you tor your arurl.
ln you last communication to me you stated that ldaho Power's let€sl ofler was ba3lclly the 3am€ and that you needed
mo.€ lnformation b€tore making a decision, and il you declired ldaho Piler's ofrer, what is the m{ step.
I have been In @ntact wlth ldaho Power to gather mor€ inromation. ldaho Pomr onfirm€d that ln addition to
ag.e€ing to r€move three dead trer from you. proEErty, the Company will imlud! thre suchcrt for new tres. ln
.ddltion, the d€bris from the lasl lree trimmirB will be .emowd, within ld.ho Powe/! vegetatbn Managrmcnl
Oepanment, there are two full time ceniried arborisB. ldeho Powcr eid th.t the ld.ho Powcr employ€e that fist met
with you ls . certitied arborist that reponr to M,. van Patten. The vaSctation managcment notifier that plann€d the
work and l€ft the d@r harBe. is also a cenified arborist. I do r€alir€ that t6u alaim m d6r hanger was left. Asplundh,
is ldaho Pm/c ree pruninS contraclor, ind th€ Comparry prryides anirietion lh,ouSh thci, Lin! Clearing
Qu.llf€tlon ptogram.
I previously communicated to you ihat it the complaint could rct b€ r€slyed iniormally, there ii a tomal complaint
prfiess and that if we got to that jundu.e I would cnd you intormation on how to tlh snh a @mplalnt. Balad oo you.
emil b€|il, it app€ars thet you haw mada a declsion mt to agre! to ldaho Porer'i Otfcr. ldaho Power i5 unwlllin8 to
agra€ to mre than th€ Cmpany'r curr€nt otle,. Simc I have bacn unable to rslve your complalnt inio.mally, I will
fully clos€ the intormalomplaint.
The ncrt step in th€ prcess .llw5 you to file 8 ,ormal cmphint. A fomal complalnt Bn b€ filed when th! outcomc ot
an info.mlcomplaint i5 not stisfacto.y. The formalcomplaint must be in writinS, State the tacts and specify how
you would like the probhm to be rerolved. Unlike an intormal complaint, *'hich is handled by the
commission's staff, the commisrioneG must consider a formal complaint. The commisioners will decide
whether it is appropriate to accept the formal complaint. lf it is accepted, a formal letal proceeding will be
gtarted. tttheCommissiondoesnotacceptthefotmalomplaint,thennothintfurtherwillbedone.
You may tile a ,ormal comdaint for rryiew by th€ Commissbn under its Rules of Prtredure, IDAPA 31.01.01,000 et seq'
- Rule 054. formal Complaints - Oerined - Contents and P.GC5e, av.ilable onlim at:
httosrl/adminrules.idaho.rov/rules/car.ent/31/3l0l01.odl
ln rumm.ry, your tormal@mplainl thould state:
1. The name of the util;ty or pcrson the complainl ii agtinsl.
2. A full rtatcment of th€ factr conititutinB th€ acls or ml3sioni ot th€ utilitv ot peren againit whom the
complaint is filed, and the dates wlEn the ec$ o. mitsions Gcurted.
3. Thc sp€cillc provi3ion ol statute, rule, ord€r. rctic. taritf or oth€r ontrollln8 law that th€ utilily or p€r5on hat
violated.
4. What action or outcome thould b€ taken lo .eplvc thG complaint-
Thc addre!! to 3end the fotmal compl.int to th? Commiriion li:
ld.ho Public Utilities Commis:ion
PO 8ox 83720
8oise, l0 E3720{074
Pl€a* know that a fo.mal complaini becomes part of the Commission's public records for anyone to view.
I will Sive you a call today to funher discuss and angwer any qrestions you might have. I am still working from home
but will officially return to the office on Friday ot this week. Commission Staff is reporting back to work in phases.
Sif,cerely,
Curtis Thad€n
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
208-334-0322
208-890-1959 - cell
Complainantrs Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 9 | P a g e
Insert 2,[PUC May 6,2020 Email
F om: Curtis Thaden <CgEi&l!!!lgg@!&ide!9,A9>
Sent Wednesday, May 6,2020 10:57:52 AM
To3 MARX PECCHENINO <E![e-mail]!!>
Sublect RE: ldaho Power Company Tariff
Hi Mark,
I heard back from ldaho Power. ldaho Power has not changed its position from its previous compensation offer.
I presented your request to ldaho Power; l) ldaho Power to remove all the dead trees caused by the tree topping and
pruning; and 2) Equal compensation for replacing the mature trees that are dead. A voucher for a sampling would not
be acceptable.
ldaho Power said it is willint to do the following
-Agree to .emove the two dead trees that Mark Van Pattern obsewed and provide a voucher for each tree. The
vouchers are redeemable for 550 at local nurseries when purchasing Class I trees^hrubs.
2-haul away the dead debris that was left on April 27.
AddiUoaally, the Company dalms a company rcprescntawe knock€d on the door to prwldh nodce and hft a door
hanger, though the &r han&r dld not prwlde ipcdtc d.t$.
The ldaho Public Utilities Commission does not have statutory authority to rule on a damage claim, only a court of law
can do that. Since you are requestint compensation for damages above what ldaho Power is willing to provide, you may
perus€ the matter in smallclaims court.
tf you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Curtis Thaden
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
208-3:]4.O322
From! MARK PECCHENINO <l4rebgai@le@>
Sentr Wednesday. April 29,2020 11:01 AM
To: Curtis Thaden <[e-mail]>
Subicctl Re: ldaho Power Company Tariff
Thank you
Snt from my Verizon, Samsung Galary smartphone
Get Otnlook br Android
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 10 | p a g e
In regards to recorded conservations. The Complaint never mentioned or alluded to
recorded conservations in the Complaint. This is a fabrication of Idaho Power. They
assumed the Complainant could only provide quote or conservations through audio
recording. Well I have a shocking revelation for them, long before smart phones we used
low tech items like a pencil and paper. I know it may be hard to believe, but for years
journalists and others used hand written notes to provide accurate accounts ofevents and
quotes as they still do today. The news today is full of hand written notes being
submitted as evidence. I have been using hand written notes for years in my professional
work. All spoken evidence was submitted and incorporated into the Complaint in whole
and in its entirety. Had Idaho Power taken this Complaint seriously, and actually read the
entire document they would have discovered this fact. On page 45 of the formal
Complaint, it clearly states, "Lasfly, 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
eve{ythins includins 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 concem. Unforhrnately the notes
form Incident 1. could not be located from storaee and a general time frame was used."
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 11 | P a g e
The Complaint was drafted from notes as stated. ln essence, the Complaint is a
compilation of conservation notes carefully drafted during or immediately after a
conservation. A practice used my the Complainant is his career as a professional land use
planner. His work and notes have been evidenced in various land use legal cases of which
none were ever overturned based on the accuracy and detailed nature of his work and
notes. These notes were and are included and evidence in the body of the Compliant in a
typed format. To validate this claim, I have included my handwritten notes to date with
Idaho Power in Insert3. I apologise for my pe,nmanship as I write fast in order to capture
accurate conservations as happening or fresh on my mind as I can write faster than I can
brpe. My notes may be difficult for some to read.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 12 | P a g e
Insert 3, Idaho Power ConservationNotes
FP' 21 ,1D21)
12 5( 7r1
No{*l frru-''.. (on7t/d+iv!- r.r,.1 I T,r^./papl*,.a[^
*e.-r( (.r,rK d,. r{1"'vr {.^.-, ru.{y. g^ pl,lu^ Id.<^\,f1rr,^.\ {Wnittt
;'^ Ij,,,*?-i, ",:'[ _:';,1,, [',, ) ": ;,,)' ;,, ..; :l ; ;, : ;:
^cqwct 1*'^ "A1 {rI l,i/^t 'no\.dt v*r pvre fe (onu" ,
f?.!, * 5ecr*,l ynr.*. lc.ris\ lrrr ..t/(a> ,r* O,,)'1
uw t^^t
/ru4.r^u . *t rya.r) r,r. o{o,r} Kuow wr..r'L--'6,*; ;r;*':rr"t Aq{ no\,.c?
Supfo'< {a r('" *n.[ b*{ i. ddr\',, r{*'!ur,* ;..,;'";': rlTUf,rrfi^_r,c\t{ ""I"r'd '^ 1 f:T't 'u' ::-i{opp'y' o'1a( &1f<"t q*a ,F J[att no\.'*i trnr. q:|.!1 ,, ,, I f irt Ur^'- t d,a^t a.nl h€Ftplrvul .y*<^ 4ha*ia \"*.,, \\t t\r*.^ aust 'lr :L a*u r.",* ji: II-Ill'*1 ?, tu tr'.- crn,(
-Io,J *l xx,,;i1-,;1,:,*l: r*-1Jl
-..x .;:: r,fr:^t \o\tl t\*.* lt*o,tlol un^rc+ \}] ;,* .. [rv *.., trl. Dvrrr o-l +\4._gn u+1 1.a4."^^,r* t tlof $rttyt t,_c L* 6^..- r..ps. . \rnc^<Ancl c\ n.,rlr^c,. f1r(,r,n, E &1Wrl y,
,r^ , )* wr.,^i\,. hah^( wc.4, i ,{rl;;ti.r.ff,
}_l;ioott \.k g 1. cu^.p\oy{ers 5o t A)F<ct \uz* r.lo }j tkrnnlliE lt"1 \^4&t r? {vngtoj.rs thtl rtplvo( l, @ ^* cc,nVr.c\/,^_._Y*""1 a* a.f od* o,<\|\o,r.r*5,,. t *,ynJ ;i {t^r-(lrcunr.,r\a\ i..^ i nc{ iar. L.-, .,, ] l
r\.y ,.,e *".-:.-,\; :,: n;:;:"iniiiiZ(JKre/ ii +ty h.,J ,,rl t ? dar.*rr$^1,,^ o- lrd( rt,rl e^ {d?ehnJr^rn^' n, r\''* t(? Tr^"t )a.Jt' vt o n r a5V4J wha J"t<,-+oar1\crct ?s/Soq wctt c^+ f .?.
a \ I P t ^? lcror . F \r^t
-[n<cl tl 'ct^v (no 'v ^wf o,^e
fu- crr,l^1 )u\ysNra,€ o{ co.&.-l.r':|.^ajul- n*utb.i.-
*t*1 '!U loo[ ,ap 1 / fr'ron{ ,1-r^^Ia.q r(>,. ,n-t o"\ {w, rr-c,i'tl PtcraS, " 1 "{ L
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 13 | P a g e
L atallr,L 1;^ v,rls tr.i ch^ptov.r^ \,^,^rr1 t^acL yg56;il /!1,plr_rrlq.
! cr1(rza{ i t {r<,7 hc.lcarry ;/c.a\if,t.n4;,_ , ty \.tloflFw^ ffhvuig,'. \o \ri,^ {.r*, t - r
,no{ *A^ cr ,",;-.Y:i-' ;- ; r*.^+) \\"ttr"'l:"::*'
,:i__ ; :,,,^Jr 3; i,,-;.i I ;;-:^::,i J_-:
*,,:_":^
eaji 1 cl,l4t K,^.rrtr5'l'{r't wr h* 3q'tt
.'t H'l l;'r} la{( c,{- t*r,{w vtw
1t,t.y Y **0,,,,1*'^! ?r.,,^ilt^l, 1",r. ' t
';-,'u^Al\ d 'ri'"
,.",0 c,. {rl5o s::1n',1
,or;:;: JY| cowt61
Jt:'J:;;;: *'^" o' , "-',",I,;"""-!i::i i';;'i]*)"
rrrltrr.^r. r.*r( 1, *rl^ t* v' ur'> c-\Fti1. 1^ uo,*'all"I*u' ,"t*"5
;::*'tr"T,*:,il; R'l s"^ '' r "**:
Tuppcr .- wc,r :'u. yy^i u;:^';t:,I;^:ii '*Y-.*,,
tha,* 5 tv.15 J''" $'s{r"ol""r ctbtu,t' ;' ,r;;;rY\ fuv *<e
rt^( +.^.,4 u-,, il **]t,r-'-5"t +h"? o''.'nttl ln'p'+"' '*|*
*i.nre; I r'ilr" # t *:i jlfl:l;'",r
E cql i Ir C( ,1.'',
yur, ,{ , ,d rc,* { o
* ti 1* ' f i* F" *[ ;,ilf.
n" ":' ):';Sii ,::.
bu{Lr 5g,,r[ ,, ,
o'u'r\ '{t'{ phr"lta L ''t',,'
\ ' 9' s ,a)cl
+.r r*nc{ae( -il'nl'"i.,,, ::'. ^;;"i'-I ;;:".-1,,1"'/";.
ry rwrs -** .y. e,r- ,^*,- ..1*n-1";r ,^I ,:*:ry t1 topt,io,1
; ,ii:lt,l;'",: ;,1^,,:"^:,^uu;,, ]'* '^,{a{ ,^' *l'-t"*'r'ot 1t' ffi'-7
{t,.^ i: l,r.r wa (n qv{rri1! ,- l,.r'fi l:ljf: l-I"i ?r,
lXlr:;: w^' rv4rr nn 6,r-!ev,1* a-l i,, ,,1,+'L;i:*"f,,"';J*,\
2- ul t
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 14 | P a g e
? Ch(tu\l tl 5*!1* {n rta p,)D? A cefz{6r (1* iF yru lo1*t(n0,, di4,, ot\.( 4f I,,p. houv cr,{ L
gr..r( "J\- uyar u.rortr ^^? 6^^lr I d.l.^; 3:"r: ii;J_-;,[tf*Tur{'1 fu,r r'{r,.r^arn yvu,.?ip{ rr,,cl tr* ju,r1 *o'*, *- **;lcrr.c.lor y-1. o{ *,t ynw tq r.*j 5y: a d.ri^t K..r..- w\.rl)" q\ c,w1l evu\ Un{,,<*A. Tirv.f \,r^re4J
J:*' i #};'il :r[ *j,i W',',1.';*
T:.*^o,rly hc.r,i cr to f+ bos.* .^ws/ h.r (oc.lr/ ,r*'"f,rJ'?'J^l'r*,/)Y ( *.,. t.. .[ o (
u,,,f.^.- i,,e* ;:";.riil, Jl.,Ll;j.^ T,.^;:::u h b,le> ,*.r
,. b'j-.- t,^/.. r,.,.\x cr rr^. ,' 'r.^* t:ttt" ,.tl 9o5t a,ac( ,,e,.rtut
th< f.ydi11 ., ,]* ;; I;r;,:T;..,f;J, ,-?ri::1/.,,an5t v*
U
-*"
fo ,\* ,-** ,or,^^--,rc +* ,;J *"^i ,)*,,:i1..^i.-*
vro\ *\+ w,,^1 h :;"-::.::?JJ,: ** b0,,,.. ^; +4+ +n,f ,j-'
-fi*}l*.x i''x. ;#l it"I'{,,J.::: 1-?:: ;;i':,,::' u
lL-^e a{^A^ St.\.rh
?.'Fr w.r5 !,\o+ ^."';':;-";::-
-f ,li:,'* lil rrfrW!.rt\(^"<rn+J pip+ ,rnl.*r b"f.A( coi,r4,.{1 [a ya.^ cloin,,'tr tutr,( h.'r* {r
\.v,^F **,,J*II^T ;"Lf;rff :ft-lfr f,inffi"'^,^$naF *vv r,,r.^r **ipas,s.y ..^ri .r.rt..yra gnurU,, y',t.l}A."r) r,,^H*:,ffi,t- =^ [ot'i * '^' o'-ut {r'< o tta^1 'f*2
rrrur*b Lu^)
hA.,., opro.,^.JriT:,,P:i::l\.5^','tw' r \oi,r +\^4.^ ! r,rrzu,rz(t slrlor r;r,..rr ,{:;,;7^ i'I;;',IU'J:i|r_filt h$0,t1 \o ldp r,r,unz,.- *orz> r,\ *) p{vf:v(+1 ,
'3u{L
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 15 | P a g e
T' ,^,. \^i"\l rr- \O sr rrl.t hos s..t h{ 1,.,.g r,r h 1r thrl ttx \ir.:rlo(Pt1 6x {t^r 1:ip*_ out fi hir porratl . -I- {ot C h;^a lr<s,(pewrft irh(( fhal r.r, sha*rrr' ,;-::'r:':
x.w 7'1x ttttd
\.lt . sc,v\ '' J.{ t ( cr r\ y bcqs o,-P'.1,1'' -:: J;I! e'{ 'u* ?,,?o
,i;'::iriu!h*\ /1) t r"^.r.vt rr,* \,, r,r ,, - 1,, )lf " [,]:') *?li' ,.]f
i ',,yir-- o- ,\., ,.u*. ," ,L"1,,'rl,- ,l:]:',. \h,'1 .,.) -r,L^o' u.,ora I.*,?7 oi
Jr,.ug i,'inr.':r"i[',.'.;;' t r:n e,y*'^,Jn"iij;:"!j' rW,L 1pc:g, ylsL ern^,6rr_\c.L(.r. w.\r^ \\,
5 s*1 ya:l^,*-, I \;ot t:'
^,, ;;,il1'I'jjJ$]{r,','" *,1',, ^; *::-1"';, lh
;',":'-nn, '-:'):,t'n. l'*,;;[,:^-;. "li* 1i;,'.']. "'i'L
ll''* ".*
*ru il ;;:Tt' H1",.,.*:; t :::*'l*,f
d\!y rr whro .r dr*1.r b.{ ,l.r!*rl,uo'
t.l{:;:i'tr.i { ;;;
Culvrganitt* .)..
:".\c^lo, \..\.7 d pvtti,r9. \r^.. (,vr{ ,
t:::1,_tI.r*
o-L rrG S\0c6., b^r, \r.r 4.\ h,^.( u, k,J gztfv./ ppo, ir,,, i,r ltocr7.pco 3c;y' {L^l har,t no g', \rau.5frugotr.n rtry - i.. nt.rl r r.,*^"ror:tI t:;i r b"\\h<y hcrr/
i* P{*)0a _ll"* \w1 ho./ u C-*, E', 5,q{1o( prp-e t ^ 7{ot( c,,n,) ,..f.io1nr;*hqt othn !o |;,< C^r,, - r,t gh^\I u.*d,,( y,orr \4** ;p o) hau..e i;;j[: [; ;:;.tr1,.1.,1ni,,Y\A ye&,- 0( .'ocr\ i^ +\4 GA,*-a Orrr.".,i* o{ -Vr_.r {v v4nr*gptirl t\y Inctnt, b"qnn [notu;o, ^ r:,^
, :^ U^,- e,fr, Aqr.i lu<y ,rnt,toao{ t0 (1" gc({(rt lyez rr{* c.wcl !\"y ,-.;'\^^rr-./\r\ f,;(J,_t harnt,(n.l wt1 p\."t +o -ti rrr. , -h,( , vtt\gtlot +\^^{ \D, ft c,q/Fo.J (o- .r .^.i'r^ ( c d. a\ .-".., ,(h{cuu(t \; ;:.,er.ur^.( \o!.r*r^al A^y
lo(tt
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 15 | P a g e
A+ *hir gc.,,r' t \rc1s f*s;.r.,+rr. r,,rl vxhc"u s{e{ . } u;..9 t1o;tq J6fru^t {o \l.t 5crr.l.rrr{ {o lar(a.t\ } hcwA) c\uher,( wilur br^a,rch*S 4u6t oI!;^'..1-* ^'1 6vt/ r^n6( qp74
big y 14, rt-ti y\,rrr${ {+tt'i 14,*..{;;jn-J'1:i.,flX'r+rl
gier'n rap *lLlir y'r^uf, +\N{) vuact,( wht\r .)ur4yns</^t1
c...c( {o ,A€q*2.{r^<- by,.n^eLos pw*. !r* 6y1ri. t ilfo A1(rzci hi,^ \o vyu.tut*r.wo( [r0.^t a €f \ut o{,\^{ \ratvr-l ,rltrtLrr.cr Cr,r,r,r0urac( tr^.1 ,.,,^r,r . \,._
"i'-, dtirri/l rt(j o.rE{ ha,a,Q,a1 uf F tLr br r*.r-" u/() r4d+ h (J\aiponslb,(,l.,, b'.[ tny rat:-pur t*r, bil:1r, I 1o\cl fr,^ l,',twiF{ wn/ 1 va<,e.a c(,9ql11rt r\nc( trnav } w^7 tt<1<; ri /€*-
A ftc^5ohc.bt.r tl(r-erer r( ( \, r^5 tfreyqg r,.5 p4).r.oe ct \ {4IIDA T ncFl( h,r^^ {c r{cruLt,q^ L t,:tr,{ h,.,- hn,r razvv.rlf f1.aa- cirferrL hct.d<I,,
.
o, *, w,it q&4 ycu-purlv1, ( tr,vt T-Qtzrrtf y,ol g*^ \,rlur tL pu.1..'\, fr^<< €.rtcr .n) \v,,.
'llJ[-:,,..1['. u"*:*:-o*-L c.qd h^r^ u*nt.
-5,
;:i1i:,.J **
\* r-\rl*- n*
- lt'\rt hi * ! terovr\J \^cna.< \o lAt.,n(. go !h4cFh,t
inac\ +o )< *t*' * \5Pec,u.r\ \t^4 h^/5E ,".
Qr/tvirnq 1ra%.;il''i:P ).r*t'l L "o'.I')I,';'
vri,t^t l.)
'o,.a
2.tv,r?oa4 {,
h<u^ }- '-'or Ju"-9 ro (Jrf.,"ic.
,r)fo T a\ie yrrr.ct(r ;;:'- "^
\"tm6'1- p1 vu{ k,u -t-ha 1",Dlaer
ift,* :cu"id?{i i I; ,?.i)*,i;,e,5, {o vrc.nciLc JI:;l..Xl.r:";;H1_,r} o_ 5"^oJ
vrul fhrr* eG \rr.1 \^n?-^( u,r 1.. ;:.,,ffj:|, l,.'+ i4 wa7
+w ho,1 (rlut fitrtrl lrh,ou, ;{ lr.!ott[.rtmu+c {r^i woo,l Frvn
d'or rno* ocf*o- $o cr., du,s ci il",[- til:,:rri;;,.
ti::-"5l^^l \vu1\t"y. 1.^ Lrr((5 .rrvl c(fr)ctcr&[,? *\^{_ w!rl[.r \,._i^ €r,.1 \hr1 atl tW,t, &+ ictJd5 ci.tot{,t5tct rtl2oa! l,)'}r**l
50( b
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 17 | P a g e
r{ bocr l. 'ruo* ptn,{ a F J},e, , raar*;1 r, tvtnt,^ ! utv:t,',1^"cl h" h9u,r,a.
ynr*q\ i.^.x1( u*1 pol,Lit s , h..,.( ^o ,lotvt,*<,rr\4 So ,rtl-<*< cutJ
+\;s uo\ lPurvl ,t {twi, vntN- co,ain!{wn. t cl.,iul iltqlru(nv
\ir- ,* Lu,) ,rS t -..-L\{ {o g0 +o wl o{(^,<, Lo + c^A/
y/vrL1 *1 no.l€5 4q u4 cr\xaxl ..p1l7q, c..^d J ti^,1h ht r( nzt-*u,t {q40a Io V
o,^dr \ogpr ^t1 ;r'-il; *.,rl r,:."1 |,[ i;"iT :: :^''l
? P' go t[ri.z thr,^trl bv ott .,ik\n hi4 boss lo uvLrN< A/'
f +.cftt t,\-t \.o et<c-r- .f-r^1 f .*lrl a,9 1)"vu*,c't< d curr,L io
pctcl\ .ef [" i: gq r,;f r-ut '
a -[Kc*(."cl ki.,r^* c\*c\ o\rrp_l b*.ak \o y ho*5e -
V""rU
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 18 | P a g e
llat lu 0"t{l l, }, 7
A'1Y ?nq
Call e"l Wa.^ v1,n^fi- Ar,Yvl \o Sp*K .t+ lirr* tna:^ 0r
trer +r,,^",rr7 &7J, T)^a..5 kxJ. * 4 d.fr k{.<,ne 7t\1,w1
thc ton"{4+ ctjp.
tl.lorwr,.a ,\"\St,b^J gto^r- o( 6+h *"y , C a7(*J . 6IU.n,r
tpag ++L tnz *v,n^^,nS d*U{ Sh,. sa,l, !eg- I qst<<d
+" 3pe"K U A 6y yo<t$,v. thL gr.,.l ,'ltlone vr,,,t +\,,ere
aul aQq4 vtw4- oul,.q,t qltt /\,,*. \rz U,r"J_te vrr..
,,
S\n<
)a. rl, fur,L u*rou.\J ^u$e- o\ Xwtp{.vJt5o. ctt l\ vl/!c- bqrl( q,
+t^c, \.tt't d3 (ot"- btow,
54. A,,l ,raf 9 U \.,*, {-w { n .^,, ba,X. D, .1,,'t Vcttt
h6^"( Jgiu-e \o ^51{ 45 5L*-ttt1cf t\ 1t*orl w;\h UN<, h{et
.\orrg ^ncl. a H, t*alt- \.vt s a6 ,L { *f v,.t tlc W" {"tt^ a..
n^y to osK a. :4*y;/i 1r"r{.rr,".
}li- t'l;t l* rlr^L {: ^* {o ** r t lttt - w\ a wo.,ztL.t
+o q*+ +, cL 9<!*{t$tr',
5\,c- )v,*g *f afruyl\.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 19 | p a g e
[g,l ?,1 tLoLo ?*{.** (c^\l €w^ I P
g: u1 ?ta^
Re.ei,rtd A ccil.l. &u"n c'r t@^ ovlto 9d/ h{-
Rr .r.,. nr-{*ig y4.^. c cc(lrr ' 1 4l-9h4'L r 6 V''c- \r'g}
$,w^ fuz {r^r.< dn\ *q 6A,+ ys4' t a)!,n-lt
6^,! l+ 1r,'a*(oL nal 5w ."\' t+a ga.'J " w\1 d.o
.\uf rJ [r,i*, (n ry .s'*)e \<- s\"tl6qdae,L
ll -yO,r, nO*[ V' J
a. /.o,att ltv,tltp ltow )'e. :a'l no\ ttr-r'r {c*t "''}\o*1 :Ee
lta \'efs- -t .f.d,ii ?<% h'rrr o^ h'\ co"v*a741 o'bo^+
gxrar. &r.{ \r.a- i15v,€} ft'* \91 I Z^'l "rcr'&zb- Told h'w^
u,l,rat\ 3- u,ra-) \,U by I:P 2 1rA \ct ' DJ t^'' lrn*'z|li'r- ."( W"3
b'uY,r^,^, t\< wal 4',"-*rs?"a.,l^lrA $'z*ol €t-'t'ue a-'! \.7d '^^'
iJ +*" 5 'tot $'' 6-'rt' f dt@'j \ni^ t? aowl.Q by a10
\rx( o.l wr1 \"ef;. [€ 9q'io( he ot,i'{nt '"-*! 'b' \oe'r;z'r't
d"i "^,1- d;r,. * k- \J,''^*s \r^' w dlwel +o *t:p t"7 o"\7
i€ \r- CoutCl Ao;t Gc^^tq1 {tt- ntr* wwa,ttc^ |wt h,2 *Y \..l
u/,r1. c alrocct a*c( d>1""1' ;+ uzrl...rJ @{ W .E Ve-' \n:trr.(
q t- tt{ \"&S pr;g1r r<o Co w1,+1- )n hoct\€. 1\{ " g**J ^r.I
9a.,[ h,s 'traa(d b<- Wug ar,vou' o\'g'rtrvl '
or.rqS '\ I.{a,ta r
4 9.rfP-u)6ctY
T-o. lrtS no'oA<
,\
9a,.!- ht '&tLl
ruJe z-.nA o'k/
ca(ts/ a.{J- €,
S*g;*1 tr^ h;r \r"""7 \o UnhX, ^a \W- VA/y
"Jrrfviol &o1^ {4ora"z. \\e q,zrrs thl.I<
**-
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 20 | P a g e
Ag.,l 26 ,zozg
?.av *.,
)-rrl (cr(l {_ ,?
f,1tkr,i lhlrr* w*br rtgal.
7o-<rl .rn^n *d\ 1;,'qe 65
li,"+ lW,,n{ Ckpl f arlee.
l{{. Sa,d yq. r n5(+r,r
uVdS rt vrnavrajer r
b.{r"(. €,rr^rr1 r^ectc\qll. 4q mttn qlp uolSt t{ {t'l qrats l.ru rtti* *1.1,,1 gl.r1 *we l.y,^lr,-1+o Sp'ea{( to or rvrnortar\Jh, t*(, lrr.l l^e '
E +ptd h,'.r ar$t e,,t v.,*. ,^I,ff )ff'r:l':* '"" a*fa't rt" q.k,/.7uett^<
l-l< scr.f ne \,e,c,^...t9( 5 feu.*iv n-'t..t^"1.:* f- .P:,'-'l,q &a.
i;1fi1*t u( c,..ro( cezra..e r,y;';*;*:^;X#- ;e
E 9'.* H.,.r^ tltrl1 arlc.tv,6., ^^rL y ftpl,vl ,,
'L 5olty u0,,.
rte+ vn q,x-o. e,.i+ -r *.tt ,-,**,jl :::'#rr"i"fi'i*^;r,j#c,tt irr* V,gfu arr"r-,, " rqq
complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 21 | p a g e
,l lz r f "u C-qrl frum f f r/Eo, Po (tr-,
ll 014a^
ftt e,re/ eal( fry,* Errrl ,,/oo Rtk, , fttaolagtu ttr,ll h/.
tut44kcl {',, ,bP , +{ falk /):oo7r*
Gtot A,',,* oA qgk/ h,'* +" L,uoll at 'f<O fu.6w
Clw;n1 1,, how'qs T u,a5 no| {*tr1, gorl anr)
d,l hd+ r*ecf {.o walt( oq{ l. *rtc< r*< a9n4/.
),,1 nr{ go 0/r/r i ttq t t}- fiwk^ I i*.
Complainarrfs Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 22 | P a e e
Ay;t Ll, ?-r0 Noios 61u,^ M%\rr1 ('1,t*h S.f .5-.pe*.,,so.,f,:ulrwt- No Ha.r-t- G.g*J
|Aart ga^*td o^ -.tt,^ ,.A,'l.e gr[ ,+ Brg3t*r+r. T asgrr,,*"r/ hjr^{p
be n, apl a,,d \'r'arl \if >q,t'eu sl *1,,t- gAq koit- l,Gl *,a.
H{ qo* bar/- in h,, 4ctr a^l ful(*c( /rA^ \te <!gw ve,7., 5. +J/
b,* t& w.tlll vror,r.{ laz,.^ /**- (, AN,:/. -\4 6s l/1,t cty7w^'0v't(' }'la
gtagtd th"F t5* cr.uo"9.
e.rfql# u^y i::t^z:. , o--"1 d,6 n* yrnqr4{,r,.- \M. 6ruf2. pp{.
Prpe w{9 ,{Jt\ ;n 6*{/ " He ;'-".l.aM? l<u-J \ *fnb,NT ; t-?.
.^c(.tl;19 itha i< "1 p^,r {o* 4 1c a..P
t +rkJ Lr,r. u,q, I .pa,s ,tat wa[,'"t.] , Fe 5a'1J[ 'l Tv'c )'r,'wntr1
\eC\ * Ivocx',t ,: yo-- &*' ft'- Y r{Jtn1 q'rr;"t(' " t+€ Asb
'lo'l'Lnt^"t
", ,rr.r! hs,,* tt() "- lo'ta*<' o-" ,'*7 bv ,','tl he
h^t on,5 '' a \ard hi,*- ^e W.ct"r-,-^ *r*s [e*t'o^ u^'r tLoo't
qr/ tr^r- *r',ttat* li,t hot t"'^* ^"ffit^" ct
'!t< )'*r 's a.k,.l
9* h,r p'*f- t.l"a +r^^^ cl^il " ,r/.11 $r*' *\*, +Lr' lu1 q,b\ll hcryrt
K,ar*J .l- y* ut,pve a.n& ,^4{;c<cl y,a^ }11 *or." L +o)cl hir^
+l^r d.J rro\ arrot *halr tr'c *r,r^,rne't {s\t'l'n4 tlj t'&^.t..5'y4*l k
h^+ d.', tn {' t {atd ht"^ \to^f ;A 6*+ +r*1 f''\'} tv 4d"<r v'v aul
;; <5*l k b.pc.^..- t. nq"r vra.^*. t{t lrv,,. " l* v't'< nn!.td
T hq,u- P4r-f a"^/ lC- 'tat 4wc'r. ygo Wwr^\ul h*"t l6'.'i.q ,a'-lL'f/ ot
siL}: b1 o*- :\q{f tt .p\t- r,,,c3 StttJnl fia61rra{*J aacl
t Aeorrrrn qAL,[ a r.rar+ na\ ,rr].,xtl' a'n/ trhct+ +hz *'ttn'u<tr)
Vra* 1.tagofu/' k sa,l \r^r- oLx* Vv,c* jv's lt* fawo1"a-'
a,. *drr- hi,^- \.rt v,ae^/.a- Lc\t^ d;iaSqrl a,r,l urr..nt .'a(o <'*4 of
,r"a hca\\\ V*<,v a^la,I."*[rn'' L \o\tl -hi",- \'r< ve^1 ffu'\l lJ'u4'F
V,* ha-st
-wr| r* 4^{- !ort\ $rr1l- rr.\K (w Cou;rl'la'-Ns'z *1-u'Y
b-lr lrl {.\in, g tltrlu- anJ !ra} -t ,tlr**nY*wo tr uf '>+<11\
[i^1'-** 't torazt- t'tr'^' ltw*< c^Ita'
;i "\o-[arf -r1 a hc^^(- vrat- \rft 11'' Vrrl'l' u y:..,!"1^t.,=^y
\rrcl t,,.^^ r^rc tncrar-s1 1,^.-l &1, ud \tna{ na oLe Loqld' d€+ o'rt
sL +w.n .o. -T,^T*d;^; r| "l--*'ri?l {t"n- 3y *f 'tJ g-\'+3
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 23 | p a g e
l+_c ,tilnf (,r.- whr,tl b n*t o,"* :i,'il ,1,,r) ual- gnnv 4.<
!L gruz€ hq- ulourrul- {n tytvl.c-
' w,th ct lctuq lowse l,x tur/ tl
W.tt( \t*r^ wL ,.+ro.at/ ha.rrt 5.r-( yq^ e4^ Qv1a4;l *gcndiul *U
md }tr^r, ,r
l+<O no{ ur,,t cxr'ng c,,vl 1!\(4. H{- ga.c} ht \oJ (*' fu+ (uqDt
oZr,niIq r.ep t0,\h -wqz,z '<xcr^tg<i- :- fa./ [aa nr, ov eu,o*LW O4,r
laryirl, i ,*^-tVr.) no evtAL;|5 4rtnt a'P Qxct?) crcu- uf oul*4
P"7v,^r.,,r't t^r' \r+ [4$l- b vuu- ^1, i ctaecY.c'J {i"{ +o SrS
a(rr\a,Vo.l , ! tt^ln e\o,*<tl hir^ a b,roct.,.,t.z- \.t^4# Ifr*+*f {wvL
9,?'h ,,*9!> , f pvrn{.rl it-r r'n co\or. J- t {(,, i{. wrD o.*t} 5g,1) \thr/r
f!lit'; :fq,{^l- wo{,qe r) OflU,V{l tMI v\o) h,tS gO.z^ ha,^,c. 6lnlt*ol,
C< +*n ,a'l t' So yo^ \;t.1. yr* d.J y*e{o< \t,,. rta[,,rvl, :r +.rrphtn^ t- pvi^t^ro( i+ C\^^^^ hj: t-sb9l;4 < otq) Utc.tr,lul (a. ott^
"tff"$y. tlo 3 ^te- w<.
A +rrrn arjKrc,( obcr.tt* *f.x l-tb.ri, ;! t{q\e.l {Wr. Vl;1 ,{,,^ \U
b,'f,r-h,."^, ' Ht S'*Pr\ 9at1/ tr 3n *; gP^;* +w Atlr,9 lrfl ,.utr:; cr,t* *z
nnouaaSaf hc li ucr,
vi(e anl
laO,,*rl:n.fE- 4$e ditolbbl^ crrl tt^+.k ..€]1 {ru.,!rq lw "Llbr,:< tlxtv,lt/, bt ,o.
W t* $( A{e\l'"..J 1Sa;} i\ r4j6' o*v ,r1.;ry.onc.};l,ll .
1L a1*{1| \."'* ic l..,- wt*s an arrLur*r)t, r,a Sa,rl \tt W4S.s q.1(<4J hi,.^. lC tn"c !\o*J(F +\"e \^!,4 u.c^{- ?.*-.t pNl
l\.( ga* $.^ vtt&.rl , A t"ta. rrri- r-)an cottr.u,o\ UF. ^ cat,^^a..,- 1*,741 ;r- gr,'tt d.'t f ask".l' h,',,,.'l f W u5<J rAn1, 6V9O- ,i"^;'$t)
I +-\,I hi^ ,^zctt clocuu..r.\<-l *rW,1 [,rtr tN.r:-
t\& Shat ba.K $cy 6ft z+"t a ,' A*- ytL\ d\\ a"Sor:s{ t ,ot c^,-1-
\^*)" $r \r-tn:a,/ " /au-,1a,{1 (nout whc-t{ yuT +rdx;4q a!>.t^+
{"p;iq tw45 ir cl. dcu,td,e;rt 9ra\;,.t," l\< *t^'^'t''- 9+'a(z t\ a wa'5
,nft'*t'thq['-lo1ag,nq {v.l.t! '' aq *tctulv.blt ptv,\it'* o{ fT"''] 1a'
+v^+r r^(vrql.(**' J,,n/ ry f f1q6 {oi-rL,l ,V &"*',) hrrrr'- 4nesf
l,r a,ty ra/.rnnsr-'t, wt",.*' : p*W/ hlrr- ur {uZ- Avt6 Aroo Xrt,
?- z"r Z
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 24 | P a g e
1t {^*- {atl h,,^^ t wc,vqV) L.l' )o t*vat* q--Wn fr1t
-$w^ 7 Yrr a3e iu,n). *\{ d..t$;+ a{- [az 5q,+e +\.2.
tL {Ar..^^- 96. I l*''- d''J r^vl' Krrt y6*n-fw,a! 5u} X*} b7 a.*
f.^^.n^..( ortl wlltkd a/'oL'&-,
t* ,tttr.t> a.y'fogc$^t o*l j,.t4 Y.t?+ fu^t1tal Wu/l+r:nj" H" /.'11:(
{aov hi: ovrq Fol''oi€1-
?- 7 "(3
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 25 | P a g e
l\yx;\ nf , lo, zst
1l'cL lwt
Notr+ fnru go^ Pr(.,^ lt\et\,v1
Lp p"rtl-tcl wp )7 1*< o. 'reu tl4,Il. f,',n<cl l,titt-i h4 ov't,''*'( q'{
t?.' oL 5pl4 9:)V tn.' ret""'t'/'ttt \' J e ' (an< 1", po''wA ' tle i'r laful/
hr'6 1(tf a5 g"vqt lk,n R. [<- w,'\r^;n/. k{{ i, rf d,t,,,^ a;hr^+
V k"l u""'ur'
, 4[rukr( ,^/,1 lL \r^e ta,t.t,e11 . t{t r wtelli,r'i+\ ,l-ta{rJ 1' T Kqs's
y0un "r/€.,.t to\.'crr,i I a .11&{ ywf O^n ccz,rVactuvl ar{.2<C( yut l0^..h liAf " \\. So,u' d* t^i^94 q'.,-r} ytrzvr^,q.5.'^ lo ,\66." ah\)
trwl.r\tr t !olc, [.,'rn it J.'ol naF a^r1,{ 9[.aIgat r<.qk2 Ltt\Ll .
lhr,. Ar*u15tl \dcAPRy2 155\ e a \elti h,'r* +9 )"<*rgrq1nJ' anr(
1,f.< \'nt*f \oftrl U&\^( o"/klr op {u( Qus(wt4 \' i+< uq^t e,.r cb",^t
ha,.z {t{y Clan\ l'""1 $^1 f'/rl^'s(rrM, }- a1"a'{ ba'1< l+Urt1 t^,,x f,
\{n*v .\ l,ltt{ b;1. abnrnt fffrq vi ttt"ls crvtnl ax(lc"r.a*c) \ve
\A!U5 {o lrrrar. t{o \h.t^ fc,i.i " '/r* hct {- ,r, prp*fl v,c,hls
4,tl f,tt."e (rl*r-. c".^ o*!".- Vov^- \PvDPvtOl , ^nl fu^* Oi yonn V*f+
a,a.7 \i ,ll,( \t^L, wrthY (p,l'Vult \ouv ?4(vnt5gto* gr- r,.o\rc{.1' s
Arrr,1 vf a{ }acA a. +,.1 [C.ru1 2, uwtlt tutcl'
(ha"{.r' r1-!1re{ P {-fp,*l ,-,r hJ fwte. 1r,t4t hi,r^. h< f.., l<ct \
\nttS 1 .'hen ht 5rr'e\ " = ? 't1,,5 <i1 rr'1n [ \o \oP 1o* \"'t.{ c^nt''
\vr4l wrtltrJ *^tt1 d' !'eF, u^tlt r,oh,crn Ytlfri,l , go {o p7;,r1 \ ty+
w. lt ura6 w0rle( .h* *u inp"'c{ on 'lri^ror^.'/ t -ru\Wo1\
lc^1eci
6, \U* \ve<s krfrF"^ ttt* tdw,-u- P''prlt*r)vt6, a *w^
g[t\rl 1,t*.1- gt { P flel t tr1 \"(10,,"1,',,.- lro \.rpp, aq a*) \!,4
ixynL k)aA 2Pr.L Pr, h. 6, l;"1 1,ff'"r). r- oi,,,lt (r,;.12 t^1 V*
wcrh+ i wuc 1."( [r.6, ab6\ .' ]+., )*t repl.'rJ ./af hct5 trre,rz'
r.t1h\ \o +.,f e.r* \'r'19 o"t1*"f 1"99tti JJ^r:sil^s 'j\ t
0rw\r^^0,. p.,n\ico1 a.,/ aas*p*abtt f {r'wt'ttt1 Ptul:Li| 1n {.^'(
lnl ultry 'r,^ r( o Pt 6n cl bY I ?'
P l,^{)
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 25 | P a g e
[fo v.{^ \ u..\ }.1 +t1 ,\,<<; *,\.^ h^-14 r{xr J; !*{ fr)*..
Xt ir.^;::*r^ h.rc.,zrq^ ?r,,t,1\ {h*. Fw*5 lo,tC<J ,{^,r1.,._\
$rur^t1hl- .rp fub,, t5iv,tl-,.b*;1 :, 1r,1. a*( ha*elsl,p. Gll
H til, tt c('aabttt c\n.t u$wi 6'n c' ke's-"r,,61,, ctc.u*r,tritrn*
)'*r t*(q tnt\ fffi,# i,,.j'0r,.,,i X.rr'I#:;-
[k g'"/ 7o^< oc \'"'t' o,nbr'n rq f r r,^2..g urot ro{I in vnr.urr?cobL{? 9".+ c.us{ v{"lr,r,S, li VlcuL \r, _-,r_ Loaa_ l1l.c 0( z.ila\ cr.r+!w,1" dtlwrr, p1 -lrt^.n 5q,rt ,, 1-.^a grriri loF r-r7 ,,*.1,". p*.-^. ".1.i "*&1"1; -I, 'x, tr;j-Otwan,.,ru e\6^ nrrul{.( {J li ^"r< irg^*"n_ O^;rJlIi {"ttJ hi'- {v.,,s r..rs rr\ci bt Llr^dt{g qlk !k . \}.t 5q,a{ L,?. t,t/rzrr(l
l.^* ;-;l i: ,,LT'',.In,* I"' h'q rc,K+ i^.* s wulAl\ off,vnr.( (^ t.?::: ia La*o*-T*-^U.'tfr ;fi;;,c*+ eFq\ffc *":
": Y v?q &r0 cLq,e( h-r! sr^^- ue^r.-at?,krpra-l.crl F.r,^ r,t/a$. flalt t LutJ hrr* .lt^{ g0,- ,t,,1*f..^,*+ (gr,<^ tw Cu
*w 1b.tl;u, ,0",;t'i't ^]I:,'':^:
inslq'0/*1'n- lJ"r 1'et- sai( "Tl'^+,
,\ err" pr,,- f*- T, , ^,ln ct.a:u.z\;t*l: Y:l; l7;l,rlii.t{ {*^( va,{^ ,f c" \,.* .u*.U bu *rr qt\-i. a .p r"^tt ,!5rt \,r pclti.a ',
u'{ l4H **,trnT i7o crlt,tl4,t j ua | 12
f v,(?
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 27 | P a g e
a z{u,,S lLnr- hesv h{ (ovlrs, wratE.{- lL,r Cta.,'* wlr,,t^ T-
+L( Lv.** 6p,p
t) 3-f3
rrwrr^\. r.cct {kr put,c7 0{ tnu .lrp}D,rry 6rn\
9ptcs. '*< w"r\ uu {o ,a} a p +J,)rr, nu oF
t' ,!n p orr+ ,,1 1x";- h*n (l+, ,. 5u*\,' -)
J\c.i{*,qrl,( \ u+l,h Mcrr,r, f .p'^b]l"t)'rn! t""t/(5 {o ri;. "Pfin7
\ +*rS hc.a/ h u
Rcr^{t/ -r'a,q r)r{a./,tMl
d'or ttol\ (*u\e
;- i:: -f-# T,,,"J,,'",X' tz'{vr Iw'? tq'rtw,(\u. r -r",r6i
utze\S t4rl tror a(a",\5.r_ L.f&iaL!4rrt rt1 5yti il,t^,,,u\ uAn- Alyo,t. Torc/ h,* \r",..\ tat Jf.g'rt'1 ,agrr( h,1 \,., +,.,\,y. ilrorr,u,rcrA{, ovbor6ls b/ luq$e,vlc,\t,ahr6. r *.,n\...,( +\.- ;,;;::, &1cata izr t,^,y< ltJ".1$uok 4r cFty [rpprn{cr yrr \ Lua+ fi!.r
i.i:"^ ":" q?pt1,-/4 ut4t Ah;o ,-rltodid':"rliir"i^L','fu"'''r ''"'o+ 4ta AW*nl p?|.:,u, bqt pnn,),k,t. t6 ,.,1 ha^kl "fl;n5 wU
,a,tl' " il< hc,tt 'fur+L nnu ,iiTi
Jroti,,.$l ur +ud ht
Jylq$lr,, 1, Lrac{ +, , , .t'vt ^\na' ur *v,"'l q,ll b(Yl r ,x ffi}.r j'1r' ,,-'k(c^r
4,rlavr,t{ h* .^..::,Y',*/' 1 4$c',' h.* ir l-(
a'*J o$
tocc.^s< \ *.r *,.^-.', :;:tJI.*:,, ;:,^;T." :-:,i;:furr r^*ojttn^"_1 oq rt,. .a. t +- , ,
,e,!r. , _--._ _,
np\ r\^L eql. n.r,"t,fl fi:.. i' \a[c\ 1^a- {r^.'1 wat
I;:',n-o'iI ^1;
*t: {*r?,'5 ^-,-^,:';. :::;t^L!{r):
r(,rrrtr r-ty rw-rr ;j.;;'^rItY hx*t o,.t' :a7 \'"a( {app','i
sh,.,"t t,( t s,+,t" #' ,#ffi ;J::i;:*;J.::' 3:':.YG.\'
H{ 5q,J \,Arg ;..r^ra \o1x{ Wcrrrr,rt l*J ra*r{ L Ltazenll s,,nalt.tq'[ It T^r- {ryp;nq 6L }h{ il{ v,.n^_ {1, lr^,r bouqf.-l u{ c,/a
Pd \rO,\ u1.r.-q)'
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 28 | P a g e
w lo /to (?^ // lu ,f 12
Cotll e / t /- anl atk/ -/" T.l, h enj Trok ,€*./
x {n^l {,rat Ld/ sail "'tuhl /o 'yr^ ty'(-1.L.,1 l-o' LJtl {r
A U)vwrnn'' - T +h"*)hl *Ar5 uq; frn^7 qf d l"q*v-
!ea((e/ geau"l 1,wt lredrtc Aut rrt*< ha,rl' {-ht he/pa, L
*olcl l*- t utuos(ty' J- Kur* l-t* Spdc,af en, +1,< fvt*rli4eJ, 7- {.td ht-, llta,^*2rtl- ,'+ u"L$ LY,' $uf u,<!t*d/
c()wr;/ ututl,v. x a-lso *o d l,rQn ,- ,vtn^4*vs Fo
lhu *w futgfu o{ *k lN,*- l,wr'
*rx- afl^r.t/ 6,- t*7 Weu 4o, J -t<, lJ q4 {, h.lr/ on .
,+{.1*. a &u ,n,n^k! q mavt eut ttq-,q.vf *U Pha<,
ht ,rre/rr"./ h Ouypn- ry Ttntl-,bul_Ht g;/'tyo^
hun n- uthtrpla,;,^f p^/)y aql ne<c/' b l, pkryh
+1,'e I u.c wrtt^ yo-, ?ugt,\,| f, +,id he fl^^f114 tnfrr'qa"l eou,fl<,* wq). 0105<r/t /J< =r^/,,rrtktel *ha1 * uu,t ./o ;; ;"; tk /,(t.ei
complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 29 | p a g e
Jt rr,< q , zo ?-o
q 1"1 Pr'r'r
C* Uu + SVytl'n r 1Lf
[*rt Tl tr- F )
i cqlte.( tu4 5 ? ffao,', Qar,r, ^,^\ (, [>n d\
S{pt^l/t r +D a>( P* h;l l7aw,.^z- 0w<- awo<- t,'"^a }
ac.,Jort{t, futl \^f ur^ V;, ^ onrl AulteJ h,W b*ot
irnnt/.r(Up- Ht gq.:J '' S*uo' r f, {.1/ h;'k f
\-t49 tW.^t< ?o*W^,t1, o.."/ a*,rrr( ,'( l",e ,)rr,,.t'd Ar-i/
U* 4r, o\ " y*' . ! qkrl h:.,n <,<.r- h,5 ,ro_u,.e d'tg hc
a*"d, rhy- A \ztJ h;^. \.Lx h*J qv',,L'Efri.. rrrl.\c
It.,-lc oJr>a+tr ln.7 +!vt/,, t-\e tu*' 5avl,t\y{rrt'" -f (o&^'(
€*- h,1 lr.st vcrL---,* ar.cl lu+ g'''! " Vky d'o yor; wetol
,u7 lall y1(^+c'l -f- !,(^ \^,'^- ,t- '-a5 '(4.,' ^y fep*"{, 'l-\e
Ae.\;',^"d. a +/J h,r^ l/r4 olr<dj gct{ twe- h;r {,,fi aaa--t-
l4o- rrro,nJ h;a (o.f [ t\ot-^e- h*-! hl," l-1. d,<.\,'r.*J - I
4[r^ Sa,& &^ lnp,u ab*rf
T uu( l1>Lvawr< i^,Lr/
larJrLt"r :..iJ'Hl f {h.c,^aa,c( [,.:r.-
\*),
t^^g\ 1a.l
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 30 | P a g e
a / rr I o-"o- T-x4 { lQ{-.^ A)/ fo
rtay +^ torl I.1?'t" Cpe:'u' Sot^5ov*c'o '
(gqBr rcr( {-uf- kun Las,'s %r.tsoc4)e- \o1*aA 1\ Aq 4^K,,rc1 ,1,,,1- U qrLLl WL- a_/, l2_or)*?-lqZt
S eau-iL l.L bq..u. out ll.. V^*ywt bv,<_ *./
:^,c- t"rc.,,rL.l \, , * { 4Oo7 eo ({,.,^_ * A,?cv.,e9*
rvlt<tvy lt o ( tt, tr0t4 ,\n' P)f t Jot;- l,.e,r o__
e!^? la^"r t- qnLg yXnali"4 aq/ sL<_ so,.r) V^^+
st\A u,rll-S i^>t,,^cl-.rJ -{"- qo,1^E,.,/- ,,r.* ,y,PLqo4 t-+o
(\'ta ')
gL'" c*)so aa,u\ Ah,L r.,urou ta{ (/4 at-L ,:-, tlU\o"o/a,
V<*-+ttt^"^- V'.oo * $'SDAtra d,lt^ eL Su.-;,?gpr bul+
r.f,,.rrutt / Vt | fu.2 O vt, tLLvl 1p rWp<-v!., . 1U( So.J
t^A ,rl,q-trd J, ;f {*,^'+*_ *;/ I Lrt,l t^,e4.
ur.l,rcart- QuZ- pWWq Lov zr.<^r pi^ tpus loa k/ld So.-r,^4 q"rer '+i*Ic-
:r \f/- l*o.--. L^/e d:rr^,t p*la2\ lo n4-eu. aloo^+ IW?jya T . {"rtd lt*.- \r-L u'auw c:€ 4ve ?p< e1
)rw"r-*utt;tn\ - 9t<- *'$ *lc a/"L,\ 3b.4 ir- +ru-
&xtr.&.x cra^(J 94 I {p"* 1r2 Ut\,e uj^-%
)1q7't- o.^z- (aco.{^.J .
L"4W t{4r.F A^, q* 5'. t'l Pu ! StnYL^,<* ot
\t,rl b a,to^,2{'{, \",L p.p r dew,p\,v-, a3 j Ai *of
\^/qf"+ Y' ,* 9*t . ry&'t1ra^,-a *t'a-u(''-- f '?" a,w*.r^ Y,.1,O 5:o\ P.r^' r-,\aa.(l"y ?\*'ut<-W yd
I nll2 -IO ttt i- CA,\+-7p4 W
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 31 | p a g e
Text Message received from Casie Sansoucie on Wife's phone [phone] at 9:15AM
Hi Mark, Casie Sansoucie here with Idaho Power. Can you please give me a call when
your available? Thank you, Casie.
(Note Wife's phone is contact number of record. Call returned as seen in handwritten
notes thenfollowed up with a clarification text shown below.)
Text To Casie at Idaho Power
From: MARK PECCHENINO [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 02,2020 2:38 PM
To: MARK PECCHENINO
Subject: Copy of text to Casie at Idaho Power
Casie, this is Mark Pecchenino. I forget to mention the pipe is above ground irrigation
transfer pipe as they have underground transfer pipe. To be clear what your looking for
is an Above ground 8-inch by 4O-foot white poly transfer irrigation pipe with rubber
gasket. I beleive they only come in 40-foot lengths where as the underground transfer
pipe may come in 20-foot lengths. Its different pipe, but looks the same but
it will not connect to above ground pipe.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Her Text response received at 3:17PM
Thank You so much Mark! I'll get this information over to our contractor
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 32 | P a g e
4. Regarding Notice. The Complainant still maintains no notice was given for
Incident I or Incident2 and that Idaho Power has provided no documented
or verifiable proof that notice was given. whereas the complaint has
provided extensive proof and insurmountable evidence that notice did not
occur as claimed by Idaho Power.
Regarding Incident 1. Idaho Power maintains notice was provided and
makes the claim that the Complaint's dates are invalid in an effort to
discredit and invalidate the Complaint's claim. It was documented in the
Complaint on page 45 that, " Unforhrnately the notes form Incident l, could not be
located from storage and a general time frame was used." The Complainant did not try
and mislead the Commission or misrepresent the facts, as the facts were stated. The
Complainant did not know the exact date of incident 1, only that notice was not given.
Regarding Incident 2.Idaho Power has made several statements claiming
proof of notice. Their first proof of notice claim was in a statement to the
IPUC. The IPUC in an email dated May 6, 2o2o to the Complainant stated
the following: "Additionally, the Company claims a Company
representative knocked on the door to provide notice and left a door hanser,
though the door hanger did not provide specific dates." (See Insert 2)
In their Complaint response they state, "Notification. Idaho Power denies
Complainant's allegations that Idaho Power did not provide advance notice
of the tree-trimming. According to Idaho Power's records dated March 30,
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 33 | p a g e
2O2O, Complainant was provided advance notice, via door-hanger on
Complainant's door at the subject property, of the upcoming work. Idaho
Power confirmed its contractor visited the propert-v shortl.rs after the
COVID-19 social distancing practices had beeun. On either Fridav. March
27 or Mondav. March 30. 2020. Idaho Power's contractor confirmed they
walked from the road uo the lane to the front door of the residence and
placed the hanser on the door without knockine to avoid makins contact
with the homeowner pursuant to social distancine guidelines. The
contractor subsequently entered the day's notified locations into an
electronic database. If the Complainant were to produce the recordings
referenced on page I I of the Complaint, as requested in discovery by the
Company, Idaho Power believes the records would validate the exact date
and time contractor arrived at the residence on either March 27 or March 30."
If the alleged notice was entered by their employee into an alleged "electronic
database" why don't they know the exact day and time? Why didn't the
produce this alleged data base entry as evidence? Now the Complainant is
supposed to provide ldaho Power with proof of notice. Their response chastises the
Complainant by stating, if the Complainant were to produce the recordings
referenced on page I I of the Complaint, it would magically validate the
exact date and time contractor arrived at the residence on either March 27 or
March 30. What kind of recording system do they have. Again this validates the
Complaint in that their notice policy is arbitrary and cupreous. If they had proof they
would not be relying on the Complainant to provide them with their evidence. This is but
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 34 | P a g e
one of many misleading and fabricated statements of proof and fact they cannot backup
with hard evidence.
The response claims they have or had some tlpe of Covid policy regarding door
knocking, I find this ironic. If they have a policy it is not being followed as clearly
indicated in their first statement of notice proof from May 6th or is the Covid policy
conjecture. Where is their proof pictures, logs, depositions, none were offered
as no notice was given and they cannot prove otherwise. Their response also
mentions an non published informal email notification process which is not
stated in their notice policy or on their brochure. However, their response
comment validates my notes and statement made by Tyler as factual. It this is
not a published policy than how could I make up that part of the conservation
The Complaint states that Tyler said I was noticed by email. It seems Idaho
Power making this stuff to justifr their poor training and policies.
Here are some additional facts to show Idaho Power presented a false
statement or non compliance with the Covid policy. The maintenance crews
had completed their work in my area but they came back a few weeks later to
work on my neighbours trees. only my direct neighbours, the ones to my
immediate north and south. I found this suspicious and personally observed
both maintenance crews on different days. I asked my neighbours if they
received notice. Both stated that Idaho Power come to their door, knocked
and ask them for permission to enter their property for pending maintenance.
complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 35 | p a g e
They also stated that the day of pruning, the maintenance crew also knocked
on their door and asked permission to prune trees. When work was completed
they knocked on their door again and asked them to complete a customer
survey, one crew waited for the completed card as stated by one of my
neighbours. I did not ask the other neighbour if the crew waited for them to
complete the card. Well into the Covid lock down Idaho Power employees
and crews failing to comply with the alleged Covid no-knock policy.
The Complainant also maintains the following statement as factual, which
Idaho Power denies. This is the statement from page 6 of the Complaint, "The
Complainant asked the person whom appeared to be in charge, who later identified
himself as Tim, why they didn't notiff 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." Idaho Power brushed this statement offas conjecture from the
Complainant. If it's conjecture way was notice given by the maintenance crews to my
neighbours, if this is not a standard policy or practice. These facts further validate the
evidence and statements contained in the Complaint as being valid and not conjecture. It
is curious they came back and worked on my neighbours trees that did not
need work after an informal complaint was filed. It looks and smells like a red
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 36 | P a g e
hearing. So why was the special Covid door knocking policy disregarded in
during these incidents?
Idaho Power has change their story line regarding notice as needed to
justiff compliance on their part and as statement of fact. I guess they did
not count on the Complainant keeping track of their many
unsubstantiated claims. The Complaint clearly evidenced the many
notice lines used by Tyler when asked about notice. I'm sure if they
knew about their May 6th statement they would have cleverly concocted
some other statement of fact. They even seem to have added polices like
the pre-email notification. Email notification was claimed by Tyler and
immediately debunked by the Complainant. When asked about notice,
"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." Idaho Power now claims they send a, "pre-
notification, informational e-mail to customers who have an email address
associated with their Idaho Power accounts, and that are served by the
distribution feeder around which the trimming was completed." The
response goes on make another false claim, "However. ComDlainant has
not associated an email address with his account and thus did not receive
the email notice sent out prior to the door-hanger left at his residence."
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 37 | P a g e
Their Email policy cited in the response validates the testimony contained
in the Complaint, testimony t}:lat Idaho Power denied as fact and calls
conjecture. This statement, "However, Complainant has not associated an
email address with his account" is false and an outright mistruth. The
Complaint clearly stated an email was associated with the account and it
was stated in the Complaint that the Complainant ". . . checked his emails prior to
this meeting from Idaho Power for the last 6 months." The fact is there is an email
associated with the account and was established 6 months prior to Incident 2. This fact
furttrer validates the accuracy of the Complaint and the deception and conjecture upon
Idaho Power to deceive the Commission.
In summary, here is a numbered list and review of the many statements of
facts from Idaho Power regarding notice. There are 7 different statements of
fact in total and they are different. So who is taking this Complaint seriously
and providing the Commission with honest and factual information, you will
obviously be the judge:
Notice Statements I through 4, April 27,2O2O
' Tyler said, "The trimmers left a brochure on your door prior to starting work".
2 Tyler then stated, ". . . then they would have knocked on your door and noticed you that
way.t'
3 Tyler then stated "... then you would have been noticed a week ago, by our staff. "
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 38 | P a g e
' Tyler replied, "Well then, (long pause) we would have sent you an email regarding the
matter."
Notice Statement 5, May 6,2O2O. A Company representative knocked on
the door to provide notice and left a door hanger.
Notice Statement 6, September 25,2O2O. Idaho Power confirmed its
contractor visited the property shortly after the COVID-19 social
distancing practices had begun. On either Friday, March 27 or Monday,
March 30,2O2O,Idaho Power's contractor confirmed they walked from the
road up the lane to the front door of the residence and placed the hanger on
the door without knocking to avoid making contact with the homeowner
pursuant to social distancing guidelines.
Notice Statement 7, September 25,2O2O "
associated an email address with his account and thus did not receive the
email notice sent out prior to the door-hanger left at his residence."
It would appears there is conjecture upon Idaho Power and not the
Complainant. Their subjective nature and bold statements as being factual
further demonstrates and validates their arrogance and concerns for their
customers.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 39 | P a g e
Here is one last fact to validate our evidence that notice was no given
during incident I or 2. There have been two attempted home envisions
upon our home . This first one was about three years after we moved the
this property and evolved 3 armed men at around 8 pm one evening. We
had our guard dog then and she adverted and alerted us to the intrusion.
They were defeated and left the property. As a result of my accurate notes
and description of events and the perpetrators they were apprehended. The
sheriffs department had been looking for them for sev.eral months resulting
from this type of activity in the Kuna area. I was told by the investigating
sheriff that there apprehension was a direct result of my notes. This is a
matter of public record. After this event, the Sheriffs department suggested
several securiqr measures including the driveway alarm that was mentioned
in the Complaint. This and other security measures were immediately
installed as suggested. A few years later, and well before Incident 1, a
second home invasion was attempted at around 4 arn one winter morning.
The driveway alarm sounded and I was alerted to the intruder. The alarm is
set to maximum volume so we are awakened if sleeping. When the alarm is
tripped the dog immediately runs to the front window and starts barking. A
perpetrator was observed trying to break in through the garage and 911 was
called. Again this is afact of record. So to be clear we take the driveway
alarm very seriously and investigate it every time it sounds off no matter
the time day or night. For Idaho Power to claim that a contractor walked
from the road up the lane to the front door of the residence and placed the
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 40 | P a g e
hanger on the door without knocking and we did not notice the intrusion or
hex4 the driveway alarm is false. First there is no safe place to park on
Ten Mile Road due to the bamow ditch and limited shoulder width. This
is also a fact as the Sheriffs department has pulled speeders and drunks
over on Ten Mile Road and have had them pull down our driveway for
safety reasons mentioned above. This is also a matter of record as a
complaint was filled with the Sheriffs department regarding this practice
of TRESPASSING and they stopped using our driveway as a safety
zot:,e. So if Idaho Power states their contractor parked in an unsafe
manner and walked down our 3OO foot driveway and failed to trigger our
alarm or dog is poppycock. I can state as fact, not conjecture, that no
notice was given or attempted.
5. Matter of Easements and ROW. Idaho Powers response states that, "It is
the property agent's responsibility to avoid planting trees or other
vegetation that will encroach on the platted Utility Easement and interfere
with utility uses of the designated lO-foot Utility Easement." Being a
professional land use planner in Idaho for many years, with a masters degree
in Urban planning and a good grasp of Idaho land use planning laws having
drafted many of them I would like to know what statutes or Ada County
ordnances Idaho Power is referencing that prohibits the property agent from
utilizing their property to the full extent including the planting of trees in a
utility easement. I know of no such law. An easement is an easement not a
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 41 | P a g e
ROW. They stated, "In the present case, the Complainant allowed the
subject trees to grow into the Utility Easement and interfere with Idaho
Power's adjacent Distribution Line, requiring the Company to trim the
trees under its standard three-year growth trimming policy." Well shame
on me, it is my property to do with as I see frt. I don't see Idaho Power
paying any portion of my property taxes, when they do they can have a say
in what I do on my property. The Complainant, being a considerate person
and land use planner planted his trees well outside of the easement as a
good will gesture when considering Idaho Power and its power line, not
because it was a requirement. The trees that have grown within the
easement are a direct result of overnrnning by Idaho Power. This stress of
over pruning is evidenced as it caused an inordinate amount of epicormic sprouting from
some of the popular trees into the easement area as stated in the Complaint. This is a
direct cause and effect of Idaho Power diminishing the Trees growth by over pruning
and topping. This also debunks their theory that the Subject Trees poor
health is a result from lack of proper watering as the majority of sprouting
occurred in the easement and not the hay field. The Complainant cut down
and removed as many sprouts as possible, but not all. The Idaho Power
survey highlights three such sprouts, trees 2,3 and 4. There statements are
more conjecture by Idaho Power to confuse and suggest to the Commission
that they have some inherent right to private property and how I should be
used. The response also states, "Idaho Power and its contractors can
legally access property to trim vegetation that is touching or close to
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 42 | P a g e
power lines using public rights-of-way. private rights-of-way. or easements
to protect public safety. This statement acknowledges they do not have
unrestricted access or a right to trespass as the later claim in their response
and as claimed by Van Patten. The Complaint has never argued the statement
above regarding ROW and easements, only that notice to enter property was
not made or granted by the owner and they encroached outside of the
easement to top and prune trees. Apparently they do not understand the
vertical line concept, 1O-feet across and straight up.
6. Idaho Power Survey. Idaho Power had a survey performed using a Trimble
57 Robotic station and reflectorless method. This survey failed to list the
specific distances the trees were located outside of the 10-foot easement.
However it clearly shows the trees topped during incident 2 are in fact outside
of the easement. However, Idaho Powers colourful rendition and exhibit of
their understanding of the survey attempts to blur the lines and create
confusion.
The Idaho Power survey is the same as the Complaint EXHIBIT 2, SUBJECT
TREE IDENTIFICATION AND SPACING. I apologise for not including my
mythology and methods in drawing this document and how the dimensions
were derived. I will now clariff this for the Commission so the have all the
facts. During a survey of the property by a professional and licensed
surveyor, the northeast corner pin of the property was located. This pin fronts
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 43 | P a g e
Ten Mile Road, near the subject trees. The Complainant used that pin and a
professional landscaping firm to set the tree planting line. The Contractor
used the property line pin and GPS survey equipment to locate a tree planting
line 5-feet outside of the l0-foot easement as requested by the property
owner. They also dug the holes and planted the trees. From there a flood
water ditch was established for the trees and the hay field was reduced in size.
In developing Exhibit2,t}:re Complainant used the same property corner pin
located in the survey and a tape measure to develop and derive the
dimensions shown on Exhibit 2. The Survey performed by Idaho Power when
compared to Exhibit 2 demonstrates the accuracy and factual evidence
submitted by the Complainant.
I would like the Commission to consider all facts as Idaho Power makes
claim as to the accuracy of Exhibit 2. The Idaho Power surveyor, Mr. Farias
did not tie in the property corner pin in the survey, even though its location
was told to Casie Sansource and suggested to do so by the Complainant
when she called to notiff him of the proposed survey. Secondly, Mr. Farias
used a Trimble S7 Robotic station and reflectorless method. An EDM is an
electronic distance measurement, which also has limmitations. One is they have a limited
range of measurement. The range between his two points are not noted on the survey.
This type of suruey is generally limited to l5 to 150m with an accuracy of I in 1000 to I
in 10000. They also generally have an accuracy of I in l0 5, having a distance range of
100kma disadvantage of limited range of measurement. Not being familiar with the
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 44 | P a g e
specifics of this particular model I looked it up. The manufacture states the Trimble S7 is
EDM Technology and has DR Plus technology with an EDM Accuracy of 1.0 mm +
2ppm Prism I 2.0 mm+ 2 ppm DR. These facts are for clarification purposes of the two
methods used.
When looking at the professional Idaho Power survey it would appear trees l, 13 and 14
strayed off the line. This is likely due to the shallow lava rock and caliche that likely
moved their 2-foot diameter auger when drilling the holes. However as evidenced in
Exhibit 2 and the Idaho Power Survey trees 5, 6,7 8,9, 10, I l, 12 and l5 are well outside
of the easement as established on their sulvey and the Complainant.
In their response, Idaho Power stated, "Complainant alleges Idaho Power was not
authorized to trim or remove trees outside the lO-foot Utility Easement." This
is not correct. The Complaint states Idaho Power had no right to trespass without
notice and permission and that the trees were a great distance from the [power line
and that their policies are arbitrary and cupreous. Idaho Power statements in the
response state they have a right to work in the ROW and easement, but not outside
of those constraints without permission. They went onto to state, "Idaho Power did
not trim Complainant's trees beyond the l0-foot Utility Easement." This is
obviously a false statement as their own survey clearly shows the trees outside
of the easement. Pruning the branches next to the trees truck and topping the
tree was clearly done outside of the easement on trees 5, 6,7 8, 9, 10, I l, l2 and
l5 as mentioned above. They even stated that the branched were trimmed next
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 45 | P a g e
to the tree trunk as required by ANSI 43000 standards. The Complainant fails
to understand their reasoning that they did no encroach outside of the easement
as the survey clearly shows the majorit5r of trees are outside of the easement.
They go on to state, "The lO-foot Utility Easement is reserved for public utility
use and any use of the Utility Easement by the lot owner must not interfere with
superior right of use by public utilities." Where is that statute, its private property
and not a ROW. Easements only grant access by a utility and in rare cases for the
installation of a utility such as a gas line, cable TV and other communications.
However, these are generally located in the ROW and not the easement unless
servicing the property such as the gas line or sewer line. They also claim, "In the
present case, "Complainant allowed his trees to grow into and across the 10-
foot Utility Easement, extending into Idaho Power's Distribution Line located in
the adjacent Road ROW, as shown in Figure 2 and Affachment 2 to this Answer
and Motion to Dismiss. Idaho Power had the right to trim the interfering trees back
as it did, following its 3-year growth trimming standard." This is also false
statement, the branches did not extend into the ROW as claimed.
The Complainant still maintains, Idaho Power encroached on private property
without permission and outside of the easement. Secondly, Idaho Power
continues to maintain that they, "had the right to trim the interfering trees back", I
agree in principal, but to what standards and dimensions non have been stated. This
is the crust of the Complaint their arbitrary and cupreous tree trimming policies
which were not addressed in their response, but avoided. EXHIBIT 8,
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 46 | p a g e
DISTANCE FROM POWER LINES in the Complainant clearly shows topped trees up
to 2L feet from the power line. How does a 2l-foot distance create an eminent danger or
hazard?
Idaho Power also stated, "Although Complainant's Exhibit 2 is not drawn to
scale, it appears to suggest the trees and the coffesponding branches do not
extend into the Utility Easement. However, Idaho Power's Figure 2 correctly
reflects that all trees in question extend into the Utility Easement at present, even
after being trimmed by Idaho Power's vegetation." The Complainants EXHIBIT
2A, TREE IDENTIFICATION is a photograph of the Subject Trees. How is this
not drawn to scale. Their misleading and colourful rendition of easement lines
showing the Subject Trees within the easement is not to scale and more
poppycock. Idaho Power did not like the results of their survey, so the created
their own Figure 2. The best evidence is the survey and not their version of it.
The Commission should disregard Figure 2, which in my opinion appears to be
drawn to confuse and mislead the Commission. So the facts are, the topped trees
identified as 5, 6 and 7 on the Idaho Power survey were outside of the easement
and could only be topped through encroachment on private property.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 47 | p a g e
Idaho Power Survey
,*** rrf ra d
N
I
t
I
I
E
"qTEAI COSEi IOT 2lJ
r{llilnr€GD6 !4)rc,ts
ADornolol Pffrtsro
:bi)
ro^o Rrc*fi oF st
r+j 2. PlOffifrMlffirOfmYuEs 8florf, rclEoi E E8t &$rcogY rE ffiEO EEClEttraG LD }€ECEO UGS FRil NG TEMGD H.ATS ra.etnE $rolugofl
weTAI& trtp tr 3 rerffifanwsm
UR'€O M€ FETCEr hEsr oF Rt6l{I oF ruY
TCREOI' !*EE Sfil/EYEO XErcTCLVfrtx l ntd,"E s7 RGrrrc toiaSrAfE{ USiG nEFIICImLESS
rounEoFtM
IMUiCS EASCIEIi
is
I
I
E
I
t,'I
E
x€oroo8
B SA OC t€raHOS B mS Al^rER r.€vGsr 20aG €nD^anuB.
iRE€S ti€ rdlEnCD aY nns sYta8ot ,,rfiffigmffi
,l--,,
id
)
LOI2.8t@f, r{Erc&O nrt ![- ,) I--l
I?l I()r
I
ct )l
I
i,( )l
o
5t0Ji2uF
of E(n€sMsroar
I
I
i
i:
POT'ICR Fq.g
-l
I
E
I
715
sECIfr rIG
i!i
I.)l
sYtto- oYP)
Ia'l)r.t I
F-
tl-
E
lo.w--t
i
I
too
FOlmautntlcp
)68 trlE l'.il slE AIAQO PECCHENINO TREE SURVEY
ADACOUNTY, IOAHO
sEc. 15, T.2N, R. 1W B.M
n. rf
&rT trr tE t€ gawff
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 48 | P a g e
7. Matter of Trespass. In regards to trespass specifically the response states that,
"The above utility easements 3 and 5 grant Idaho Power a ten (10) foot utility
easement inside the east boundary of Lot 2, which lies adjacent to Ten
Mile Road, as shown on the Plat (the "Utility Easement"). This is true, but it
does not grant access outside of that easement without permission. The
response referees to ldaho Trespass Statutory Exemptions in which the
respondent stated, "In 2018, the Idaho Legislature exempted certain
activities from civil and criminal trespass claims where individuals have
lawful or public safetv authority to access the private propertv." Consider the
underlined wording lawful or public safety, not for routine maintenance. They
also state, "For tree-trimming pu{poses, Idaho Code SS 6-202(7) (civil trespass)
and 18-7008 (6) (criminal trespass) use identical language to exclude application to
individuals who enter or remain on the property pursuant to the following
rights or authorities:
(a) An established right of entry occupancy of the real property in question,
including, but not limited to: (iii) A lease, easement, contract,
privilege or other legal right to enter, remain upon, possess or use the real
property;
(b) A lawful authority to enter onto or remain upon the real property in
question, including, but not limited to: . (iii) Any licensed professional
otherwise authorized to enter or remain on the real property during the
course and scope of fulfilling his lawful duties; or Any other person with a
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 49 | p a g e
legally prescribed right to enter or remain upon the real property in
question."
The response also stated, "These statutes also provide illustrative
examples of persons excluded from trespass, including, but not limited to,
"a meter in the scot.re and course of s elTtn (tvmenttt and "power
company personnel fixing downed power lines." The two cited reference
"pursuant to a Prescribed Right to Enter". One might argue that as a
condition of accepting power service from Idaho Power and the associated
meter would constitute a Prescribed Right to Enter as a condition of
acceptance otherwise your meter could not be read an appropriately billed.
Repairing a downed power line, a matter of safety is considered a emergency
life safety issue. Idaho Power would have the Commission believe that they
have some type of prescriptive property rights or implied easement to entire
private property.
The Complaint maintains the trespass committed during Incident 2 is not
exempted from trespass nor is the damages resulting thereof. Idaho Power
exceeded their authority. They would have the Commissioners believe they
have unlimited access to private property, in fact this was the statement of
Mr. Van Paffen. The response also claims, "The Idaho Legislature delegated its
police power to ensure public safety by giving the IPUC regulatory oversight over utility
safety. by giving the IPUC regulatory oversight over utility safety." How does utility
safety grant access to private property outside on the prescribed and platted easement.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 50 | P a g e
They appear to have more access and rights than police. Police access is
limited to lawful duties specifically described in the trespass statutes as, only
for probable cause, while in pursuit or to issue warrants. Idaho Power claims
fl1s1 ldaho Code $ 6l -5 I 5 grants them police powers through the IPUC. Are
we reading the same code. By their logic, you just have to be an Idaho Power
ernployee to enter any private property with police power in tow. The report goes onto
cite IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TARIFF NO. 29 Idaho Power
Company I.P.U.C. No. 29, TariffNo. 101 Original Sheet No, Section 7. Rights of Way.
This Tariffas cited the Complaint, and considered by the Complainant has being in
violation of Idaho Code Idaho Code $ 6l-515 and arbitrary and cupreous. Idaho Code
Idaho Code $ 6l-5l5authorizes the IPUC to enact safety regulations for public utilities,
but it doesn't give them the authority to violate private property or constitutional rights by
granting unlimited access to private property. Idaho Powers response also claims, as "a
condition of service" Idaho Power has unrestricted right to access private property.
This must be new, there are two power meters on my property and I was never asked,
conditioned or requested to signed away my property rights as a condition of service
when they were installed. Can they provide a signed document to this fact? It would
appear from their statements Idaho Power has a lot of power and authority and consider
themselves as having complete and unlimited power over all land in Idaho.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 51 | P a g e
8. Contractor Personnel and Training. Idaho Power alleges more that 3 men
were onsite during the maintenance work of Incident 2. The fact is, only
three men were on site; a tree pruner, a helper, and flagger-noticer as they
identified themselves. Idaho Power claims that, ". . . each crew is required to
have either a Senior Trimmer or Foreman present. Both classifications
require certification from the ISA, Tree Care Industry Association, or an
equivalent Company-approved training program." This sounds great, but
the alleged fourth man must have been invisible. If there was a fourth
man present that day, a so called Senior Trimmer or Foreman why didn't
that person come to my door to notice me regarding the damaged irrigation
pipe. Why would Tim claim he broke the pipe while trimming the trees and
paid for a unsuitable replacement pipe out of his pocket. It was mentioned
earlier that my neighbours trees were trimmed. I observed the maintenance
crew working on my neighbours tree to the north for more than 40 minutes
while I was irrigating my field, my field abuts my northern neighbour. Only 3
men were present, not 4. Then I went to where the crew was working as I had
to adjust my irrigation head gates. The lower head gate was directly below the
tree they were trimming, the upper head gate is about 100 feet directly west
from the that gate. I went to the upper head gate first and made my
adjustment and then sat on my quad runner and continued to observed their
work. I was perplexed as to why they were there and cutting up a class 1 tree
that had just been pruned. The tree was a Russian Olive with a maximum
height of l5 to 2O-feet at maturity. They were cutting the middle out of the
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 52 | P a g e
tree. These head gates are shared with this neighbour and if this tree is not
kept trimmed it makes it difficult to access the head gate. A month or so
earlier my neighbour had all the trees on his property professionally pruned.
This tree did not need pruning. After watching them for about l0 minutes, I
drove down to the lower head gate where they were working. I told the 3
men, I'm in no hurry, finish you cuts and then please lower your boom so I
can safely access my head gate, the one directly below the tree. They replied,
no problem. After about 5 minutes they lowered the boom. Then the helper
moved the live branch debris out of may way, there were no dead branches
observed. He did this so I could access the gate. The largest branch observed
was about 2 inches in diameter. All very pleasant men, all 3 of them as we
chatted awhile. I adjusted the gate and left. I returned about 40 minutes later
to readjust that gate and they were gone. But all the branches were cut into
nice 2-foot pieces and scattered about my neighbours lawn and the ROW. He
is also disabled, and I saw him a week or so latter to ask about noticing. He
was furious about the damage done to his tree and the mess they left. He
could not understand why they did not chip the branches. I remember exactly
what he said, but did not make notes of this conservation as I hadn't intended
to mention it. However, Idaho Powers response as left me with no choice. I
wont use quotation marks, since I don't have notes but i remember exactly
what he said. He said, It was the oddest thing I have ever seen, they cut all the
branches into 2-foot sections. I don't know why, but what a mess it took me
hours to clean up. He also said he called Idaho Power to complain but never
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 53 | P a g e
received a return call. To recap, there was no 4th man that day as required
according to Idaho Power. Perhaps this is why he complained about his tree
being destroyed by Idaho Powers that day.
A few days later, on my neighbours properly to the south a maintenance crew
showed up. I was sitting on my front porch enjoying the day when the
maintenance crew arrived. I thought this was also strange as their 1 and only
tree in question was another class I tree and it is located 20 or more feet from
a secondary power line, the line that feeds my property. This tree is also
located outside of the 1O-foot easement (5-feet on either side of the property
line) and more thanT0-feet west of Ten Mile Road. In my l8 years on the
Property, I have never seen this tree pruned. It is brittle tree and the limbs
snap off with every wind storm and sometimes blow onto my property. The
neighbours there now are new, the older couple who lived for over l6 years
never trimmed any of their trees. This tree as well as all their trees were
trimmed by the new neighbours recently. Again I didn't see the need for
trimming, but without distance standards who knows. While on my porch, I
observed 3 men in total, no 4th man that day either. I observed their arrival.
After parking 2 men went to the house and the returned, the 3rd man stood by
the truck. I later learned from my neighbour the men asked permission to trim
their tree. They cut a few small branches, mostly they stood around talking
and it looked like they were done. I went inside to refill my beverage and to
get my phone to take some pictures. This took approximately 5 minutes.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 54 | P a g e
When I returned they were gone and no debris on the ground. They were
there less that 45 minutes maybe a bit longer I did not record any times. At no
time did I see the alleged 4th man required by Idaho Power s stated in their
response. The one they claim is with every crew, the trained and certified
master pruner and foreman. The person who assures the pruning plan is
strictly followed. It would appear the 4th man scenario is a myth, or policy
not being followed by Idaho Power contractors? This is another example of a
false claim that was not verified with first hand information by contacting the
crew there that day who topped my trees during incident 2. The Complainant
was on the property and provided first hand eyewitness evidence. Evidence
that Tyler, Van Patten or the Idaho Power attorney did not have. So on what
grounds do they claim conjecture on the Complainantpart, an invoice from
the contractor. I thought eyewitness testimony trumps hearsay evidence.
In there response they stated, "According to the contractor's timesheets and
statements, the crew Foreman was on site and involved in discussions with
Complainant. The Foreman supervised the work of a Trimmer and a
Trimmer Trainee at the site; a traffic control company also had personnel
present." This is a false statement by Idaho Power and not derived from
first hand evidence. They are trying to tell the Complainant that he talked
to this alleged foreman, poppycock. Idaho Power failed to interview Tim or
the other 2 men on site that day. Or they did and they are not disclosing the
true facts to the Commission. I believe the Complainant would have
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 55 | P a g e
noticed a 4th person, a person alleged to have spoken to him about the
broken pipe. Idaho Powers entire response is riddled with inaccurate and
false statements. I have no way to cross examine or ascertain the truth from
Idaho Power. They repeatedly allege statements in the Complaint are false,
when in fact their statements are false and misleading. It appears they are
being over charged by their contractor and Idaho Power failed to obtain
direct testimony from the eye witnesses there that day. This shows their
arrogance and lack of respect toward the Commission and validates the
Complaints comments regarding failed auditing of their contractors. It leads
one to believe Idaho Power is paying thousands of dollars yearly on false
invoices. The Commission should investigate this matter, as a ratepayer I'm
outraged. They go on to state, "The Foreman supervised the work of a
Trimmer and a Trimmer Trainee at the site; a traffic control company also
had personnel present." First, there was no traffic control company on site,
one of the three men identified himself has a flagger. This is another false
statement, unless the traffic control company was also invisible like the
alleged 4th man. I'm assuming the trimmer trainee they are referring to is
Tim. I cannot offer evidence or testimony on invisible people and
equipment. If Tim was not the Forman as he claimed and a Trimmer
Trainee its gross negligence upon Idaho Power for allowing a trainee to
damage my trees. There were only 3 men, not 4 on site. I just evidenced 2
other examples of 3 not 4 man crews. If rim was not in charge, why did he
pay for the pipe and give me his phone number to call if I had additional
complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 56 | p a g e
questions or issues. The Complainant has his phone number and will gladly
provide it the Commission if they want to question him. If this alleged
foreman was present wouldn't that have provided his name and number or
business card. Idaho Power also claims that its not the contractors policy to
require their workers to pay for damages. Then why did Tim state this and
why did he pay? Why didn't the alleged foreman stop Tim from paying if it
was against company policy?
Idaho Power has made many unfounded claims. They suggested they
cannot interview Tim as he is no longer with the company. This is why I
was reluctant to bring up the broken irrigation pipe. I did not want Tim
fired or penalized for being denied proper equipment. He told me he had a
family. I hope the IPUC will seek the truth has as many of Idaho Powers
claims need to be investigated. I am both saddened and find it very
suspicious that I file a Formal Complaint, mention the pipe, and then
suddenly Tim is no longer with the company. What about the helper and
flagger-noticer were they fired. Is this a cover-up at the expense of 3
innocent men sacrificed for a contractors continued contract with Idaho
Power or conjecture by Idaho Power?
9. Work Plan. The response states that, "An Idaho Power contractor creates a work plan
for the trees in Idaho Power's vegetation management software application, which is
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 57 | P a g e
provided to Idaho Power's vegetation management contractor and assigned to a crew.
The day the work is to be completed, the vegetation management crew arrives, performs
the work identified in the work plan, cleans up the work zone as described in the
notification literature and other program materials, marks the work plan as complete in
the tracking software, and leaves a survey card at the property agent's door." The
Complainant reaffrms that the vegetation management crew of Incident 2,
had no work plan as they were asked by the Complainant for any work
orders or documentation. Secondly, the vegetation management crew
stated they were supposed to have noticed the Complainant prior to
starting work but failed and made no attempt as they stated at the
Complainants door. It has been documented herein that this is a standard
practice and validates the statements made in the Complaint to be true and
accurate. To date, Idaho Power has offered no proof, just biased
testimony from employees, contractors and obvious conjecture referencing
electronic entries and plans. They failed to seek the truth by not deposing
the 3 men on the crew. If you recall both my neighbours were noticed by
the vegetation management crew prior to starting work. It would appear
Idaho Power wants the Commission to believe that the Complaint and his
family failed to hear the Idaho Power Notice door knock, but somehow
heard the maintenance crews door knock during the Covid shut down and
their no knock safety policy. Also for the record, it should be noted of the
3 maintenance crews observed and mentioned herein none wearing face
masks, is this requirement in their Covid Policy?
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 58 | P a g e
The clean up of the work zone as described in the notification literature and
other program materials as mentioned above including leaving a survey
card at the property agent's door when work is completed. As evidenced in
the Complaint they had no documentation, work plan or survey card.
However Idaho Power said they had a tablet that contained the plan and had
the Complainant asked to see the tablet they would have shown it to him. As
evidenced in the Complaint, Tim was specially 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 had nothing
the other 2 men heard the question and did not respond with any documentation. Idaho
Power failed to mention that the tablet was with the 4th invisible man. I
hope the Commission can see through all this poppycock.
10. Debris. The debris was not cleaned up or cut to manageable sizes as
evidenced in the Complaint. It was also evidenced that the clean up policy as
stated in the notification literature and other program materials is arbitrary
and cupreous. Tyler stated the debris was cut to manageable sizes while
Van Patted indicated they were not. No size specification are cited. Based
on my neighbours recent maintenance work the standard appears to be 2-
foot, or at least that crews standard. But no standards has ever been
addressed by Idaho Power. If fact, Van Patten offered to have a crew come
back and cut the debris into manageable sizes, but never stated what
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 59 | p a g e
manageable was. Idaho Powers response failed this issue. It further
demonstrates their reluctance and unwillingness to address they core issues
of the complaint, their arbitrary and cupreous policies.
I l.Topping and Pruning. Idaho Power did state in their response that topping is
unacceptable. They said, "Topping is a form of pruning considered
unacceptable by the ANSI ,4.300 Pruning Standard and is therefore not
performed by Idaho Power or its vegetation management contractors."
They go onto state that, "In the utility vegetation management context,
"hazardous trees" are those posing a real and impending threat of structural
failure that could result in falling across a power line. More specifically,
"hazardtrees" are within striking distance of power lines and are dead, in
poor health, or exhibiting structural problems that are likely to result in
falling into the power line. Pursuant to NESC Rule 218, such trees must be
removed, either partialty or entirely, during each vegetation management
tree-trimming cycle as experience has shown to be necessary." The
Complaint stated that Idaho Power considered the Subject Trees hazardous,
therefore condemning them. Idaho Power dismissed theses facts as
conjecture claiming their employee never stated this. But in their response,
they claimed the trees were topped as they were deemed hazardous.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 60 | P a g e
Idaho Power has been selectively targeting the Subject Trees every
maintenance cycle because they consider them hazardous. This targeted
approach relieves them from their policy of having to pay for removal of
hazardous trees. Instead they use a different technique, over pruning which
leads to height reduction when the crowns or tops die resulting from the
over pruning. This is how it works, they come in every three years, severely
over prune the trees. This causes the tops to die, then they come back
during the next maintenance cycle and top them citing they are ahazard due
to dead tops. The repeat this process until they achieve their desired height
goal. Then the tree die and they claim no culpability and removal of the
dead snag is at the property owners expense. This is basically what Idaho
Power stated in their response and what was stated by Tim. Instead of
claiming culpability, they cite poor management by the property owner.
Then the process begins again. They continue this systematic killing
practice until all the trees they deem hazardous are dead. This is their
unwritten practice as it protects their bottom line. The photographs in the
Complaint document this fact. Idaho Power response states, "Complainant
alleges Trees 1,2,3, and 4, identified in both AttachmentZ and Figure 2,
died as a result of topping and over-pruning from the tree-trimming work
performed during Incident 1. Idaho Power not only denies all such trees are
dead, Idaho Power further denies the declining tree health or deaths
resulted from the 2016 pruning. Potential causes of such declining health
include water shortage, nutrient deficiency, incompatible soil pH, disease,
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 51 | P a g e
pests, herbicides applied along the roadside for weed control, and ice melt
chemicals applied to the roadway during winter." This determination was
the same rhetoric used by Van Patten. Their decline and culpability
determinations are made by biased Idaho Power employees. The
Commission should require a neutral 3rd party arborist to evaluate
complaints about Idaho Powers culpability. Testing for nutrient deficiency,
incompatible soil pH, disease, pests, herbicides could all be done with a
soil sample. There statement is pure conjecture and a falsehood. If the
Subject Trees declined due to water shortage, nutrient deficiency,
incompatible soil pH, disease, pests, herbicides applied along the
roadside for weed control, and ice melt chemicals as claimed by Idaho
Power then why are the other 2O plus trees fronting Ten Mile Road doing
well. Those trees have not pruned and killed by Idaho Power, that's why.
There is no water shortage to the Subject Trees as they are flood irrigated
every two weeks. Hundreds of dollars have been spent by the
Complainant on tree fertilizer and other supportive tree nutrients. Finally,
the Subject Trees are 25 feet from the shoulder of the ROW so how is
roadside weed control, and ice melt chemicals doing damage. Idaho Power's
ignorance abounds with more smoke and mirrors, one only needs to look at
the evidence and the photographs.
Idaho Power seems to be conflicted in their response. In one statement they
say they don't top trees and in another they say the trees were topped to
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 62 | P a g e
remove dead wood. They claim the trees were reduced using the Crown
Reduction method. This was toughly discussed in the Complaint. Crown
reduction is removing a lateral branches to reduce height. This method
works on fruit trees, maple trees and locust trees for example. These types
of trees all have one thing in common, they have a main trunk generally 5
to 6 feet in height and then limbs coming off the trunk and then branches
forming off the limbs. Theses trees gain height through their limbs and
branches. A columnar tree,like a conifer tree has a single trunk stemming
from the ground to the tip. It gains height through the extension of the
trunk. So their are no lateral branches to crown only a trunk and this is
called topping. I have inserted a document, Insert 4, to explain topping vs
crowning along with pictures of a Popular and Maple Tree in Insert 5 and 6
respectively. Idaho Powers example only shows an open canopy tree such
as a Maple tree. Again they are trying to confuse the Commission.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 53 | P a g e
Insert 4, Topping vs. Crown Reduction
The Difference Between Topping and Crown Reduction Pruning
Iohn Eiscnhower, ISA Certified tuborist WE-5213A
Inagrity Trce Service, Inc. 602-788{D05 www.itrecscrvicc.com
Topping is the'"I'word in the trce industry. It is the unacceptable pruning practice of
reducing the hcight or spread of a trec using headine cuts. Headine cuts reduce the trunk or branches
of a tree to stubs or to lateral branches too small to assumc thc terminal role of thc branch bcing cut. In
spite of providing short-term conuol of tree size, topping causcs scrious future problems. Whcn a trcc
or shrub is topped, several things happen:
l. The branch at the point of the hcading cut produces a flush of new gncwth, usually numerous,
vigorous and disorganized sprouts. This "witch's broom" of ncw growth desuoys thc trec's
natural growth habir and bcauty. Sprouts arc often long and upright with linlc variation in shape
and structure.2. In producing such profuse growth to replace the lost foliage, the plant is soon as tall as it was
bcforc topping. But now the crown is denser, requiring exua tim€ and effon to prune.
3. The sprouts also crcatc a foliagc shell, shading thc plant's interior, often causing inside
branches to die back.
4. Finally, thc new sprouts are weakly attachcd, crowded and prone to brcakagc. Although
topping is sometimcs done to makc trees safer, trees can becomc morc hazardous after topping.
The alternative to topping is Crown Rcduction.
Cnown Reduction is the selcctivc removal of live branchcs to dccrease the height or spread of
a tree's crown. Usc of drolrcrotch pruning cuts is rcquired. A drop-crotch pruninq cut removes the end
of a branch by cutting back to a crotch crcatcd by a lateral branch. This sidc branch necds to bc at lcast
l/3 the diametcr of thc branch being cut. If the branch is l/3 the diameter of thc parent branch or
larger, water and nutrients will be rcdirected into the lateral branch and it will assumc thc terminal
growth responsibility of thc rcmoved branch. The trce will producc less sprouts at the point of thc
pruning cut and the trce's natural growth habit will be prcscrved.
rL'(luction
trtlr.rl
hr*rch
rrnreim
A drop-crotch prunlng cut ls lllustreted above
Integrity Tree Service, Inc. @ 20@
The Difference Between Topping and Crown Reduction Pruning
Source: itreeservice. com/pdfsitopping-and-crown-reduction.pdf
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 64 | P a g e
Insert of Tree
is a Branch
a Lateral
Notice the long trunk and how the top of the tree is the extension of the
trunk. You could cut branches but the tree would still gain in height unless
the centre trunk is cut and that's called topping.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 55 | P a g e
Insert6, Image of Maple Tree
kteral Branch
Redr-rction cut here.
These trees gain height from the limbs and branches steaming from the low
trunk. Height is gained through limb and branch growth. Height is
controlled through crown reduction.
Idaho Power maintains they did not top the Subject Trees and the
Complaints allegations are false. However, they made the following
statement, "The dead tops in Trees l, 5, and 6 were at risk of falling into
Idaho Power's line and were therefore crown-reduced for deadwood to
mitigate this risk. When removins the dead toos from Trees 1.5 and 6,
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 65 | P a g e
Idaho Power's vegetation management contractor complied with the ANSI
A300 Pruning Standard by making reduction cuts at live laterals and not
leaving stubs." They clearly stated "When removing the dead tops" and the
pictures show stubs. The also stated that they reduced live laterals, what
live laterals? Commissioners please look at the Topping and Crown
Reduction insert which shows a lateral branch with a crown reduction
cut. Then look at the images of the Subject Trees in the Complaint and
the Popular and Maple tree images 5 and 6 contained herein. Then see if
you can find the lateral branches Idaho Power claimed to have cut. I
believe you will conclude they cut the tops as they have stated above
and affirmed by the Complaint.
12. The IPUC Safety and Accident Reporting Rules for Utilittes Regulated by the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. The response states,'Tlule 101 requires
electric utilities to abide by the provisions of the NESC.2 The NESC
requires electric utilities to maintain both vertical and horizontal clearances
near its power lines for public safety and reliability. NESC Rule 218.A . . ."
The NESC Rule 218.,4. is a generic rule which as left the individual state utilities to
define vertical and horizontal clearance requirements. Idaho Power as failed to
define the distance from power lines deemed safe and that require vegetation
management. The Complaint evidences policies that conflict and where no specific safety
distances are stated. Their policies are arbitrary and captious and non compliant with
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 67 | P a g e
Idaho Code $ 6l -5 I 5 as no safety standards have been offered or approved by the
IPUC.
l3.Damages. Idaho Power stated, " The Commission is not empowered to award
damages for losses, damages, or injuries. Damage claims for trespass to
real or personal property are tort matters that do not raise a utility customer
issue within the Commission's jurisdiction." The tree values requested by the
Complainant provide an example for the IPUC to demonstrate how arbitrary
Idaho Powers $50.00 voucher is. The Complainant requested compensation for
the trees so he could demonstrate to the Commission the true value of trees and
how other agencies determine value. It was also to demonstrate that Idaho as no
policy or rational process to determine tree value. A subject avoided in the
complaint.
14. Condemnation. Idaho Power maintains the Subject Trees were not condemned.
However thought their response they have categorized the Subject Trees as
being hazardous and posing a threat to their power line. When a tree is
considered hazardous their policy states is should be removed by Idaho Power at
their expense. To avoid this and the associated costs they just systematically
reduce the height and kill the tree until the end result is a snag well below their
power line as discussed in a previous section.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 68 | P a g e
15. Replacement Pipe. Idaho Powers response misrepresents a phone call between Casie
Sansoucie an Idaho Power employee and the Complainant as evidenced in the attached
notes. The response stated, "Although Complainant did not contact Idaho
Power or its vegetation management contractor regarding a damage claim, after
reviewing the formal Complaint, Idaho Power contacted Mr. Pecchenino on
September ll,2O2O, to gather more information and schedule replacement of
the pipe. Idaho Power admits that Complainant is claiming unresolved damages
associated with the irrigation pipe, but that Complainant has also requested
postponing resolution until a later date." The Complainant told Ms. Sansoucie, a
complaint was pending and she replied that she was instructed to go-ahead and
replace the pipe. The Complaint told her, ". . . we dont need to meet about the
pipe. I told her the name of the pipe and dimensions." If the Complainant wanted
to hold off why would he had followed up the same day with a text message at
3:l7pm clarifying the pipe description and the difference between an above and
underground transfer pipe.
Complainant's Response to Idaho Power Motion to Dismiss 59 | P a g e