20220928Reconsideration_Order_No_35544.pdf

ORDER NO. 35544 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 28, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

On May 2, 2022, Tami Thatcher (“Complainant”), a customer of PacifiCorp d/b/a
Rocky Mountain Power Company (“Rocky Mountain” or “Company”) filed a formal complaint
against the Company requesting a formal opt-out of its smart meter program. Complainant alleged
the Company provided misinformation about its smart meter program and that radio frequency
emissions from smart meters cause health problems to consumers. On August 16, 2022, the
Commission entered its Final Order dismissing the Complaint. The Final Order provides:
The Commission has had previous opportunities to review smart meter technology,
and the prevailing scientific research on consumer safety, and concluded that smart
meters are allowed in Idaho. See Case No. IPC-E-12-04, Order 32500; Case No. AVU-
E-17-11, Order 33979. Although we do not question the sincerity of Claimant’s beliefs
on the matter, her assertions do not establish a persuasive causal relationship between
the smart meter program and her health concerns. Further, Complainant has not cited
any precedent where a public utility’s smart meter project in Idaho is required to
include an opt-out provision. See Case No. IPC-E-12-04, Order 32500; Case No.
AVUE-17-11, Order 33979.

The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process
outlined in its administrative rules, and does not provide preferential treatment to any
party participating in the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054. In this case, Complainant
seeks an outcome that is not required under the law, and for reasons that go against
well-established evidence on smart meter safety. Again, the FCC has jurisdiction over
the approval and use of radio frequency devices, such as smart meters, and has
approved smart meters as safe for consumers. Complainant has not provided sufficient
demonstrable, credible evidence to support a finding that the smart meters present
legitimate safety concerns or that an opt-out program is required. The Commission
therefore dismisses the complaint.

Order No. 35504. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, Complainant was
given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to petition for
reconsideration.

IN THE MATTER OF TAMI THATCHER’S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER

)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-22-09

ORDER NO. 35544
ORDER NO. 35544 2

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 1, 2022, Complainant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”)
of Order No. 35504. Complainant requested that the Commission grant her request for opting-out
of the smart meter installation system; “call out and stop the intentional disinformation” by the
Company of ongoing “factually incorrect” and “incomplete” information on smart meters and the
characteristics of smart meter transmission signals; and stop the Company from using “misleading
and unsound information” to “inappropriately dismiss” the potential adverse health effects from
smart meters, especially on vulnerable populations.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission finds that Ms. Thatcher’s Petition does not meet the substantive
requirements for a petition for reconsideration. Rule 331 provides:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why
the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will
offer if reconsideration is granted.
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01 (emphasis added). Complainant has not shown that the Commission’s
Final Order was unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law. Pursuant to
Rule of Procedure 332, “[g]rounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not
supported by specific explanation may be dismissed.” IDAPA 31.01.01.332.
Complainant reiterates arguments already considered by the Commission in her initial
formal complaint, and does not identify or provide any new rule or precedent for the Commission
to consider. Here, consistent with Commission precedent, a public utility’s smart meter project is
not required to include an opt-out provision under administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable
provision of the Company’s tariff. See Case Nos. IPC-E-12-04 and AVU-E-17-11.
The Commission has jurisdiction over the Company’s placement, care, and operation
of smart meters in the course of providing safe and reliable service. However, the Federal
Communications Commission (“FCC”) has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of
radiofrequency radiation that is permitted by smart meters. Although Complainant acknowledges
that the FCC has jurisdiction over the safety of equipment that produces radiofrequency radiation,
such as smart meters, it is clear that she disagrees with the FCC’s conclusions on the safe level of
radiofrequency radiation. The Commission acknowledges the sincerity of Complainant’s concerns;
however, in this case the Commission will continue adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels
ORDER NO. 35544 3

of radiofrequency radiation based upon the presently accepted scientific evidence. Thus, the
Commission finds that the petition for reconsideration should be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
DONE by Order of the Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 28th day of
September 2022.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC-E-22-09 Thatcher\orders\PACE2209_final_recon_cs.docx