20230804Answer to Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 August 4, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W Chinden Blvd. Building 8 Suite 201A Boise, ID 83714
Re: CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; PAC-E-23-11 FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT ET AL

Dear Ms. Noriyuki: Please find Rocky Mountain Power’s Answer to Petition for Reconsideration in the above referenced matter.

Informal inquiries may be directed to Mark Alder, Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager at [phone]. Very truly yours,

Joelle R. Steward Senior Vice President, Regulation and Customer & Community Solutions

Enclosures
RECEIVED
Friday, August 4, 2023 2:07:37 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
1
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF JACOBA H.
PACIFICORP ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER

NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05;
-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; -E-23-11
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1. In accordance with Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“Commission”), Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp (“Rocky
Mountain Power” or the “Company”), hereby responds to the petition for reconsideration
(“Petition”) submitted by Samuel and Peggy Edwards (collectively “the Petitioners”). The
Petitioners are seeking reconsideration of Order No. 35849 issued on July 11, 2023, which
dismissed their complaint against the Company. Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests that
the Commission deny the Petition, as the Petition fails to provide sufficient reasoning as to why
Order No. 35849 is unreasonable or unlawful, and the Petitioners have not presented any new
evidence to substantiate their concerns regarding advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI”)
meters.
2. On March 23, 2023, the Petitioners submitted a complaint against Rocky Mountain
Power, alleging that the Company improperly notified them of termination of electric service due
to their refusal to allow the installation of an AMI meter at their residence.
2
3. On July 11, 2023, the Commission issued Order No. 35849, dismissing the
Petitioners’ complaint. The Order stated that Rocky Mountain Power has the necessary authority,
as a public utility, to install an AMI meter on the Petitioners’ property under the Electric Service
Regulations (“ESR). The Order also concluded that the Petitioners failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support their claim that AMI meters pose a legitimate safety concern or that there
should be an opt-out option for AMI meters for public utilities in Idaho. Additionally, the
Commission found that the Company had complied with the Utility Customer Relations Rules
(UCRRs).
4. In accordance with Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, a petition for reconsideration “must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided
in it is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” The
Petition fails to provide any new evidence or reason as to why the findings in Order No. 35849 are
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with laws. UCRR 302 explicitly provides
that denial of access to the meter is grounds for termination of service. The Commission found
that failing to provide Rocky Mountain Power access to replace an existing meter with an AMI
meter is a violation of ERS 6(2)(d), which requires customers to provide unencumbered access to
the meter. Rocky Mountain Power agrees with this finding by the Commission and the Petition
fails to provide any reasoning as to why this finding in unreasonable or unlawful.
5. The Petition alleges that the AMI meters are a “downgrade” due to alleged health
concerns associated with them. However, these allegations are not supported in the record. AMI
meters offer substantial benefits to customers by reducing meter reading costs and providing
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options. Moreover, in Order
3
No. 35849, the Commission has already addressed the Petitioners’ health concerns, stating that
they “go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety.”
6. The Company’s motion to dismiss further reinforces the safety of AMI meters, as
they have been deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). It is important
to note that AMI meters emit 100 times less radio frequency density than a laptop computer, 300
times less than a cell phone, and 50,000 times less than standing next to a microwave oven. All
these devices have been approved by the FCC as safe for human use. The Petitioners’ claims, that
contradict findings of the FCC, lacks credible evidence and the Petition merely cites evidence
already referenced in the record and the initial complaint. Consequently, the Commission’s
determination that the Petitioners have not provided sufficient evidence to support the idea that
AMI meters pose a legitimate safety concern or that Rocky Mountain Power should be obliged to
provide an opt-out option is reasonable and well-supported by the record in this proceeding.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the Company respectfully requests that the Commission
deny the relief sought in the Petition.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER

______________________________
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) Senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power