20240214Appellants Brief.pdf

Attorney for Respondent PacifiCorp d/b/a
Rocky Mountain Power Company
Joseph Dallas, senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power,
825 NE Multnomah, STE 2000, Portland, OR 97232
Attorney for respondent IPUC
Raul Labrador, Idaho AG
Michael Duval•ISB# 11714,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W, Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A, Boise Idaho 83704
Idaho Supreme Court of Appeals
Sherry Cole
V
Rocky Mountain Power, IPUC
Appellants brief in the matter of case nuMber: 51148-2023
From Idaho Public Utilities Commission Tribunal PAC-E-2023-12, Final decision made August
22.2023
Sherry Cole
Appellant Pro Se
350 S 12th W. #14 Saint Anthony
Idaho 83345
ii Page
RECEIVED
Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:02PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of authorities: pg 3-4
Background on Case: pgs 5-8
Issues presented on appeal /argument pgs: 9-20
Conclusion pg: 21
Appendix list and signature pg: 22
Certificate of Service pgs 23-24
2 Page
Table of Authorities
American Insurance vs. Cantor
Barron vs. Mayor and city council of Baltimore 26 US 511(1828)
Cedar point nursery v Hassid (2021)
Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394
I.A.R. 6
I.A.R. 10
Idaho Code 61-301
Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14
Idaho code section 67-8002 section (2) (3) (4)
Idaho Constitution Article 2
I.R.E. 103 rule 401
Idaho Athletic Comm. vs. Office of the Administrative Rules ISC docket
51211(2024)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260U. S. 393
State of Missouri ET AL vs. Joseph R Biden ET AL no 23-30445 5th circuit (2023)
Reed vs. Reed 404 US 71 (1971)
3 Page
Thomas vs. Union Carbide 473 US 567(1985)
US code 42 title 18. Section 242
U.S. code 42 § 1983
US Constitution 5th, 9th and14th amendments
United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256. Pp. 438 U. S. 123-128.
Page 438 U. S. 106
Pp. 438U-. S. 130-131.
Pp. 438 U. S. 133-135."
4 1 Page
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Rocky Mountain Power moved the meter bank approximately five years ago. Two of the four
meters on that bank were numbered incorrectly resulting in customers cross billing. This was
discovered at the end of December 2022, when a crew was dispatched due to a power issue. At
this tim6I talked to the investigating crew, was told that I had a bad meter but also the meters
were crossed and they were not authorized to fix that, they would let the company know and
someone would be out in a couple of days to fix the crossed meter issue. The company would
send someone out in a couple of days. I have been at this address 20 years on the correct meter
until this time...
When Rocky Mountain Power failed to appear, I contacted Rocky Mountain. Power. So I
requested a written report of the findings of which I received on January 28th, 2023.
The conclusion of the investigation by Rocky Mountain Power was as follows: (1) yes the meters
were crossed; (2) RMP fixed the crossed meter issue on January 13th, 2023; (3) a remedy in the
amount of 1262.52 was given. See (exhibit 1)
This did appear on January bill due in February. See exhibit (2)
At this time remedy was made to appellant. The problem arises in the following month's bill they
added in 1621:08.
When the monetary amount of the remedy was credited to my account that became my personal
property under the 5th and 14th amendments of the United states Constitution because of this
5 1 Page
fact IPUC tribunal lacks jurisdiction to intervene in a matter of which a constitutional outcome is
certain, they being and administrative agency. IPUC is most certainly not an article 3 court under
the United States Constitution.
Talking to the supervisor Tanya got the appellant nowhere. at this point, I requested to talk to the
manager and was sent to the managers voice mail that said to leave a detailed message of the
issue and a call back number and they would get back with me as soon as possible, within the
next 10 days if was more complex. To date appellant has never heard back from them regarding
the issue.
I filed a Complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission under the assumption that they
investigate and mediate customer billing complaints about a regulated public utility, due to the
billing irregularities according to their site information, this was the first step needed to be taken,
for billing mediation. Idaho Code 61-301.
I the appellant. Started researching myself and could find no limitation to recuperating all of the
money for the entire time they had been overcharging me while the meters were crossed; in
Idaho Law, only mention of 6 months was if I had been undercharged. Appellant was
overcharged. So it appears both RMP and IPUC gave me false information
Appellant then gave this information to Jan, the old commission secretary, also to Mr. Dallas
when contacted with a settlement offer that was counter offered with the new information that
was much fairer to both parties and Mr. Dallas declined and walked away from negotiations.
61 Page
From the informal investigation all the way through to final decision was only to protect Rocky
Mountain Power while ignoring the facts, in evidence, by IPUC. Which is a direct violation of
how they were set up when made, they are required to remain neutral and unbiased.
The appellant's case was already proven; it was just for mediation because of actions by Rocky
Mountain Power. Appellant does concede IPUC is implementing some changes at the Idaho
Public Utilities commission, but this does not change the fact of what the previous staff did in
this case and the Commissioners and Deputy AG Duval had seen the evidence, and ignored the
evidence and facts. Or what they may do in the future as fluid as they with rules and regulations.
The Orders and background are inaccurate and false. By ignoring the facts and/or falsifying
them. Example of false statements used in the tribunal background orders. Ignoring I.R.E.103
rule 401, which Sherry Cole's evidence predated the false claims of Rocky Mountain Power,
IPUC chose to ignore facts and accept perjured sworn affidavit and false claims, to accept Rocky
Mountains Powers claims almost a month afterwards as truth instead of the facts. (35903 pgs3-
4).
The agency is not allowed to deal with Constitutional issues for obviously good reason. The
appellant, Sherry Cole was led to believe this was just for mediation so as to not bother the
courts, not be blindsided by a tribunal ran to protect Rocky Mountain Power. That most citizens
don't even know anything about, including the appellant at the time or she would have gone
straight to the court of law.
7 1 Page
I the appellant, Sherry Cole asked IPUC to remove themselves several times as they were not
named in the case as defendants, they had made their final decision there is nothing to defend for
IPUC. In appellants case against Rocky Mountain Power, nor were they being sued. They are
unable to adjudicate Constitutional ssues, which resulted in the appellant's permanently
revoking jurisdiction and refusal to ever submit to their jurisdiction again after the treatment
from this agency.
I filed a Jurisdictional Challenge solely to the order inserting IPUC into my case as co defendants
in my case a month or so after they had made their final decision. That was not answered by
IPUC, until this court denied it.
Case was filed Sherry Cole VS Rocky Mountain Power as originally filed and accepted by this
court. Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14
Thus as IPUC and this court wish, The Appellant's brief was changed from the original one
prepared for the Sole defendant originally named. Appellant is more than willing to take this case
all the way to the US Supreme Court for the Constitutional deprivations proven by the evidence
of Sherry Cole against Rocky Mountain and shown by IPUC tribunal in this action, if need be.
81 Page
ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
There are a myriad of very problematic matters in the case at bar. The JAR 6
allowing IPUC as a defendant in a case where a regulatory taking has been
asserted and the matter moves out of tribunal phase into an actual court of record
only to continue the tribunal while in a court of record, is a severe matter. Appellant
suggests an immediate review of the rule and some form of judicial review process
created. Tribunals should never be merged with courts of record as a basic function
of the separation of powers. You see, IPUC is an executive agency and courts of
record are a separate branch of government. Here you have an executive agency
exerting judicial tribunal power (purely administrative) and allowed to defend in a
private citizen suit against a private company acting as lead counsel also for Rocky
Mountain Power. The cross contamination of government powers displayed here is
more than troubling. From the original act of RMP crossing meters and
overcharging appellant to the inclusion of IPUC as a defendant and the AG's office
acting as lead counsel for both defendants as shown with MR Duval listed in the e-
file and serve for the Icourt portal, this private citizen is concerned with the power
being wielded by the merger of state and private power. It's time to address this
serious situation.
9 1 Page
Argument
Error in decisions and regulatory taking
This is a clear case of decisions made in error by Rocky Mountain Power and their
Attorney, any competent person can see. Which is incomprehensible based on the
facts of the case. The Appellant finds that is it inconceivable that Rocky Mountain
Power can admit an over charge occurred due to crossed meters, gave relief, and
subsequently withdraws the credit and claim they were never crossed, so recharges
the appellant. To be credible action based the facts in evidence.
This is a clear violation of the 5th and14th Amendment by the utility and their
refusal to correct the issue completely for the entire time the meters were crossed
due to the Utilities error. After being presented with the facts and continue to do so,
shown by the evidence in exhibits 1. 2, 3.and Rocky Mountain Power is still
retaining Appellants property illegally. Idaho Code 61-301" CHARGES JUST AND
REASONABLE. All charges made, demanded or received by any public utility, or by any two
(2) or more public utilities, for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any
service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonable
charge made, demanded or received for such product or commodity or service is hereby
prohibited and declared unlawful . "
If it was anybody else but a protected private corporation partnered with a State
administrative agency, they would be facing criminal charges.
The Decisions made by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission are in error due to
ignoring the facts of the case and accepting perjured sworn statement of the
10 IPage
commission investigator and false information provided by Rocky Mountain Power
when the appellant, Sherry Cole's submitted evidence predated Rocky Mountain
Powers false claim. In final decision was made appealable by as IPUC made their
final decision was told I could appeal it. Based on Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
Resulting in Regulatory taking by both Idaho and US law Idaho code section 67-
8002 section (2) "Private property" means all property protected by the constitution
of the United States or the constitution of the state of Idaho. (3) "State agency"
means the state of Idaho and any officer, agency, board, commission, department or
similar body of the executive branch of the state government. (4) "Regulatory
taking" means a regulatory or administrative action resulting in deprivation of
private property that is the subject of such action, whether such deprivation is total
or partial, permanent or temporary, in violation of the state or federal constitution.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was
violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any
11 I P g e
Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.U.S. Code 42 § 1983,
US code 42 title 18. Section 242" Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both"
Constitutional issues and regulatory takings
This situation violates the 14th Amendments `due process' clause as a regulatory
taking. Rocky Mountain power was given ample opportunity to correct their error
which would have cured the taking, but a subsequent investigation and then an
IPUC tribunal resulted in an enforcement of the taking instead of a correction. That
has brought this matter now to the ISC on appeal. Unfortunately, the state of
Idaho's 'regulatory takings' do not match the United States Supreme Courts
application of same as the Idaho statutes only authorize a taking when private
property is involved, The Appellant does consider her money Rocky Mountain Power
12 IPage
legally owed her for the overcharges, her personal private property that they took,
and IPUC aided them in keeping
This is not the case in Barron v Mayor of Baltimore. John Barron did not have his
property seized upon by the state of Maryland; he merely lost the use of his ability
to make money with his property. Since regulatory takings involve the deprivation
of a right via the regulatory process, the SCOTUS has developed a well ordered
regulatory taking doctrine based upon the deprivation of private rights that results
in injury. This means appellant will need to consult federal regulatory taking case
law, assuming if the case moves further, that the federal court must utilize its
selective incorporation authority to assist the state in arriving at the proper legal
outcome.
The 14th Amendment section 1 requires Due Process of law as well as the 5th
Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
13IPage
This was done prior to the appellant Sherry Cole, contacting Idaho Public Utilities
commission for billing mediation, by Rocky Mountain Power without any due
process of law. IPUC Continued in complicity to protect Rocky Mountain power,
that was supposed to be mediation but turned into a tribunal with final decision
made, and further abuses of the Appellants Constitutional protection of private
rights.
Both the State of Idaho's and the US Constitution put limitations on Government to
protect the regular private citizen's private rights from abuses and overreach by the
Government and their agencies and public/private partnerships. Appellant cannot
help but see conflicts with cases such as Cedar point nursery v Hassid in which the
court drew upon an earlier precedent, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York
City, 438 U. S. 104 in which the court examined the regulatory taking from an
'impairment of use' position. In Penn central the court maintained, "(a) In a wide
variety of contexts, the government may execute laws or programs that adversely
affect recognized economic values without its action constituting a "taking," and, in
instances such as zoning laws where a state tribunal has reasonably concluded that
"the health, safety, morals, or general welfare" would be promoted by prohibiting
particular contemplated uses of land, this Court has upheld land use regulations
that destroyed or adversely affected real property interests. In many instances use
restrictions that served a substantial public purpose have been upheld against
141Page
"taking" challenges, e.g., Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U S. 590; Hadacheck v.
Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394, though a state statute that substantially furthers
important public policies may so frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations
as to constitute a "taking," e.g.; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, and
government acquisitions of resources to permit uniquely public functions constitute
"takings," e.g., United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256. Pp. 438 U. S. 123-128.
(b) In deciding whether particular governmental action has effected a "taking," the
character of the action and nature and extent of the interference with property
rights (here the city tax block designated as the "landmark site") are focused upon,
rather than discrete segments thereof. Consequently, appellants cannot establish a
"taking" simply by showing that they have been denied the ability to exploit the
superjacent airspace, irrespective of the remainder of appellants' parcel. Pp. 438 U.
S. 130-131.
(c) Though diminution in property value alone, as may result from a zoning law,
cannot establish a "taking," as appellants concede, they urge that the regulation of
individual landmarks is different, because it applies only to selected properties. But
it does not follow that landmark laws, which embody a comprehensive plan to
preserve structures of historic or aesthetic interest, are discriminatory, like "reverse
15IPage
spot" zoning. Nor can it be successfully contended that designation of a landmark
involves only a matter of taste, and therefore will inevitably
Page 438 U. S. 106
Lead to arbitrary results, for judicial review is available, and there is no reason to
believe it will be less effective than would be so in the case of zoning or any other
context. Pp. 438 U. S. 131-133.
(d) That the Landmarks Law affects some landowners more severely than others
does not, itself, result in "taking," for that is often the case with general welfare and
zoning legislation. Nor, contrary to appellants' contention, are they solely burdened
and unbenefited by the Landmarks Law, which has been extensively applied and
was enacted on the basis of the legislative judgment that the preservation of
landmarks benefits the citizenry both economically and by improving the overall
quality of city life. Pp. 438 U. S. 133-135."
Obviously, there are some differences here that can be addressed between the case
at bar and the Penn central case but it may be helpful to look at what the Penn case
attempts to carry out. Obviously the court seeks to distinguish between where a
government regulatory agency and a private property matter coalesce and lean
heavier upon the deprivation of a private right than the use of the regulatory power
to accomplish a public good. In the matter at bar there IS no public good to
16IPage
juxtaposition against appellant. The ONLY position that could possibly be asserted
is 'well were in the business of making money and can't correct every little mistake
and stay in business'. If the enjoyment of private property were to be left in the
hands of those with fatter wallets, we might as well suspend the US constitution
right away. It is obviously interfering with business.
9th Amendment Issues
These public/private partnerships with regulatory power of the state determines the
resolution process in tribunals, were never designed to circumvent due process of
law, but only to act as resolutions when due process is not a factor otherwise the
entire state and federal legal apparatus has cleverly found a way to circumvent the
restrictive power of private rights. Due to fundamental alterations from the manner
federalism operates; a more cooperative model has been the result.
This has led to widespread rise of federal and state tribunals for conflict resolution
and emergent problem in the operation of these tribunals has been systematic
deprivation of private rights and due process of law.
17IPage
In a Decision on a first amendment matter in the Supreme Court Justice Alito
stated." That the US Supreme Court is ready to address the public private problem
and is merely awaiting the correct case/cases to do so". Appellant is happy to oblige.
In many recent decisions and even one coming from the 5th circuit [23-30445 5th
circuit] (2023), the federal courts are beginning to look at these public private
partnerships through the lens of violation of due process.
Previously, the Federal Courts have restrained themselves from intervention into
the private realm based on the courts long standing precedent on private rights in
Barron Vs Mayor of Baltimore. John Marshall issued the landmark decision
declaring that the bill of rights was only operative against Federal action. Since
then, the Federal Courts adoption of selective incorporation has made private rights
applicable against the state. With the advent and growth of these public private
partnerships under the regulatory power of the State and Federal government,
there has been an increase in regulatory takings.
Tribunals without some level of judicial review cannot act as courts of law which
could try and enforce Constitutional questions of law. Even the federal courts have
a procedure for determining a case's constitutional outcome potential and making
sure the case gets to the proper tier of fact so that constitutional questions can be
handled. Tribunals in the federal sphere LACK this power (American insurance v
18IPage
Canter). Obviously, the state court allowing IPUC in as a defendantshows a
profound lack of understanding of the constitutional principles that work to protect
the citizenry and restrict government action. Indeed, the activities of the state
appear predicated on circumventing these restrictions at all costs.
The Idaho Public utilities know the private citizen cannot get legal representation
against the utility with the fluid ability to make up rules and regulations as they go
as long as the lawmakers are not in session.
The involvement of IPUC in the case as we have already seen is extremely
problematic, it appears to be in direct violation of Article 2 of the Idaho
Constitution, Separation of Powers, and "ARTICL1,] H DISTRIBUTION OF
POWERS
:Mali() 'Constitution
SECTION 1. DEPARTMENTS OF (;OVEPN AL I 1,,' NT. The po\vers of the government
of this ,state are divided into three di st net departm legislative, executive
an4adicial; and no person or collection of persons chii i.ged with the exercise ()I'
Wvers properly helonging 10 one thLH , deportment shall exercise :n powers'
properly belonging to either of tho hers, exo.pt in I his constitution expressly
directeOr permit ted.
Appellant sees no valid reason for IPUCs involvement in this case past their final
decision as they are incapable of fielding constitutional 'due process' matters ofilaw
191 Page
and yet... .here they are, and Our Ag's office is not allowed to represent either the
Appellant or Rocky Mountain Power.
While I.A.R. 6 is valid their agency procedural rule is not valid, IPUC used to insert
themselves into this appellants case private citizen against a private corporation.
Idaho Public Utilities did not answer the Jurisdictional Challenge issued to them,
until this Court denied it.
20 1Page
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, when the impairment and in this case deprivation of the property
(Money, and use) legally belonging to the plaintiff, all she was asking for was the
correct compensation by the complete return of her property by Rocky Mountain
Power.
There is no defense based on facts of what was done in violation of the 5th and 14th
Amendment violation by Rocky Mountain Power and conspiring with the State
administrative agency to keep the money legally owed to the appellant by law, as
evidenced.
These tribunals do not adhere to the Constitutional restrictions placed on the
government of "We the People", and therefore they are not permitted to adjudicate a
matter where in, Life, Liberty. Or property can be deprived without due process of
law when these matters emerge in the tribunal.
Appellant motions that a hearing for oral arguments should be set I.A.R. 10
Appellant is seeking the return of all her money legally owed by Rocky Mountain
power, Legal fees incurred and damages.
211Pa ge
Appendix of separate appended Exhibits
Exhibit: 1 Rocky mountain Powers report on January 13, 2023 investigation on their own
letter head
Exhibit: 2 January bill received due in February 2023
Exhibit: 3 February bill due in March 2023
Sherry Cole Date
22 IP a ge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the /4 day of 4-.46,ev-7 , 20 -7./(//, I served true and accurate copies
of the foregoing document on the following persons, either by deposit in the U.S. Mail, addressed as
follows and with the correct first-class postage affixed thereto, or be deposit in the designated
courthouse Mailbox, or by hand-delivery, as indicated below:
Name: Michael Duval/Raul Labrador
Served by:
[ Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Electronic submission via !court portal file and serve
[)0 email SLDe P-cd
Name: Joseph Dallas
Served by:
[I Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[Xi Electronic submission via lcourt portal file and serve
[ email
23 Page
Name: Idaho Supreme Court
Served by:
[ Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[I By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[S<] Electronic submission via lcourt portal file and serve
[I email
Sherry ole Pro Se Appellant
24 lPage
ROCKY MOUNTAIN%
POWER
POWERING YOUR GREATNESS
SHERRY COLE
FRANCISCO L SANTIBANEZ
L.
1.91.11111111,11.11111,111111111111..11,111.101011111111.11
Dear Sherry Cole and Francisco L Santibanez:
Recent investigation shows that you were billed
14, Saint Anthony, Idaho. You were billed for a
meter that provides service to you. This is most
the property's builder, electrician, or owner. We
correctly in the future.
P.O. Box 25308
Salt Lake City, Utah 841254308
1,1388-221-7070
fax I -877409-3193
rockyreoun rain power.net
January 25, 2023
mount #75048095 001 3
incorrectly for electric service at 350 S 12th W Trailer
meter that serves a neighboring location and not the
often the result of incorrect meter labeling or wiring by
have taken action to fix the problem so you are billed
Your bill from May 25,2022 to December 28, 2022 has been corrected to refleq your actual usage and
a credit of $1,262,52 will be subtracted from your next bill.
We are committed to providinw.excellent customer service and making sure you receive accurate and
timely bills if you would litie more information or have any questions, please call-us'anytime toll-free at
1-888-221-7070. Any of our customer service representatives will be happy to assist you.
Our secure, convenient and easy-to-use website empowers you to manage your electric account and
stay informed by signing up for email alerts;46)141erts, or both, Once you have established your online
profile, you can choose to go paperless and receive monthly email notifications when your bill is ready,
set up automatic payments, enroll in Equal Pay, plus much more. Downloading our free mobile app for
Apple and Android devices is another option for quickly accessing your electric account The app
provides many self-service channels, including the ability to report and track outages, make payments,
and look up your account history. Get started at www.eockymountainpowernet
Its a pleasure to serve you.
Sincerely,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas inforrnacior, Herne al 1-888-225-2611 para habler con an representante en espanot
our true strength Is
our connection to you
ic .e6"4. .-C--7 -G4-•, •^- •-••• • —
SHERRY COLE
FRANCISCO L SANTIBANEZ
KULA I' MUMI I All
POWER
M2111.1ft
liONMOMINMIPMMINOMMIP
Your Balance With Us Payments Received
E ST-CLASS
MAIL
PR ESORT E D
U.S. POSTAGE PAID p4,ciricoRp
Questions: Call
1-888-221-7070
24 hours a day,
7 days a week
rockymountainpower net
Previous Account Balance 365.53 DATE DESCRIPTION
Payments/Credits
AMOUNT
-150.00 Jan 3,2023 Payment Received - Thank You
New Charges
Adjustments
150.00
+669.18 Total Payments
-1,857.20
Current Account Balance -$972.49
Note: One or more of your services has been adjusted. If you would like more information or have any
questions, please .call us anytime toll free at 1-888-221-7070.
Detailed Account Activity
$150.00
ITEM 6- ELECTRIC SERVICE 350S 12TH W Trlr 14 Saint Anthony ID
Residential Schedule 1
METER
NUMBER .
SERVICE PERIOD
From To
ELAPSED
DAYS
METER READINGS
Previous Current
METER
MULTIPLIER
AMOUNT USED
THIS MONTH
342852591 May 25, 2022 May 26, 2022 1 5971 6016 1.0 45 kwh
Current Month Estimated. Your bill may not reflect actual usage.
NEW CHARGES - 05/22 UNITS COST PER UNIT CHARGE
CLOSING CHARGES
Basic Charge - Single Phase for 1 day(s) 0.27
Energy Charge Winter Block 1 for 1 day(s) 33 kwh 0.093\3050 3.08
Energy Charge Winter Block 2 for 1 day(s) 12 kwh 0.1091650 1.31
Energy Cost Adjustment for 1 day(s) 45 kwh 0.0035400 0.16
Customer Efficiency Services 0.0225000 0.11
Tax Act Adjustment for 1 day(s) 45 kwh -0.0018200 -0.08
B P A Columbia River Benefits for 1 day(s) 45 kwh -0.0101330 -0.46
Write account number on check & mail to: Rocky Mtn Power, PO Box 26000, Portland, OR 97256-0001
t INSERT THIS 4
EDGE FIRST
Nor ROCKY MOUNTAIN I POWER
PO BOX 400
PORTLAND OR 97207
ROCKY MTN POWER
PO BOX 26000
PORTLAND OR 97256-0001
1140011"1114ih1WHIJ111141141+1"114"1
BILLING DATE: Jan 30
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 75048095
DUE DATE;,...
A la
See reverse 146,414 ch Legt-141
"iorth:
RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
H 75048095 001 327 000000000
'Account Number .:16048095
Date Feb 25
AMOUNT OPE:
seedier the amodfit enelosed. •
eStlY COLE
„NOISOO L GANTIBANE4
OAl2TH W TFILI'1114, ,
MIT ANTHONY (0 '4511752
4e-4/Z14: -IISHERRY -C-C7ILE
issim6FRANCISCO L SANTIBANEZ
CANA INEPIIIMIr
FIRST-CLASS
AWL.
PRESORTED
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PEc1F1CORP
Questions: Call
1-888-221-7070
24 hours a day,
7 days a week
rockymountainpower net
Your Balance With Us Payments Received
Previous Account Balance -972.49 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Payments/Credits 0.00 Jan 30, 2023 Payment Adjustment: Refund Pending Approval -486.00
New Charges +505.54 Jan 3012023 Payment Adjustment: Refund Pending Approval -215.00
Adjustments +1,621.08 Feb 3, 2023 Payment Adjustment: Refund Applied to Account 486.00
Current Account Balance $1,154.13 Feb 3, 2Q23 Payment Adjustment: Refund Applied to Account 215.00
Total Payment; $0.00
Note: One or more of your services has been adjusted. If you would like more information or have any
questions, please cal/us anytime toll free at 1-888-221-7070.
Detailed Account Activity
ITEM 9 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 350 S 12TH W Trlr 14 Saint Anthony ID
Residential Schedule 1
METER
NUMBER
SERVICE PERIOD
From To ELAPSED DAYS METER READINGS Previous CurreM METER MULTIPLIER AMOUNT USED THIS MONTH
341834327 Jan 27, 2023 Jan 27, 2023 26042 26042 1.0
342852591 Jan 28, 2023 Feb 27, 2023 26042 30775 1.0
Total 31 4,733 huh
Next scheduled read date: 03-28. Date may vary due to scheduling or weather.
NEW CHARGES - 02/13 UNITS COST PER UNIT CHARGE
Basic Charge- Single Phase 8.00
Energy Charge Winter Block 1 1,000 kwh 0.0933050 93.31
Energy Charge Winter Block 2 3,733 lovh 0.1091650 407.51
Energy Cost Adjustment 4,733 kwh 0.0073300 34.69
Customer Efficiency Services 0.0250000 13.59
Tax Act Adjustment 4,733 kwh -0.0018200 -8.61
B PA ColUmbi River Benefits 4,733 kwh -0.0101330 -47.96
Write account number on check Small to: Rocky MM Power, PO Box 26009. Portland, OR 97258-0001
4 DISERT THIS
I EDGE FIRST
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
PO BOX 400
PORTLAND OR 97207
ROCKY MTN POWER
PO BOX 26000
PORTLAND OR 97256-0001
1111'1111111"1"1111111111"11.1111111+111'111"1"111111P1m1
See referee
RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS.
RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
H 75048095 001 324 000115413
A -A nrui..tum I.
POWER
• BILLING DATE Feb
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 750480
Pleased
SHERRY CT
ARTIBATIEZ 35D*I2TO .1041004 „
NIV:PANTNoNi'. I D D3445-1752