20230928Notice of Appeal.pdf

RECEIVED
2023 SEPTEMBER 28,2023 5:25PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
September 28,2023
Supreme Court No.51238-2023
Filed:10/17/2023
Idaho Supreme CourtJanNoriyukiMI.G .CI k..eame agnepaln,erCommISSIonSecretaryBy:Kimbervae,DeputyIdahoPublicUtilitiesCommission
11331 W Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise,lD 83714
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
RE:NOTICE OF APPEAL OF IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ORDER #35904
Dear Ms.Noriyuki:
Please find enclosed our Notice of Appeal in the above referenced matter.
Informal inquiries may contact us at 208-270-7939.We are also available via
email at [e-mail].
Respectfully,
amaze/x WWI-Gaelwflix
SamuEl/Zfdwards,Sui Juris Peggy IW.(BLEdw'ards,Sui Juris
Samuel &Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg,ID 83440
208-270-7937
peqandsam©qmaiLcom
In Sui Juris
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NOS.PAC-E-23-04;
PAC-E-23-O5;PAC-E-23-06;
vs.PAC-E-23-07;PAC-E-23-08;
JACOBA H.VAN MASTRIGT,et aI,)
)
)
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )AND PAc-E-23-11
)
)
)
APPELLANTS,
AND PACIFICORP,
dlbla ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,
RESPONDENTS.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO:THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS:PACIFICORP d/b/a ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER (“COMPANY”)AND THE PARTY'S ATTORNEYS:
NAME:JOE DALLAS
ADDRESS:825 NE Multnomah,Suite 2000
Portland,OR 97232
NAME:MARK ALDER
ADDRESS:1407 West North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
MS.JAN NORIYUKI.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellants appeal against the above named
Respondents to the ldaho Supreme Court from Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Order #35904 recorded on the 25th day of August 2023,
signed by President Eric Anderson,Commissioner John R.Hammond Jr.,
and Commissioner Edward Lodge.A copy of the order (#35904)being
appealed is attached to this notice,as well as a copy of the order (#35849)
which preceded it.Hereafter,the term ‘Appellants’in this Notice refers
particularly to Case No.PAC-E—23—05 of Samuel and Peggy Edwards.
2.Appellants have a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court,and the
orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and
pursuant to Idaho Code §61—627 and Rule 11(e),|.A.R.
3.Orders #35904 and #35849 have carefully avoided key legal issues raised
by the Appellants,which are first:that merely objecting to installation of
advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI meter”)at their residence is
grounds for denial or termination of service under IDAPA 31.21.01 (Utility
Customer Relations Rules,UCRR 302).The Appellants have stated and
repeated this objection on multiple occasions:
a.Complaint,received 23 March 2023:“We have attempted over and
over again,in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this point
where they are now threatening to shut our power off,in spite of the
fact that access to the meter has never been impeded for service
and that we have always paid our power bill each month and are
currently not late with payment.They,in turn,are the aggressor
operating in bad faith,using strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat,
duress,and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will,privacy or medical effects which this
upgrade would have upon us,the property owners."
b.Objection to Motion to Dismiss,received 22 May 2023:“CLAIM...
our family has fulfilled our contract responsibilities for electric
service and not given reason for termination of service as described
by Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR)302.”
c.Also stated in Objection to Motion to Dismiss:“Our meter is not
damaged,and we have provided company representatives with
safe,unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric
Service Regulation No.6.Yet,ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFlCORP has threatened our family with service
disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP’s "Advanced Metering Infrastructure"(AMI)
program.Termination of our family’s service is not justified by
UCRR 302.”
d.Petition for Reconsideration,received 31 July 2023:“Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different
capability equivalent to denying access to the meter,per UCRR
302?Where is the Iaw that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?"
4.Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)has found that “refusing
to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing meters
with AMI meters is a violation of the [Electric Service Regulation,ESR]
agreed to as a condition of receiving the Company’s service.”The
Appellants disagree.Agreeing to installation of AMI meters is not one of
the purposes listed in ESR 6(2)(d)“reading meters,inspecting,repairing or
removing metering devices and wiring of the Company”,and is only
loosely inferred in ESR No.7(1)“repairing or removing metering devices”.
.Nevertheless,for the sake of argument,assuming the Commission’s
finding is correct,the second legal issue is whether violating UCRR 302 is
grounds for termination of electrical service under IDAPA 31.21.01?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has alleged,but never
proven,that Appellants have denied or willfully prevented the utility’s
access to the meter,stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access”.The fact is that Appellants have never denied any
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives physical
access to the meters.Further,the Commission has never found as a
matter of fact that Appellants are refusing access to the meter.
.Third,as a matter of law,is objecting to the installation of AMI meters the
legal and factual equivalent of denying physical access to the meter,given
that Appellants have never prevented the Company from physically
accessing the meter—as evidenced in the original Complaint (particularly
pictures and notarized statements of two neighbors)and by regular and
full monthly payments based on the Company’s readings of the meters?
.No order has been entered sealing all or any portion of the record.
.ls a reporter's transcript requested?IQ.
.The Appellants request that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of
Appeal and case record PAC-E-23-05 with the Idaho Supreme Court,
including all documentation listed under Rule 28(b)(3),l.A.R.,including
“Objection to Motion to Dismiss”dated 5/22/2023 and “Objection to
PAClFlCORP Answer”dated 8/8/2023.
10.l certify:
(a)That the estimated fee for preparation of the agency's record has
been paid.
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 28th day of September ,20&.
ea;w %W%%we;
Samuel 2.Edwards,Sui Juris PeggWBf/Edwards,Sui Juris
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 28th day of September ,20&.
ea;w %W%%we;
Samuel 2.Edwards,Sui Juris PeggWBf/Edwards,Sui Juris