20231009Answer to Motion_CL.pdf

October 9, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise, ID 83714
RE: ANSWER TO MOTION AND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Please find enclosed our Answer to Motion and our Amended Notice of Appeal of
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Order #35904.
Informal inquiries may contact us at 208-2~0-7937. We are also available via
email at [e-mail].
Respectfully,
RECEIVED
2023 OCTOBER 9, 2023 5:53PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Samuel & Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
208-270-7937
[e-mail]
In Sui Juris, a son and daughter of God.
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Jacoba H. Van Mastrigt, et al, } CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04;
Appellants, } PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06;
vs. ) PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08;
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) AND PAC-E-23-11
AND PACIFICORP, }
d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, } ANSWER TO MOTION
RESPONDENTS. )
As Idaho Public Utilities Commission ('Commission') considers the Deputy
Attorney General's recommendation, dated 10 October 2023, to change the title
of our Notice of Appeal, we offer a counterpoint for consideration. We noted in
our PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, received by the Commission on 31
July 2023, that packaging six different complaints resulted in a single FINAL
ORDER that "overlooks material substance of our Complaint". A common theme
reflected in most of the six complaints is that each objects to ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP installing advanced metering infrastructure
("AMI meter") at our residences while simultaneously not impeding access and
continuing to pay utility bills. Therefore, the legal question for which we have
appealed to Idaho Supreme Court materially affects the other appellants included
in the current 'Notice of Appeal' title, despite the Commission having closed their
individual cases. That legal question is whether merely objecting to installation of
an AMI meter at their residence is grounds for denial or termination of service
under IDAPA 31.21.01? (see paragraph #3 of our Notice of Appeal)
Given that the six different cases were bundled together and received the same
Orders (#35904 and #35849) at the convenience of the Commission, how is
separating these cases during this appeal respectful of Idaho citizens' rights to
due process of law? It would seem that separating other appellants from the
Notice of Appeal would now compound the error, since appellants have a mutual
interest to retain an electric utility connection in the face of approaching winter
and premature disconnection would risk lawsuit, property damage and lives. The
Commission and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives
were notified on 9/27/2023 -the same email in which we submitted the Amicus
Curiae briefing with requested file stamp -that ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP lost no time after Order #35904 with issuing Final Notices
to us (and all appellants) that our electric utility connection would be terminated
on 2 October 2023. Since our power has not yet been disconnected, ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP must have taken notice that our appeals are
bound together with one voice and the same legal question already mentioned.
The monopoly corporation known as ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has already revealed their intention to disconnect utility
service of appellants prior to winter. We think this would be a most unfortunate
mistake and a violation of Idaho Code 61-302: "every public utility shall furnish,
provide and maintain such service, instrumentalities, equipment and facilities as
shall 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."
Further, Idaho Appellate Rule (I.AR.) No. 6 states that "the original title of an
action or proceeding, with the names of the parties in the same order, shall be
retained on appeal by adding the designations of 'appellant' and 'respondent."'
The only title deviation made in our Notice of Appeal was to include Idaho Public
Utilities Commission as a co-respondent with ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Commission
deny the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation to "correct the title of the
appeal as recommended by Staff." If the Commission is not required to be a co­
respondent or other appellants must be removed, then we are assured by I.AR.
#6 that "the Supreme Court may amend a title of an appeal or proceeding before
it at any time."
By the way, we have noticed that the Amicus Curiae Briefing which we mention
above has not yet been entered into our Case Record. Also, we noticed that the
(now closed) cases of Jacoba H. Van Mastrigt (PAC-E-23-04) and Judy Twede
(PAC-E-23-06) omit the Notices of Violation and Notices of Demand that were
served to Commissioners and Mr. Gary Hoogeveen (CEO of ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP), with copies to the Deputy Attorney
Generals and Rocky Mountain Power/Pacificorp's lawyers. Such omissions to
our case records seem to be correlated with the subsequent attempt to
separate/close our cases. In respect of your oaths of office, we demand that
complete case records be provided to the Idaho Supreme Court, consistent with
our rights to due process.
Since the Commission has opened a new case for our Appeal documentation, an
amended 'Notice of Appeal' is herein attached, per I.AR 1 ?(m), to request that
the Commission Secretary include case record SUP-E-23-02, along with PAC-E-
23-05, to the Idaho Supreme Court.
DATED THIS 9th day of October , 2023 .