20231204Clerks Certificate of Appeal.pdf

Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074
December 4, 2023
Via E-Mail and Interagency Mail [e-mail]
Melanie Gagnepain Clerk of the Courts Supreme Court
451 W. State Street Boise, Idaho 83720-0101
Re: PUC Clerk's Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.: -------
Dear Ms. Gagnepain,
Brad Little, Governor
Eric Anderson, President John R. Hammond, Jr., Commissioner Edward Lodge, Commissioner
Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk's Certificate of Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Also enclosed is Judy Twede's Notice of Appeal filed on November 16, 2023, Motion to Accept Late Filing of Notice of Appeal filed on November 16, 2023, and the $94 filing fee, received on November 21, 2023.
I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from: Final Order No. 35849 and Reconsideration Order No. 35904.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely, C ,£1..--(8 vy <S,1,-Monica Barrios-Sanchez Interim Commission Secretary
Enclosures cc: Adam Triplett, Deputy Attorney General ELECTRJC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter\SUP-E-23-05 \Twede_SC_CvrLtr_20231201.docx P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A, Boise, Idaho 83714
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H.VAN MASTRIGHT,et al,)
)Supreme Court DocketCOMPLAINANTS-APPELLANTS,)No.
vs.)
)Idaho Public Utilities Commission
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES )Case Nos.PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-COMMISSION and PACIFICORP,d/b/a )05;PAC-E-23-06;PAC-E-23-07;ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER )PAC-E-23-08; and PAC-E-23-11COMPANY,)
RESPONDENTS.)
Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, The Honorable Eric Anderson presiding.
Case Number from Idaho Public Utilities Commission:PAC-E-23-06
Order or Judgment Appealed from:Final Order No.35849 and Final Reconsideration OrderNo.35904
Attorneyfor Appellant:N/A
Judy Twede, pro se
c/o 1392 Newton Circle
Idaho Falls,Idaho 83401
Attorneyfor Respondent Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
Adam Triplett
Deputy AttorneyGeneral
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
[e-mail]
Attorneyfor Respondent PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas
Senior Attorney
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah,Ste.2000
Portland, OR 97232
[e-mail]
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -1
Appealed by: Judy Twede
Appealed against: Idaho Public Utilities Commission and PacifiCorp d/bla Rocky Mountain Power
Notice of Appeal Filed: November 16, 2023
Amended Notice of Appeal filed: NIA
Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: NI A
Amended Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: NI A
Appellate Fee Paid: $94.00 (November 21, 2023)
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Appeal Request for Additional Record Filed: NIA
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Request for Additional Reporter's Transcript Filed: NIA
Was Agency Reporter's Transcript Requested: No
Estimated Number of Pages: NIA
If so, name of each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at
the address set out below: NI A
Dated this 4th day of December 2023.
{SEAL} M&.t:©:,ebnterim Secrciary Idaho Public Utilities Commission
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL-2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 4 1h DAY OF DECEMBER 2023, SERVED
THE FOREGOING Clerk's Certificate of Appeal, in IPUC Case No. PAC-E-23-06, ON THE FOLLOWING PERSONS, AS INDICATED BELOW:
Appellant,pro se:
Judy Twede, pro sec/o 1392 Newton Circle Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
Respondent, PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas 825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Respondent, IPUC:
Adam Triplett Deputy Attorney General P.0. Box 83720Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
13 U.S. Mail, postage paid, first class
13 E-Mail to [e-mail] [e-mail]
13 E-Mail to [e-mail]
Interim Commission Secretary
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL-3
RECElVED
2023 NOVEMBER 16,2023 5:29PM
IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONNovember16,2023 CASE NO.SUP-E-2 3-0 5
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission SecretaryIdahoPublicUtilitiesCommission11331WChindenBlvd.
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise,ID 83714
RE:MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF NOTICEOF APPEAL (IPUC Case No.PAC-E-23-06)
Dear Ms.Noriyuki:
Please find attached my MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF NOTICEOF APPEAL to theIdahoSupremeCourt.
For informal inquiries,you may contact me at 208-524-9099.
Thank you,
Judy Twede
Judy Twede
clo 1392 Newton Circle
Idaho Falls,Idaho
208-524-9099
In Sui Juris
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONOFTHESTATEOFIDAHO
Jacoba H.van Mastrigt,et al,)CASE NOS:PAC-E-23-04;
PAC-E-23-05;PAC-E-23-06;Appellants )PAC-E-23-07;PAC-E-23-08;
PAC-E-2311vs.)
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )MOTION TO ACCEPTANDPACIFICORP,d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN LATE FILING OFPOWER)NOTICE OF APPEAL
Respondents )PROCEEDINGAT
COMMON LAW
TO:THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS:PACIFICORP d/blal ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER("COMPANY")AND THE PARTY'S ATTORNEYS:
NAME:JOE DALLAS
ADDRESS:825 NE Multnomah,Suite 2000
Portland;OR 97232
NAME:MARK ADLER
ADDRESS:1407 West North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
NAME:DAYN HARDIE,DEPUTYATTORNEYGENERALEmail:[e-mail]
COMES NOW,the above named Appellant,Judy Twede (Case No.:PAC-E-23-06),sui juris,inproper,hereinafterknown as Appellant,seeking remedies at common law and NOT within thestatutoryorpolicyjurisdiction,motioning the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO to acceptAppellant's late filing of Appellant's NOTICEOF APPEAL dated 16 November,2023 for the
reasons stated herein.
Appellant has a right to appeal to the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO,and COMMISSION'Sorders#35904 recorded on 25 August,2023 and order #35849 recorded on 11 July,2023 areappealableordersunderandpursuanttoIdahoCode§61-627 and Rule 11(e),I.A.R.
Appellant is one of six Complainants whose cases were combined or joined together by theCOMMISSIONearlierthisyear.As a consequence,this required that,as per Idaho AppellateRule6,Title of Appeal and Designation of Parties...,"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.""This new designation is reflected inthe"title block"above on page 1 of this Motion and in Appellant's NOTICE OF APPEAL.This
decision to join all six cases was not explainedto Appellant and the other five Complainants.
On 28 September,2023,Sam and Peggy Edwards (Case No.PAC-E-23-05),one of the six
Complainants filed a NOTICE OF APPEAL with this designation naming all six Complainants
therein,to wit:Jacoba H.van Mastrigt,et al,Appellants(Case Nos.:PAC-E-23-04;PAC-E-
23-05;PAC-E-23-06;PAC-E-23-07;PAC-E-23-08;PAC-E-2311)vs.IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION AND PACIFICORP,d/bla ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,
Respondents.
On 31 October,2023,the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO issued an Order Amending Title,
separating Appellant's case,as well as four others from the Supreme Court Docket No.51238-
2023 (Sam and Peggy Edwards),hence the reason for Appellant's current NOTICE OF APPEAL
so Appellant's concerns will be heard and addressed.On October 9,2023,the Edwards'(PAC-E-23-05)appealed orders 35904 and 35849;based on ID Code §61-613 (2022),to wit:"Any
review by the courts of orders or decisions of the commission the same rule shall apply with
regard to the joinder of causes and parties as herein provided,"Therefore,Appellant invokesAppellant's rightto appeal withoutdismissal due to any deadline(s).
Appellant maintains that due to the actions of the COMMISSIONin joining all six
Complainant's cases together,along with I.A.R.6 requirement retaining original title on appeal(in this case keeping all six complainants joined together),and ID Code §61-613 (2022)where
the same rules apply with regards to the joinder of causes and parties concerning reviews of court
orders or decisions of the commission,and the fact that the COMMISSIONaccepted the
NOTICE OF APPEAL the way it was submitted at that time,alongwith the fact that the
MOTIONTO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 2
COMMISSIONclosed Appellant's case prematurely,and then on top of all that,the SUPREMECOURTOFIDAHOissuedanOrderAmendingTitlewhicheffectivelyremovedAppellantandfourotherComplainantsfromthetitle,created a long chain of confusion,misinformation,andambiguitywithrespecttothefilingproceduresforAppellantandthosesimilarlysituated.Notbeingschooledintheartofthelegalprofessionasareattorneys,the Six Complainants,includingAppellantwereerroneouslyledtobelievethattheyhadfollowedtheproperproceduresandthenatthelastminutetheplugwaspulledonthefiveComplainantsnamedintheSUPREMECOURTOFIDAHOOrderAmendingTitle(Docket No.51238-2023)of 31 October,2023.
Further,in talking with Sam Edwards,who filed the original NOTICEOF APPEAL,AppellantmaintainsthatasperSamEdward's conversation with Jan Noriyuki,COMMISSIONSecretary,that the title heading in the NOTICE OF APPEAL must remain the same as shown onCOMMISSIONOrder#35904,which included all six Complainants,and that all sixComplainantswereindeedapartofsaidNOTICEOFAPPEALasoriginallyfiledby Sam andPeggyEdwards.Jan Noriyuki did not inform Sam Edwards that the other five ComplainantsneededtoorshouldhavefiledtheirNOTICEOFAPPEALseparately.It was thereforeunderstoodthatallsixComplainant's NOTICES OF APPEAL were filed in the SUPREMECOURTOFIDAHO.As it turns out to the surprise of all Complainants,including Appellant,that due to the COMMISSION'SOrder #35972,this is now not the case.By the timeComplainants,including Appellant discovered that their names were removed from the NOTICEOFAPPEAL,the deadlinefor filinga NOTICEOF APPEAL had passed.Appellant reminds theSUPREMECOURTOFIDAHOthatthisisthefirsttimethatAppellantandtheotherfiveComplainantshaveeverhadtodealwithalegalmatterofsuchmagnitudeandimportancewithitscorrespondinghighdegreeofstressanduncertaintycombinedwithalltheconfusion,misinformation,and ambiguity.
Appellant also maintains and points out that the COMMISSIONclosed Appellant's case fileprematurelyalongwithfourotherstoincludecasenumbersPAC-E-23-04,PAC-E-23-06,PAC-E-23-08,and case No.PAC-E-23-11 on 7 September,2023,prior to the 42-day appeal perioddeadlinerequiredbyCOMMISSIONOrder#35904 (signed 25 August,2023)and I.A.R.14.Theclosingofthesecasesprematurelyonlyaddedtoandcompoundedtheconfusionandambiguityalreadysurroundingtheappealprocess.When Sam and Peggy Edwards filed the NOTICE OFAPPEALon28September,2023,it was well within the 42-day filing deadline as per Order#35904 and all six Complainants/Appellantsbelievedthat the process was on track.As shown onhttyguedahogw/Case/Details/7016 the COMMISSIONclosed Appellant's case on 7September,2023,only 13 days after Order #35904 -not the 42 days that Appellant is allowedtoappealasperOrder#35904.Notice,however,that the COMMISSIONwas treatingAppellant'scaseasongoingalongwithPAC-E-23-05 because Appellant's case number,and those similarlysituatedhavebeenonthetitlepagessincetheCOMMISSIONconsolidatedallsixComplainant'sclaimsasshownontheTitlePageofFinalOrder#35849 dated 11 July,2023.
MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
3
What the COMMISSIONshould have done at the same time when issuing Order #35972,inordertoclearupanyambiguityandmisunderstandingComplainantsmayhaveoftheproceduralprotocolunderthecircumstances,is inform the five Complainants who were removed from theNOTICEOFAPPEALthattheynowhavetheopportunitytofiletheirownseparateNOTICEOFAPPEALiftheysodesire.
Appellant maintains that procedural errors should not stand in the way of or deny justice forAppellantintheend.Therefore,in the interest of justice and due to the extenuatingcircumstancesconcerningtheconfusionandambiguityoftheprocesspreviouslymentionedabove,as well as misinformation and misunderstanding on the part of the six Complainants,including Appellant,that the HonorableSUPREME COURT OF IDAHO accept AppellantsNOTICEOFAPPEALwithoutdismissal.Appellant also respectfully asks the SUPREMECOURTOFIDAHOtoinstructtheCOMMISSIONtoreopentheprematurelyclosedcase filesofAppellantandoftheotherfourComplainantsandnotifyeachthattheynowhave42daysfrom31October2023(the date of Order Amending Title)to separately file their appeal ofCOMMISSIONOrder#35904.
Appellant reminds the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO that Appellant is merely a lay womannotschooledinthelegalprofessionandthereforedeservesandrequiresmoreleewayandheld toalessstringentstandardwhenitcomestotherulesandproceduresasappliedtolicensedattorneys,to wit:Haines v.Kerner,404 U.S.519 (1972)"Allegations such as those asserted bypetitioner,however inartfullypleaded,are suf cient"..."which we hold to less stringentstandardsthanformalpleadingsdraftedbylawyers."
THEREFORE,Appellant most graciously motions the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO thatAppellant's NOTICEOF APPEAL dated 16 November,2023 be accepted withoutdismissal inspiteofthefactitisbeingfiledpasttheoriginal42-day deadline for the reasons stated herein,may it please the Court.
Dated this /(,day of November,2023.
Judy Twede,Sui Juris
MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 4
RECEIVED2023NOVEMBER16,2023 5:29PM
IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONNovember16,2023 CASE NO.SUP-E-23-05
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission SecretaryIdahoPublicUtilitiesCommission11331WChindenBlvd.Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise,ID 83714
RE:NOTICEOF APPEAL (IPUC Case No.PAC-E-23-06)
Dear Ms.Noriyuki:
Please find attached my NOTICEOF APPEAL of Order #35904 to the Idaho Supreme Court.
I have sent you two money orders for the filing fees,one in the amount of $100.00 made out to theIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSION,and the other in the amount of $94.00 made out totheSupremeCourtofIdaho.Both were inserted into an envelope addressed to you at the addressnotedaboveandsenttodaybyU.S.P.S.Certified Mail with electronic return receipt,TrackingNo.:7012 Reye coo3 2987 10-72
For informal inquiries,you may contact me at 208-524-9099.
Thank you,
udy Twede
Judy Twede
clo 1392 Newton Circle
Idaho Falls,Idaho
208-524-9099
In Sui Juris
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONOFTHESTATEOFIDAHO
Jacoba H.van Mastrigt,et al,)CASE NOS:PAC-E-23-04;
PAC-E-23-05;PAC-E-23-06;Appellant's )PAC-E-23-07;PAC-E-23-08;
PAC-E-23-11
vs.)
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )NOTICE OF APPEALANDPACIFICORP,d/bla ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER )
PROCEEDINGATRespondents)COMMON LAW
TO:THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS AND THE PARTY'SATTORNEYS:
NAME:JOE DALLAS
ADDRESS:825 NE Multnomah,Suite 2000
Portland,OR 97232
Email:[e-mail]
NAME:MARK ADLER
ADDRESS:1407 West North Temple,Suite 330
Salt Lake City,Utah 84116
Email:[e-mail]
NAME:DAYN HARDIE,DEPUTYATTORNEY GENERALEmail:[e-mail]
NOTICE IS HEREBYGIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellant,Judy Twede,sui juris,in pro per,seeking remedies atcommonlawandNOTwithinthestatutoryorpolicyjurisdiction,appeals theCOMMISSION'SOrders #35849 recorded on July 11,2023 and Order #35904 recorded on the25*day of August 2023,against the above-named Respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court.These Orders were signed by PRESIDENT ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONERJOHN R.HAMMOND JR.,and COMMISSIONEREDWARD LODGE.AcopyoftheOrder#35849 (see ATTACHMENT1)and Order #35904 (see ATTACHMENT2)are attached to this notice.Hereinafter,the term "Appellant"in this Notice refers particularly toJudyTwede(Case Number PAC-E-23-06).
2.Appellant has a rightto appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court,and the orders described inparagraph1aboveareappealableordersunderandpursuanttoIdahoCode§61-627 and Rulell(e),I.A.R.
3.The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONhas failed to properly regulate the electricutilitymonopolycorporationknownasROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP (theCompany)in the promotion of the "safety,health,comfort and convenience of its patrons,employees and the public"as noted in Idaho Code 61-302,and instead taken on the unlawfulroleofregulatingtheutilitycustomer(s)themselves,and allowingthe Company to do the same,claiming that merely objecting to the installation of an AdvancedMetering Infrastructure meter(smart meter)is grounds for denial or termination of electric service under IDAPA 31.21.01(UtilityCustomer Relations Rules,UCRR 302),which Appellants have repeatedly maintainedisnotcorrect.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
The COMMISSION'Sorders have carefully and conveniently avoided several key legal issuesraisedbyAppellantinAppellant's AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT dated May 20,2023,and Appellant's OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISSdatedMay20,2023,as well as other documents,and are as follows:
(a)The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONfailed to act within the scope of theirdutiestoregulateROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP as required by law priortoissuingtheirOrders#35849 dated July 11,2023 and #35904 dated August 25,2023.The COMMISSIONhas unlawfullytaken on a new and extraordinary role,one that is notintheirofficialjobdescriptiontonow"regulate"appellant/utilitycustomers by attemptingtoimposechangestoAppellant's existing contract with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP without the knowledge and consent of Appellant,as well as taking on the
NOTICEOF APPEAL 2
role of dictator who has taken it upon themselves to exclusively be the ones to determineanddecidewhatisgoodandsafeforAppellant/utilitycustomers without question,wheninfact,that functionis exclusively reserved for Appellant.Regulatingutilitycustomers isnottheproperroleorfunctionoftheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP.
Appellant maintains that Appellant has clearly fulfilled Appellant's contractualresponsibilitiesforelectricservicefromthestartofelectricserviceandhasnot givenreasonforterminationofelectricserviceasdescribedbyUtilityRelationsRules(UCRR)302.Appellant has not breached any of the terms of existing contract with ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP,neitherhas ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP made any accusation or claim against Appellant of a breach of contract.
(b)The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONhas found that "refusing to allow theCompany's representatives access to replace existing meters with AMI (smart meter)meters is a violation of the ESR [Electric Service Regulation]agreed to as a condition ofreceivingtheCompany's service."Appellant disagrees.This is a false,misleading,anddeceptivestatement,as agreeing to accept an AMI (smart meter)was not one of theconditionsofreceivingtheCompany's service when electrical service was first requestedbyAppellantandconnected15+/-years ago.There was no mention of AMI (smartmeters)at that time.Further,it is not true that Appellant "agreed"to allow for theinstallationofanAMI(smart meter)"as a condition of receiving the Company's service"atthetimeoftheinitialactivationofAppellant's electric power service +/-15 years ago.Appellant's electric service,at that time was activated withoutany agreement to accept orreceiveanAMI(smart meter)meter or any other type of device.Additionally,there are noprovisionstodaywithintheESRthatspecificallyrequiresormandatestheinstallationof
an AMI (smart meter)as a condition of receiving the Company's service in the first place.
It is very interesting that in all the "Orders"which came from the IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSION,they only state that either the Complainant's cases are"dismissed"or "Petition for Reconsideration"is "denied".Nowhere in their orders do theyevermentionthatComplainantsare"required"to do anything,such as,"you are required"to receive,accept,or permit ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to install theirAMI(smart meter)meter,neither is there any mention of or order directing ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP that they have the authority to "require"an AMI(smart meter)meter,or to either shut off or terminate any of Complainants electric powerserviceforobjectingtotheirsmartmeters,or having them refrain from doing so.This
seems to be clear evidence that the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONcannotlawfully"order"or require Appellant/Complainantsto do anything,including accepting theAMI(smart meter)meter,nor can they "Order"ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/
NOTICEOF APPEAL 3
PACIFICORP to shut off Appellant's electric power service for objecting to their AMI(smart meter)Meter.The COMMISSIONS failure to "order"both Appellant/ComplainantsandROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP to do anything shows that neithertheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP has the lawful authority to regulate Appellant/aud those similarly situatedandthenforcesomethingonthemagainsttheirwillandconsent,let alone threaten themwithterminationofelectricalpowerservicefornotadheringtotheirunlawfulwill.
Further,the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSIONis falsely claiming that the issueof"access"and the issue of Appellant objecting to their AMI (smart meter)meter are oneandthesameissue.They are not the same issue!The COMMISSIONis deceptivelyclaimingthatbecauseAppellantisnotwantinganAMI(smart meter)meter that AppellantisalsorefusingtoallowtheCompany's representative "access"to the existing meter,NoevidencehasbeenbroughtforththatAppellantisrefusingtheCompany"access"to themeter.
(c)There are no provisions in the ESR regulations or elsewhere which specifically spells outthatitisaviolationtonotdesireorobjecttoanAMI(smart meter)meter,especially whenAppellanthasdeemedsuchametertobeunsafeandintrusive.Nowhere,in the RegulationsofeithertheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP are there any provisions or grounds for denial or termination ofelectricserviceformerelyobjectingtotheinstallationofanAMI(smart meter)meteringdevice.Further,agreeing to installation of AMI meters (smart meter)is not one of thepurposeslistedinESR6(2)(d),to wit:"reading meters,inspecting,repairing or removingmeteringdevicesandwiringoftheCompany."Further,The COMMISSION,as well asROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP claim that termination of electric service isauthorizedunderIDAPA31.21.01for not wanting or refusing an AMI (smart meter)undertheguiseofsupposedlyrefusingsafeandclear"access"to the existing meter.AppellantmaintainstherearenogroundsforterminationofelectricalserviceunderIDAPA31.21.01,especially when there is no lawful proof that Appellant has denied any of the Company'srepresentatives"access"to the existing meter.Moreover,there is no provision withinIDAPA31.21.01 that specifically mentions termination of electrical service for not wantingorobjectingtoanAMI(smart meter).Appellant has always provided safe andunencumbered"access"to Company's representatives at reasonable times,for the purposeof"reading meters,inspecting,repairing or removing metering devices and wiring of theCompany"as outlined under IDAPA 31.21.01.
(d)The Company cited Electric Service Regulation ("ESR")No.6(2)(d)in their answer toAppellant's AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,which provides that "[t]he Customershallprovidesafe,unencumbered access to Company's representatives at reasonable times,
NOTICEOF APPEAL 4
for the purpose of reading meters,inspecting,repairing or removing metering devices andwiringoftheCompany,""and which its customers agree to as a condition of service."Appellant does not dispute what Electric Service Regulation No.6(2)(d)says,however,theCompanyquotesanentirelydifferentandfictitiousversionofthisregulationintheirlettertoAppellantonoraroundNovember22,2022,as to what the Appellant/andthosesimilarlysituatedaretoprovide"access"for.The Company in this letter makes acontradictoryanddeceptivestatementastowhatisintheElectricServiceRegulation(ESR),to wit:"As required by the Idaho Pisblic Service Commission,clear and safeaccessmustbeavailabletoelectricmetersforinspection,maintenance,meter upgrades,and to enable us to respondto any emergencies."This statement is intentionally deceptiveandmisleadinginitswordinginordertoinduceAppellant/and those similarly situated tobelievethattheyare"required"by the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONtoaccepttheinstallationofasmartmeter(Trespassing Technology)on their homes when infact,they are not.The Company has extrapolated and inserted the term "meter upgrades"asoneofthethingsAppellantistomake"access"available to the Company for,however,thistermisnotincludedinElectricServiceRegulation("ESR")No.6(2)(d),and is notsomethingAppellantagreedtoasaconditionofservice.Further,in this same statement theCompanyusestheterm"Idaho Public Service Commission",not "Idaho Public UtilitiesCommission"most likely because they know that the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSIONcannot"require"the Company to install AMI (smart meter)meters nor canthey"require"the Company's customers to accept the same.So,they use a phony entitytheycallthe"Idaho Public Service Commission"to avoid the IDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONfromcomingbackonthemperhapswithsomething like,"hey,we never requiredyou to install AMI (smart meter)meters,we only "authorized"yourCompanytouseAMI(smart meter)meters,and if we can't 'require'you to install them,then you certainly can't 'require'your customers to have them."
Appellant maintains that if there was a clear and unambiguous rule or regulation requiringormandatinganAMI(smart meter)meter and that customers,in this case Appellant/andthosesimilarlysituatedwererequiredtohaveoneinstalledontheirhome,then ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP would not have to resort to putting out deceptive andmisleadingwordingandinformationintheirletterstoAppellant/andthose similarlysituated,nor would they resort to using threats,duress,coercion and intimidation tactics,including unlawfulthreats of termination of electrical power service for objecting to theirharmfulandintrusiveAMI(smart meter)meter.Indeed,if there really is an Electric ServiceRegulationrequiringAppellant/andthose similarly situated to have an AMI (smart meter)meter,both ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and the IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONwouldhaveproduceditbynow.
Both,ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and the IDAHO PUBLIC
NOTICEOF APPEAL 5
UTILITIES COMMISSIONequate "objecting"to the installation of an AMI (smart meter)meter with denyingphysical "access"to the meter base as one and the same.As a matter oflaw,these are not legally and factuallyequivalent.They claim that Appellant is denyingROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP access to the meter base,but this is simplynottrue.Appellant has never prevented the Company from physically accessing the meterbase-as evidenced in Appellant's AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTof May 20,2023,where Appellant states on page 2,paragraph 4,"Let me be clear on this issue of "access"which ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP claims thatI am denyingthem.I and nooneelseinmyhomehaseverdenied"access"to any ofROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP'S meter readers or their company repair personnelas per our previouslyagreedupontermsofourlong-standing implied contractual agreement over the years.",and by the fact that ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP'S meter readerscontinuetocomeontoAppellant's property each month uninterruptedto read the meter forbillingpurposes.Appellant continues to receive monthlystatements from the CompanywhichcanonlybeaccomplishedbyoneoftheCompany's representatives coming ontoAppellant's property to "access"and read the meter each month.There has been nointerruptionintheCompanyreadingthemetereachmonthandthensendingoutastatementforpaymenteachmonth,which Appellant has paid timely each time.
(e)Appellant maintains that the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONand ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP are unlawfullytaking on the role of "regulating"Appellant/utilitycustomers and not themselves.Concerning this issue of regulation,Appellant points out who the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONactuallyregulatesintheirownwords.On the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'Swebsitepagetitled"About the Commission"and under "Who the Commission Regulates",intheir own words,states the following:"The Commission regulates investorownedorprivately-owned utilities thatprovide gas,water,electricity or some telephone services forprofit.Examples are:Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas.In addition to rates,billingissues,qualityofservice and customer relations,the Commission is also responsible forsafeoperationsoftheutilitiesitregulatesincludinginspectionofgaspipelines."Nowheredoesitmentionorevenalludetothenotionthatthev"regulate"the Appellantland thosesimilarlysituatedorthecontract(s)between them and ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP.This is not by accident or an oversite on the part of the IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSION.This is because the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSIONhasnolawfulConstitutionalauthoritytoregulateAppellant/and thosesimilarlysituatedorthecontract(s)between them and ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP,nor does the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONhave lawfulauthorityortherighttomeddleinorinterferewithorchangethetermsofanexistingcontractbetweenAppellant/andthose similarly situated and ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP withouttheir knowledge and consent.
NOTICEOF APPEAL 6
Appellant maintains that since the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONcannotlawfullyregulateAppellant/andthose similarly situated,that means that they cannotlawfully"deem"anything safe for Appellantland those similarly situated either and thenorder/mandate Appellant/and those similarly situated to accept ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP'S AMI (smart meter)meter which they have "deemed"safe,norcantheymakerulesandregulationsforAppellant/andthose similarly situated,and thenenforcelmandate,directly or indirectly these upon them withouttheir consent,nor can theylawfullyorderorrequireROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP to order orrequireAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedtodosomethingcontrarytotheirwill andconsent.The only enforcement of rules and regulations comes by way of contract betweentheAppellant/andthose similarly situated and the utilitycompany.That contract is notbetweenAppellant/andthose similarly situated and the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITŒSCOMMISSION.This goes equally well for ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP.They are not charged with the authority to regulate Appellant/andthose similarly situated.Any regulation would onlyapply and come by way of enforcement of the contract betweenAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedandROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORPshouldtherebeabreachofcontract.No breach of contract has been shown to exist on thepartofAppellant,only an attempted breach on ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP'S part.
The mere fact that the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONhas exclusively"deemed"AMI (smart meter)meters safe for Appellantland those similarly situated andthenmandatedthatAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedacceptsaidmeterorfaceterminationoftheirelectricserviceisclearevidencethattheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONhasusurpedanddeprivedAppellant/and those similarly situated of theirunalienableRights,as well as their rights as protected under the Bill of Rights toexclusivelychooseanddetermineforthemselveswhatissafeandwhetherornot they wantaninvasivetransmitandreceiverelaystationinstalledontheirhomewithoutasearchwarrantagainsttheirwill.
Appellant maintains that since the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONdoes notregulateAppellant/andthose similarly situated by their own admission,they cannot stepoutsidethescopeoftheirlawfulauthorityandthenarbitrarilytakeituponthemselvestoexclusivelydecideor"deem"something/anythingsafe or otherwise for Appellantland thosesimilarlysituated,or make arbitrary rules and regulations and then require or order theAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedtocomplywiththoserulesandregulationsandthoseofROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP via the unholyand collusive alliancebetweenthem.Taking on the role to exclusively "deem"the AMI (smart meter)meters to besafeforAppellantisnottheproperroleoftheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONasthisisoutsidethescopeoftheirlawfulauthoritytoregulatetheAppellant/andthose
NOTICEOF APPEAL 7
similarlysituated.The COMMISSIONERS fail to understand that it is Appellant that holdstheexclusiveandsuperiorConstitutionallysecuredrightundertheFIRSTandNINTHAMENDMENTSto"deem"/determine/choose what is safe,invasive,and/or acceptable forAppellantandAppellantsfamily.Appellant has a right to choose for herself and cannotlawfullybepushedoutofthedecision-making process as to what is good and safe forAppellantandwhatAppellantmustaccept.
If the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONand ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP are allowed to be the exclusive determiners and deciders and the final wordonthesubjectofwhatisgoodandsafeforAppellant/and those similarly situated withoutregardfortheirrights,while at the same time meting out what the sanctions and/or penaltieswillbefornotcomplying,whether Appellantland those similarly situated like it or not is notonlyaconflictofinterest,but evidence that Appellant/andthose similarly situated are merelyslaveswithoutanyrightsatall.This is unacceptable.
Appellant furthermaintains that if the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONdoesnotandcannotregulate,order,mandate,or require anything of Appellantland thosesimilarlysituated,then similarly,ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP does notandcannotregulate,order,mandate,or require anything of Appellant/andthose similarlysituatedoutsideoftheirexistingcontractbetweenthemwhichmakesnomentionofarequirementforanAMI(smart meter)meter and certainly not a punishment*in the natureofterminationofAppellant's/and those similarly situated electrical power service forobjectingtotheirmeters.If the government does not have the authority over Appellant/andthosesimilarlysituatedtoregulatethemwithouttheirconsent,then a corporation certainlydoesnothaveanyspecialrightsandauthoritytoregulate,order,mandate,or requireanythingofAppellant/andthose similarly situated that has not previously beencontractuallyagreedto.A corporation cannot do indirectly what the governmentcannot dodirectly.
Further,Appellant wants to make it clear that everything ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONare doing withregardstotheattemptedinstallationoftheirAMI(smart meter)meters,their falseaccusationsthatAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedaredenyingthecompanyrepresentatives"access"to the meter bases,and ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP'S threats to shut off electrical power service of Appellant/and those similarly
1 Sherar v.Cullen,481 F.2d 946 (1973),"There can be no sanction or penalty imposedupon one because ofhis exercise ofconstitutional[secured]rights."And further,Bordenkircher v.Haves,434 US 357,363 (1978);U.S.v.Goodwin,457 US 368,372(1982))."To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation ofthe mostbasicsort."
NOTICEOF APPEAL 8
situated are all outside the scope of agreed upon requirements for service as perAppellant's/and those similarly situated contract with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP.
(f)The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'Sdecision to meddle into the
contractual affairs between Appellant and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP
is an attempt to circumvent the limits of their own lawful authority through deception andsmokeandmirrorstogivetheappearancetoAppellant/andthose similarlysituated alikethatthey,the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONare the ultimate authoritywhichAppellant/andthose similarly situated are to obey in order to give ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP an undue and unlawfuladvantage over Appellant/and those similarly situated in order to unlawfullyenforce their "zero tolerance"(meaningnooptionsandmustacceptwhetherAppellantandthosesimilarlysituatedlikeitornot)installation of their AMI (smart meters)meters.Neither the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSIONorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP are giving any thought
and consideration to Appellant's/and those similarly situated unalienableRights,as well asthosearticulatedintheBillofRights,including their private property rights.The
COMMISSIONERS are under solemn oath to obey the Constitutions,which also includestheBillofRights,meaning they swore that they would support and uphold Appellant's/and
those similarly situated rights as enumerated in said Bill of Rights and not do things whichviolatetheiroathsordepriveAppellantlandthosesimilarlysituatedoftheirsacredRights.
Thus far they have failed to do so.
Again,the relationshipbetween Appellant/andthose similarly situated is one of a purely
contractual nature between Appellant/and those similarly situated and,in this case ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP --not between Appellant/andthose similarly situated
and the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.Further,this relationship is not oneofmandatorycompliancetoarbitraryrulesandregulationsofoutsidethird-party entities.The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONis making arbitrary decision(s)which
they do not have the lawful authority or right to make that interferes or attempts to interferewithAppellant's/and those similarly situated existing contract(s)with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP.
Appellant maintains that regardless of how a corporation interprets its own internal codes,rules,and regulations,they still cannot impose them upon Appellant,a livingtangibleflesh
and blood woman who holds the superior authority and sovereign power.Unless the
corporation(IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP)has an explicit contract with Appellant,with Appellant's full
knowledge and consent of the specific terms that the corporation is attempting to impose
upon Appellant,that corporation cannot regulate,decide,order,mandate,impose,or force
NOTIΠOF APPEAL 9
anything upon Appellant,the livingtangible flesh and blood woman.Therefore,neithertheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONnorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP can force Appellant into a contract that Appellant has not made,authorized,and consented to,to wit;Alexanderv.Bosworth,26 CalApp.589 (1915),"...a party cannotbeboundbyacontractthathehasnotmadeorauthorized,...withouthis consent,beyond theprecisetermsofhiscontract(California Civil Code,Sect.2819)."
ADDITIONALGROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(g)Appellant maintains that all three IDAHOPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONCOMMISSIONERS,namely ERIC ANDERSON,PRESIDENT,COMMISSIONERJOHNHAMMOND,and COMMISSIONEREDWARD LODGE violated their oaths of officewhenmakingtheirdecisionsandfinalorder(s)against Appellant(s)in Orders #35904 datedAugust25,2023 and #35849 dated July I1,2023.Each one of these COMMISSIONERStookaConstitutionaloathofOffice,which includes the Bill of Rights which is in essenceAppellant's Writ of Prohibition against the COMMISSIONERS and government.Theiroathssignifytheiracknowledgmentandacceptanceoftheseprohibitionsandrestrictionsuponthem,as well as their solemn promise to Appellant/andthose similarlysituated thattheywillnotimpedeorviolateAppellant's/and those similarly situated rights and liberty inanyway.Their oaths are designed to bind them down by the chains of the Constitutions inordertoprotecttherightsandlibertyofthepeople,and by violating their solemn oaths ofofficetheyareactuallywarringagainsttheConstitutions,the Bill of Rights,the people,and Appellant as well.
Appellant furthermaintains that when it comes to the law,the IDAHO PUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONCOMMISSIONERShavenodiscretionconcerning the issuesofrightandwrongorgoodandevil.They swore or affirmed that they cannot by law,makedecisionswhichareclearlyandhistoricallywrongorevil,nor can they make decision(s)concerning Appellantland those similarlysituated withoutfirst and foremost determiningwhethertheiractions/decisions would violate,deprive,or injure the rights and libertyofAppellant/and those similarly situated.If their decision(s)/actions would adversely affectAppellant's/and those similarly situated rights and liberty in any way,then they are boundbytheiroathsandthelawtonotmakesuchdecision(s).As evidenced by their decision(s)and orders #35904 and #35849 they clearly have not kept their oaths and promises toprotecttherightsandlibertyofAppellant/and those similarly situated.
(h)Corporations are artificial persons which cannot interface with a live tangibleflesh andbloodmanorwomanascorporationsholdaninferiorposition.Appellant is not an artificialpersonoranabstractionoracreatureofthemind.Appellant is a living,tangible flesh andbloodwomanasGodcreatedher.Governments and corporations are imaginary,
NOTICEOF APPEAL 10
artificial/fictitiousentities that cannot be above a livingflesh and blood tangible man orwoman,and therefore do not have lawful authority to regulate,decide,order,mandate,impose,or force anything upon a living,tangible flesh and blood man or woman withouttheirconsent.Since governments and corporations are artificial persons,abstractions andcreaturesofthemindonly,they can interface only with other artificial persons.Theimaginaryhavingneitheractualitynorsubstance,is foreclosed from creating parity with thetangible.The legal manifestation of this is that no government or corporation,as well aslaw,agency,aspect,court,etc.can concern itselfwith anything other than corporate,artificial persons and the contracts between them.Appellant maintains that Appellant is notundercontractwitheithertheIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONorROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP to accept their AMI (smart meter)meter or theirtransmitandreceiverelaystation,or their hazardous radio frequency (RF)/radiationemittingdeviceonAppellant's private property/house.And further,there is nothing in theexistingcontractbetweenAppellantandROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORPthatauthorizesterminationofAppellant's electrical power service for objectingto orrefusinganAMI(smart meter)meter.Appellant has demanded that ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP produce the actual contract that requires Appellant to accept theirAMI(smart meter)meter,but thus far they have failed to produce it,becausethere is none.
Note:The IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP,and the STATE OF IDAHO are also artificial persons,abstractions,and creatures of the mind onlywhich have no inherent rights superior to thelivingfleshandbloodmanandwoman,and therefore cannot make codes,rules,andregulationsapplyingtoAppellantorlawfullyinterfacewithAppellant,a livingtangiblefleshandbloodwomanwhoholdsthesuperiorauthorityandcollectivesovereignpower.Inotherwords,they cannot regulate,decide,order,mandate,impose,or force anything uponAppellant,a livingtangible flesh and blood woman,especially without Appellant's consent.
Appellant maintains that government codes,rules,regulations,statutes,policy,orders,mandates,etc.,as well as the codes,rules,regulations,and policies of corporations do notapplytoAppellantastheyareunconstitutionalasappliedtoAppellant,and similarly thecodes,rules,regulations,and policies of the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONandthoseofROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP that Appellant has notspecificallyagreedtobywayofcontractcannotbeenforceduponsame,to wit:Cruden v.Neale,2 NC 338,339 (1796),"...every man is independent ofall laws,except thoseprescribedbynature.He is not bound by any institutionsformedby hisfellow-men,withouthisconsent",and further,Rodrigues v.Donovan,769 F.2d 1344 (1985)"Rodrigues doesnotmakeafacialattackontheconstitutionalityoftheFECAproceduresthemselves,but,instead,asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him...we do not
NOTICEOF APPEAL 11
find the due process challenges insubstantial."2
(i)Neither the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONor ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP can lawfullyimpose sanctions or a penalty upon Appellant/andthosesimilarlysituatedforexercisingAppellant's/and those similarly situatedConstitutionallysecuredrights.Meting out sanctions and/or penalties,such as terminationofelectricpowerserviceforobjectingtotheirAMI(smart meter)meter is not within thescopeoftheirauthority.This means that ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORPcannotlawfullyshutoffAppellant's/and those similarly situated electric power service forobjectingtoorrefusingtheirAMI(smart meter)meter,to wit:Sherar v.Cullen,481 F.2d946(1973),"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because ofhis exerciseofconstitutional[secured]rights."And further,Bordenkircher v.Hayes,434 US 357,363(1978);U.S.v.Goodwin,457 US 368,372 (1982))."To punish a person because he hasdonewhatthelawplainlyallowshimtodoisadueprocessviolationofthemostbasicsort."ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP does not have lawful authority tochangeanyprovisionsofAppellant's/and those similarly situated existing contract withouttheknowledgeandconsentofAppellant's/and those similarly situated nor can theylawfullyshutoffelectricpowertoAppellant's/and those similarly situated home for anyreason(s)outside of the existing contract agreement between Appellant and ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP.There is no provision within the existing contract(s)which authorizes electric service disconnection for the fabricated reason(s)stated byROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP and the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSION.
(j)As a matter of Appellant's FIRST,FOURTH,FIFTH,and NINTH AMENDMENTrights,Appellant clearly has the right to object to and/or refuse installation of an AMI (smartmeter)meter under the circumstances,for what Appellant knows and/or perceives asdangerous/not safe for Appellant and Appellant's family and for reasons which adverselyaffectAppellant's personal,as well as private property rights (issues which are notassociatedwiththeelectromechanical(analog)style meters)which puts Appellant at adisadvantage.
Additional reasons Appellant objects to their AMI (smart meter)meter are becauseAppellanthasdiscoveredthattheirmetersareatransmitandreceiverelaystationwhich isreallyawiretapping/bugging device.This is something which ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP has not informed Appellant/and those similarlysituated of at anytime.Appellant has expressed to ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP inAppellant's CONDITIONALACCEPTANCE dated December 1,2022 many concerns
2 Mr.Rodrigues was proceeding "as a son of God"in pm per.
NOTICEOF APPEAL 12
about the installation of their AMI (smart meter)meter,including the fact that they are awiretappingtransmitandreceiverelaystation,and that they emit/transmit harmfulradiation/RF in and around the home,but they have simply remained silent and just ignoredAppellant's concern.
Appellant has also discovered that one of the functions of the AMI (smart meter)meters ismonitoring,logging,storing,transferring,and sharing of daily personal and private habitsandroutinesofoccupantsofprivatehomesandthengivingsaidinformationtounauthorizedthird-parties for profit,including police and federal government snoop agents,all withoutthe homeowner's or other occupants consent or a lawful search warrant to do so.Again,Appellant brought this up with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP atthestartbuttheychosetostandmuteontheissue.Appellant maintains that in light of thesedisturbingfactsabouttheAMI(smart meter)meters,this is all the more reason to not allowthistypeofnefarious,harmful,and invasive meter onto Appellant's property and home.Another disturbing fact Appellant discovered is that the AMI (smart meter)meters do notcomewithabuilt-in surge protector like their predecessor,the electromechanical (analog)meter,nor are these new meters UL (Underwriter Laboratories)Rated or Certified.
When it comes to rights and free choice,Appellant maintains that Appellant holds thesuperiorauthorityandsovereignpower,not the government or corporations.Appellantfurthermaintainsthatitisawell-established fact in America that it was the Colonists,or thepeopleofthattimethatthrewoffthelongtrainof"abuses and usurpations"of theoppressiveEnglishgovernmentwhichtheybelievedatthetimeshowed"a design to reducethemunderabsolutedespotism,...".They realized it became "necessaryfor one people todissolvethepoliticalbandswhichhaveconnectedthemwithanother"as the "Laws ofNatureandofNature's God entitles them,...",and as a result they created a new government forthebenefitofthepeople.They well understood "That whenever any form of Govemmentbecomesdestructiveoftheseends,it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,and toinstitutenewGovernment.",and that they not onlyhad a right,but a duty to throw off suchGovernment,to wit:"it is their right,it is their duty,to throw of such Government,and toprovidenewGuardsfortheirfuturesecurity."Appellant maintains that the Founders ofAmericaunderstoodtheself-evidenttruth that it was they/the people who held the superiorauthorityandthesovereignpowertobefreetoestablishedanewGovernmentthatwould"secure"their God-given unalienableRights,and that the Governments justpowers comefromthe"consent"of the governed/the people.Appellant also maintains and wants tomakeclearthattheFoundersdidn't believe that it was justthey who held the superiorauthorityandthesovereignpoweroverGovernmentexclusively,but all the peoplecollectivelyasarticulatedintheDeclarationofIndependence,"We hold these Truths to beself-evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator withcertainunalienableRights,thatamong these are Life,LibertyandpursuitofHappiness.That
NOTICEOF APPEAL 13
to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men,deriving theirjust powersfromtheconsentofthegoverned."3
Since it is the people who created the Government,that makes the people the creators,andthegovernmentthecreated.The government,in turn created corporations which also makesthemthe"created".This can only mean that the people,or the collective sovereign aresuperiorinnaturetothegovemment,as well as to corporations.It cannot be the other wayaround.Therefore,the people are the masters,and the govemment and corporations are theservantsofthepeople.Appellant asks,when was the Constitution for the United States ofAmericaandtheConstitutionofIdahochangedtoreflectthattheFederalgovemmentand/ortheStateofIdahocreatedthepeople?When did the creator become subject to the creation?
Appellant maintains that the creation can never become greater than the creator,for if it did,the destruction of the people's individual rights and liberty would take place and the people(creators)would become slaves of the despots.
Further,Appellant maintains that when the people established the government they createdanagent(federal and state government;inferiorsovereign)to secure and protect all theirrightsbydelegatingcertainsovereignpowerstotheagenciesofgovernment,understandingthatsovereigntyitselfremainswiththepeople,to wit:Yick Wo v.Hopkins 118 US 356(1886),"Sovereigntyitselfis,ofcourse,not subject to law,for it is the author and source oflaw;but in our system,while sovereign powers are delegatedto the agencies ofgovernment,sovereigntyitselfremains with the people,by whom andfor whom allgovernmentexistsandacts.And the law is the definition and limitationofpower.For theveryideathatonemanmaybecompelledtoholdhishfe,or the means of living,or anymaterialrightessentialtotheenjoymentofhfe,at the mere will ofanother,seems to beintolerableinanycountrywherefreedomprevails,as being the essence ofslaveryitself"
When and how did this agent get the authority to apply these same rules and regulationsuponthePrinciple?Appellant also asks,how is it then,in this case the government (theIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSION)and a corporation (ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP)can make rules,regulations,and policy for its masters (Appellantasoneofthecollectivemasters)the people,and then order,mandate,and/or force thecollectivemastersoranyoneofthemtoaccept,comply,obey,and conform to their willwithouttheirconsenttodoso?Appellant maintains that they do not have the authority todoso.Again,the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONproper role is to regulatetheutilitycompany,not the Appellant.
(k)On August 25,2023,Appellant served GARYW.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT,ROCKY
3 TheDeclaration of Independence,1776
NOTICEOF APPEAL 14
MOUNTAINPOWER/ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP with a NOTICE OFVIOLATIONandNOTICEANDDEMAND,both dated August 25,2023.Appellant alsoservedonAugust29,2023,COMMISSIONER ERIC ANDERSON,PRESIDENT;COMMISSIONER JOHN HAMMOND;and COMMISSIONEREDWARD LODGE aNOTICEOFVIOLATIONdatedAugust28,2023 and NOTICE AND DEMAND datedAugust28,2023.These NOTICES OF VIOLATION and NOTICES AND DEMAND areinresponsetotheCOMMISSIONER'S Orders #35849 dated July 11,2023 and #35904datedAugust25,2023 and their actions concerning said Orders.
As of this date,GARYW.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT,ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has gone into DEFAULT with AppellantduetohissilenceandfailingtorespondtoanyofAppellant's documents.His silencesignifieshisexistingtacitacknowledgment,acceptance,and admission to his/ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP'S violations as enumerated in said NOTICE OFVIOLATIONandNOTICEANDDEMAND,as well as his tacit admission to his/ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP'S culpability and collusion with the IDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONasenumeratedinAppellant's NOTICE OFVIOLATIONandNOTICEANDDEMAND.His silence also signifies his agreementandacceptanceofallthetermsandconditionsassetforthinsaidNOTICESandthathe
have no objections4 10 said terms.
Upon receiving no response from GARY W.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT,ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP,Appellant followedupwiththefollowingsequenceofdocumentsserveduponhim/them producing saidDEFAULT:COURTESY NOTICE dated September 28,2023,offering 3 additional days torespond;NOTICE OF FAULT dated October 12,2023,offering an additional 5 days torespond;and,finally a NOTICE OF DEFAULT dated October 31,2023.
Further,as of this date,all three COMMISSIONERS have also gone into DEFAULT withAppellantduetotheirsilenceandfailingtorespondtoanyofAppellant's documents.Their
silence signifies their existing tacit acknowledgment,acceptance,and admission to their
own violations as enumerated in said NOTICE OF VIOLATION and NOTICE ANDDEMAND,as well as their tacit admission to their culpability and collusion with ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP as enumerated in Appellant's NOTICE OFVIOLATIONandNOTICEANDDEMAND.Their silence also signifies their agreement
and acceptance of all the terms and conditions as set forth in said NOTICES.
4 Tacit Manifested by the refraining from contradiction or obiection;inferred from a situation and circumstances,in the absence
of express matter Black's Law Dictionary,Fifth Edition
NOTICEOF APPEAL 15
Upon receiving no response from all three COMMISSIONERS,Appellant followed upwiththefollowingsequenceofdocumentsserveduponeachofthemwhichproducedsaidDEFAULTS:COURTESY NOTICEdated September 28,2023,offering 3 additional daysforeachtorespond;NOTICEOF FAULT dated October 12,2023,offering an additional5daysforeachtorespond;and NOTICEOF DEFAULT dated October 31,2023.
4.No order has been entered sealing all of the record or any portion thereof.
5.Is a reporter's transcript requested?N_o.
6.The Appellant requests that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of Appeal andallcorrespondingCOMMISSIONcaserecords(PAC-E-23-04)with the Idaho SupremeCourt,including all documentation listed under rule 28(bX3),I.R.A.,including particularly:
a.Appellant's AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTdated May 20,2023.
b.Appellant's OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO ANSWER AND MOTION TODISMISSdatedMay20,2023.
c.Appellant's NOTICEOF VIOLATION dated 28 August,2023,served upon ERICANDERSON,COMMISSIONPRESIDENT;COMMISSIONERJOHN HAMMOND;and COMMISSIONEREDWARD LODGE.
d.Appellant's NOTICEAND DEMAND dated 28 August,2023,served upon ERICANDERSON,COMMISSIONPRESIDENT,COMMISSIONERJOHN HAMMOND,AND COMMISSIONEREDWARD LODGE.
e.Appellant's OBJECTION to ORDER AMENDING TITLE,dated 9 November,2023 to theIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSION.
7.I 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 /(o day of November,2023.
J Twede,Sui Juris
NOTIΠOF APPEAL 16
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11,2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H.VAN MASTRIGT,et al,)CASE NOS.PAC-E-23-04;PAC-E-
)23-05;PAC-E-23-06;PAC-E-23-07;COMPLAINANTS,)PAC-E-23-08;AND PAC-E-23-11
vs.)
)ORDER NO.35849PACIFICORP,d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN )POWER,)
RESPONDENT.)
Between March 22,2023,and March 27,2023,the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the "Complaints")filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power ("Company")by the Company's customers (collectively the "Complainants").
The Complaints concern the Company's notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters ("AMI meter(s)")attheirresidences.
On April 19,2023,the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service.On May 10,2023,the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss ("Answer")countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22,2023,the Commission received five objections to the Company's request for
dismissal and two "AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)."2
Having reviewed the record in these cases,we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints,the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants,a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters,and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter.Five of the
i The Complaints were filed by the Company's electric service customers Jacoba H.van Mastright,Samuel and PeggyEdwards,Judy Twede,Karen Lane,Christy Armbruster,and Diane Huskinson.The Complainants all appeared pro se.2 JSCOba H.van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the "AMENDEDCRIMINALCOMPLAINT(s)."
ORDER NO.35849 1
Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence,the sixth providedconsent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfullyobtained.Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical "Factual Counts"that allege that the Company:(1)
breached the peaceby attempting to install AMI meters on their residence;(2)attempted extortion
of Complainant's will;(3)impaired contracts;(4)attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant's private property for commercial use;(5)attempted illegal wiretapping;and (6)
threatened the Complainant's with intent to commit harm.Some of the complainants allege
additional "Factual Counts"of (1)gross and hazardous negligence;and (2)"actionable fraud."
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters,and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith,and using strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat,duress,and
coercion.See,e.g.,Complaint of Jacoba H.van Mastrigt at 1.The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e.,meter reading)and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment.The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANYANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences.Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants.Lastly,the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deployingAMI meters in Idaho in the fall of2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges.The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with "letters,emails,and outbound phone calls
3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal.The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent theComplaintsseekanydamagesortheimpositionofcriminalliability.
ORDER NO.35849 2
informing customers of the Company's AMI installation process."Company Answer at 3.The
Company assertedthat "AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options."Id.During the
deployment of the AMI meters,the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters,and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution.The Company explained it "was willingaccommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter]to a different location of the property"at the customer's expense.Id.at 4.The Company
represented it "expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution.However,keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho,and disconnection of service will onlybe used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided."Id.The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected,and the Company exchanged those meters.Id.
For the 50 remaining customers,the Company represented that it began to formallynotify
them that,pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules ("UCRR"),their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter.Id.The Company cited
UCRR 302,IDAPA 31.21.01.302,which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied,as the Company's primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection.Id.
Along with UCRR 302,the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305,IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305,for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302.Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter ("First Letter")to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company's inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange,and the Company followed that letter with additionalcorrespondence ("Second Letter")providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id.at 5 and 7-8.The Company then sent a final letter ("Final Letter")notifyingcustomers that their
service would be terminated.The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers,including the Complainants,how to avoid termination of service.Id.The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that "a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308."Id.Finally,the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminatingservice.Id.at 8.
ORDER NO.35849 3
Answer and Motion
The Company:(1)denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer;(2)explainedits belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers;and (3)claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure,rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations.The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Con1plaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using "threats,duress,or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter]installation."Id.at 7.The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters,the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access.The
Company noted that those communications were "developed in accordance with the UCRR's
approved by the Commission..."and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused.Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers'service if not allowed
to access the meters,and without an opt-out in Idaho,that is the only option available.The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer's property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation ("ESR")No.6(2)(d),which provides that
"[t]he Customer shall provide safe,unencumbered access to Company's representatives at
reasonable times,for the purpose of reading meters,inspecting,repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,"and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id.at 9 quoting ESR No.6(2)(d).The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that "refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access"under ESR 6(2)(d).Id.Further the Company stated that ESR No.7
requires the Company "to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment"and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter.Id.quotingESR No.7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission's ("FCC")jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency,like AMI meters.The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to "the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws."Id.at 10.
ORDER NO.35849 4
The Company also asserted "[ijndustry research and standards agencies,such as the
American National Standards Institute ("ANSI")and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers,Inc.("IEEE")have compiled the research"concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted.Id.The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure ("MPE")standards andthe two categories they are assigned to,the controlled
and uncontrolled environments.Id.The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes,and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards.The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1,meaning the FCC's MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans.Id.at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure.The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago.The Company cited previous cases for
Avista,Idaho Power,and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision.Case Nos.PAC-E-22-
09,AVU-E-17-ll,and IPC-E-12-04.The Company stated that the Commission has never "ruled
that a public utility's AMI project,which does not include an opt-out option,violates an
administrative rule,order,statute,or applicable provision of the Company's tariff."Id.at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints "do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order,statute,or applicable provision of the Company's tariff"violated by the Company.Id.at 13.
Further,the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants'refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("Objections"),van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter,the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety,data acquisition,and trespassing technology.The Objections also argued matters raised in
ORDER NO.35849 5
the "AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)"filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company's Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company's Motion.
COMMISSIONDISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01.The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable.Idaho Code §61-303.The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges,rules,regulations,practices,and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just,reasonable,preferential,discriminatory,or in violation of any provisions of law,and
to fix the same by order.Idaho Code §§61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrativerules and does not provide preferentialtreatment to any party participating in
the process.IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02.The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety,and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers,comply with Idaho Code §61-302,and should be allowed in Idaho.See Case
Nos.IPC-E-12-04,AVU-E-17-11,and PAC-E-22-09.The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters,and that the FCC has found it to be safe.See Order No.35544 at 2.The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission,claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law.As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency,like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities,equipment,and facilities as shall promote the safety,health,comfort,and
4 The "AMENDEDCRIMINALCOMPLAINT(s)"generally allege the same facts and "FACTUALCOUNTS"astheComplaints.
ORDER NO.35849 6
convenience of its customers and the public.1daho Code §61-302.The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC's safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices,and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho,against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record,the arguments of the parties,and all submitted materials,the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern,or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company's deployment of
AMI meters.The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns,and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company's representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company's service.ESR No.6(2)(d)requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives "for the purposes of ...[among other things]repairing or removing metering
devices ...."Under this ESR,the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter.If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR.Further,ESR No.7(1)requires the Company to "furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment."When read together,ESR Nos.6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this.Based on the
foregoing,the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants'
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants'property at the Complainants'
expense if requested to.ESR No.12 provides information on the Company's line extension and
relocation policies.The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter,and they have chosen not to do so.The Commission finds that the facts in
ORDER NO.35849 7
these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter.Accordingly,the Complainants'Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order.Within seven (7)days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this l lth day of
July 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON,PRESIDENT
HN R.HAMMOND JR.,COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODG COMMISSIONERATTEST:
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters final_dh.docx
ORDER NO.35849 8
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25,2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H.VAN MASTRIGT,et al,)CASE NOS.PAC-E-23-04;PAC-E-
)23-05;PAC-E-23-06;PAC-E-23-07;COMPLAINANTS,)PAC-E-23-08;AND PAC-E-23-11
vs.)
)ORDER NO.35904PACIFICORP,d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN )POWER,)
RESPONDENT.)
Between March 22,2023,and March 27,2023,the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the "Complaints")*filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power ("Company")by the Company's customers (collectively the "Complainants").
The Complaints concerned the Company's notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters ("AMI
meter(s)")at their residences.The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers'desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes.Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants,a child with special needs in proximityto the home's
meter,lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters,data privacy,and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19,2023,the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service.On May 10,2023,the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss ("Answer")countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.Subsequently,the customers filed five
objections to the Company's request for dismissal and two "AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s)."2
On July 11,2023,the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No.35849.The Final Order provides,in pertinentpart:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewedanddecidedbytheCommission,claims that go against well-established evidence
!The Complaints were filed by the Company's electric service customers Jacoba H.van Mastright,Samuel and PeggyEdwards,Judy Twede,Karen Lane,Christy Armbruster,and Diane Huskinson.The Complainants all appeared pro se.2 ÃaCOba H.van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the "AMENDEDCRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)."
ORDER NO.35904 1
on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federallaw.As we have stated previously,the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval ofdevicesthatuseradiofrequency,like AMI meters,and the FCC has approved AMImetersassafeforconsumeruse....
Having reviewed the record,the arguments of the parties,and all submittedmaterials,the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidencetosupportafindingthatAMImeterspresentalegitimatesafetyconcern,or thatpublicutilitiesinIdahoshouldberequiredtoprovideanopt-out option for AMImeters....
We find that refusing to allow the Company's representatives access to replaceexistingmeterswithAMImetersisaviolationoftheESRagreedtoasaconditionofreceivingtheCompany's service.ESR No.6(2)(d)requires Complainants toprovideaccesstotheCompanyrepresentatives"for the purposes of ...[amongotherthings]repairing or removing metering devices ...."Under this ESR,theCompanymayremovetheexistingmetertoreplaceitwithanAMImeter.IfComplainantsrefusetoallowtheCompanytoremovetheCompany-owned meters,they are violating the ESR.Further,ESR No.7(1)requires the Company to "furnishandmaintainallmetersandmeteringequipment."When read together,ESR Nos.6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter andassociatedmeteringequipmentandrequiresthecustomertoprovidetheCompanywithaccesstothemetertoaccomplishthis.Based on the foregoing,the CompanyhasthenecessaryauthoritytoinstallanAMImeterontheComplainants'propertyinitsfurnishingofelectricserviceasapublicutility.
Id.In the Final Order,the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness,upon request,to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants'
property at their expense.Accordingly,the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints.Pursuant to Idaho Code §61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331,the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21)days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31,2023,Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration ("Petition")of Order No.35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No.35849 upon two contentions:(1)that the Commission
'Mr.Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to "reduceconfusionorgeneralization"from consideration of multiple complaints.Pet,for Recon.at 3.
ORDER NO.35904 2
misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations ("ESR")applicable to the Company;
and (2)that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable.In their
Petition,the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and,therefore,constitute a
"downgrade"from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property.According
to the Edwards,ESR 6(2)(d)does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place,nor does ESR 7(1)provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology.The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company's AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern,the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children's Health Defense,and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,Povacz v.Penn.Pub.Utility Comm.,280 A.3d
975 (Pa.2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a "Physicians Statement,"
"Scientists Statement,"and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters.However,it does not appearthat the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury,nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case."
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§61-626(2).Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission's attention any question previously determined,and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.Kootenai
Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,879,591 P.2d 122,126 (1979);see also Eagle Water
Company v.Idaho PUC,130 Idaho 314,317,940 P.2d 1133,1136 (1997).Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration,Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
"why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in
conformity with the law."IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01.Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate "the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
4 In Povacz,the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMImeters(termed "smart meters"in the opinion)on their property.In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heldthatthecustomersfailedtoshowthattheAMImeterswereunsafeorthatforcedexposuretoAMImetersconstitutedunreasonableservice.Id.at 1009-13.
6 On August 4,2023,the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration ("Answer")requesting that itbedenied.On August 8,2023,the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company's Answer.
ORDER NO.35904 3
will offer if reconsideration is granted."Id.A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by "evidentiary hearing,written briefs,comments,or interrogatories."IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03.Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed.IDAPA 31.01.01.332.As discussed below,the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No.35849 (or an issue decided in it)is unreasonable,
unlawful,erroneous or not in conformity with the law.Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards'argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is,at best,a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter.Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade,the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade becausesuch meters lack surgeprotection.
However,the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection,even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards'opinion.More importantly,beyond
the conclusory assertion that "a substantive change of metering capability to residents'electric
meters"differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR,the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly,the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable.According to the Edwards,failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to "a medically sensitive minority of the public."Ostensibly,the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency ("RF")radiationthat AMI
meters emit.As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g.,Order Nos.32500,33979,and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans.See 47 C.F.R.1.1307(b),1.1310,2.1091,2.1093.The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements.Rather,the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements.In support of this contention,the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children's Health Defense,and Building Biology Institute.
However,the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be,nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
ORDER NO.35904 4
Moreover,although an addendum to the purported brief includes a "Physicians Statement,"
"Scientists Statement,"and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters,the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury.Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were,the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable,credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggestthat our decision in Order No.35849 was unreasonable,unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law.Finally,the Edwards have not addressedwhy placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about andAMI meters.
In sum,despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns,the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC's position on safe levels of RF radiation.Accordingly,the Commission
concludes that the Edwards'Petition should be denied.
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.
6 In their Petition,the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot supportconclusionsregardingRFsafetybecauseafederalcourtremandedadecisionbytheFCCnottorevisitthelimitsonRFradiationestablishedin1996.Specifically,in Env't Health Tr v.Fed.Commc'ns Comm'n,a divided panel of theD.C.Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiationbelowcurrentFCClimitsmaycasenegativehealtheffectsunrelatedtocancer.9 F.4th 893,906 (D.C.Cir.2021).Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC lastupdatedthelimitsforRFradiation,the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at,or below,current FCC limitscausesadversehealtheffectsinhumans.
ORDER NO.35904 5
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this 25 day
of August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON,PRESIDENT
HN R.HAMMONDJR.,COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LOÐGE,COMMISSIONERATTEST:
N nyuk0
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters recon_at docx
ORDER NO.35904 6