In Bereczky v. Southern California Edison Co. (1996) 65 Cal.P.U.C.2d 145, a landowner complained for money damages and other relief on the ground that the utility had " 'excessively trimmed spruce and pine trees' on his property." (Id. at p. 146.) The landowner argued that general order No. 95 ? 'requires and/or implies' reasonable and consistent practices and action by the utilities." (Bereczky, at p. 147.) The commission dismissed the complaint, noting that because its rules do "not fix a maximum limit on the amount of trimming which a utility is permitted to do on easements under its power lines," "even if proven, the conduct alleged does not constitute the basis for a complaint ..." in front of the commission. (Ibid.) As one of its conclusions of law, the commission concluded that "the complaint does not set forth acts by the utility which are in violation, or could be claimed to be in violation of any provision of law, or of any order or rule of the Commission, which we are empowered to enforce." (Id. at p. 148.)