20020508_125.html

DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER HANSEN JEAN JEWELL RANDY LOBB DON HOWELL LYNN ANDERSON BILL EASTLAKE BEVERLY BARKER RON LAW GENE FADNESS TONYA CLARK WORKING FILE FROM: DAN GRAVES DATE: MAY 8, 2002 RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JAMES H. HUNT On April 8, 2002, the Commission received a formal complaint from Mr. James H. Hunt against Idaho Power Company. Mr. Hunt claims that Idaho Power intentionally extended the time periods between meter readings during calendar year 2001 to take advantage of the tiered rate structure to increase revenues received from residential customers. Mr. Hunt is requesting that the Commission require Idaho Power to clarify the terms "Billing Period" and "Month" found in their Tariff No. 101, Rule B, Definitions. Mr. Hunt is asking that the words "assumed" in the first instance and "approximate" in the second instance, be removed. Mr. Hunt is suggesting that the billing period definitively state that the billing period be between 29 and 32 days and that month (unless calendar month is stated) definitively state that it be between 29 and 32 days. Mr. Hunt is also requesting the Commission to review his findings from computations he claims show that Idaho Power overcharged him during calendar year 2001. Based Mr. Hunt's assertions and calculations of excess billing days he has requested a refund of $70.46 for over-billings between May 26, 2001, and March 5, 2002, from Idaho Power. BACKGROUND Mr. Hunt claims that Idaho Power Company during the years 1997 through 2000 established an average billing cycle of 30.3 days. He claims that during calendar year 2001 the Company violated the intent of its own Tariff No. 101, Rule B regarding time spans between meter reads. He supports his claim by citing the precedent set by the Company during the previous three years when the average was 30.3 days. During 2001, the average increased to 31.5 days. In response to concerns raised regarding Idaho Power Company's billing practices for Idaho residential customers, Mr. Jon R. Gale, in a letter to the Commission dated March 1, 2002, addressed the Company's procedures. Mr. Gale stated that for calendar year 2001, the average days in a monthly billing cycle was 31.3 days. The change reflected the Company's conversion to their new Customer Information System (CIS) in November of 2000. The conversion required the Company to shorten billing cycles in 2000 in order to accommodate a weeklong blackout period over Thanksgiving. After the conversion, it was necessary to lengthen the cycles to get the schedule back on track. Mr. Gale went on to state that the read schedule was prepared well in advance of the proposal of a three-tiered rate structure and that the 2002 read schedule had returned to normal. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Hunt's allegation that Idaho Power increased the number of days between meter read dates is true. Consistent with its testimony in Case Nos. IPC-E-02-2 and IPC-E-02-3, Staff agrees that the Company's tariff should be modified with respect to the number of days in a billing cycle. Commission Staff reviewed Mr. Hunt's calculation for a refund and determined that it was incorrect. The primary problem with Mr. Hunt's calculation was his assumption that the electricity he used during the extra days between meter read dates should be free, i.e., he asks for a refund of the entire rate times his calculated excess kWh, rather than just the difference between rate blocks for only kWh over the rate block increment due to the extra days. In the Staff opinion, the best argument that can be made is that excess kWh used should be billed at a lower rate only to the extent that it caused Mr. Hunt's usage to exceed a rate block threshold. In this particular case, Mr. Hunt would not be owed a refund from Idaho Power. However, Mr. Hunt's assumption is that the "correct" number of days in his billing cycle should be based on an average of prior years. Staff recommends that the Commission postpone its decision on Mr. Hunt's request to initiate a formal complaint until the Staff has an opportunity to discuss its analysis with Mr. Hunt and a decision has been rendered in Case Nos. IPC-E-02-2 and IPC-E-02-3. COMMISSION DECISION How does the Commission wish to address the concerns of Mr. James H. Hunt? 1. Does the Commission wish to accept the formal complaint? 2. Does the Commission wish to reject the formal complaint? 3. Does the Commission wish to defer entire complaint, pending decision on Case No. IPC-E-02-2/3. ________________________ Dan Graves udmemos/James Hunt Decision Memo