HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071029min.docIDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 29, 2007 – 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Marsha Smith, Mack Redford and Jim Kempton.
Commissioner Smith called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS on October 9th and October 16th, 2007. Commissioner Smith moved for approval of the minutes. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The second order of business was OTHER MATTERS:
Election of PUC President.
Commissioner Smith welcomed newly-appointed Commissioner Jim Kempton to the Commission and stated she was looking forward to working with him. She said that because of the appointment of Commissioner Paul Kjellander to head the Office of Energy Resources, it was necessary to elect a new commission president. She nominated Commissioner Mack Redford to perform the function of commission president. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Being duly elected, Commissioner Redford also welcomed and introduced Commissioner Jim Kempton. He said Commissioner Kempton brings with him a long, distinguished career as a fighter pilot, professor of physics at the Air Force Academy, an Idaho legislator, and member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Commissioner Redford stated that Jim Kempton brings intelligence and background to the position and it is nice to have a commissioner up to speed and ahead of the learning curve.
Commissioner Kempton said he looked forward to meeting everyone and working at the PUC.
The third order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA, items 3 – 6. There was no discussion. Commissioner Redford moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The next order of business was RULEMAKING:
Don Howell’s October 26, 2007 Decision Memorandum re: The Commission’s Proposed Changes to the Utility Customer Relations Rules, Docket No. 31-2101.0701.
Mr. Howell gave an overview of the rulemaking process and the parties involved. It was decided that the most expeditious way to proceed was to vote on each rule after it was discussed.
Rule 105 (Amount of Deposit): Mr. Howell stated that all parties had recommended approval of the changes to this rule. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the proposed changes. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Rule 203 (Billing Under Inappropriate Tariff Schedule): Mr. Howell reviewed the proposed changes to the rule as outlined in his Decision Memo. He noted the utilities’ objection to the change in the symmetry in the allowed period of collecting undercharges and overcharges.
Discussion ensued, and Commissioner Redford confirmed that the proposed change to rebill for only six months of undercharges didn’t conflict with Idaho Code § 61-642.
Commissioner Kempton asked about the phrase “unless a reasonable person should have known of the inappropriate billing” and if there might be issues as to what is “reasonable.” Mr. Howell responded that at some point those issues will come up and Staff believes that they can be considered on a case-by-case based on the facts of each particular complaint. He noted Idaho Power had the same concern about the phrase being subject to a variety of interpretations. Mr. Howell said a customer has an opportunity to file an informal complaint and the right to file a formal complaint. Mr. Howell noted we have had several recent cases whereby customers have exercised their rights to come formally before the Commission.
Commissioner Smith said the reason the Commission proposed this rule is because of the cases Mr. Howell mentioned and in some instances the outcome of sticking to the three-year requirement for rebilling for undercharging is, if not a hardship, at least perhaps inequitable because the utility was the party that should have been in the position to know more and find the billing problem sooner and correct it. She said the issue is whether or not the symmetry of the three years for both overbilling and underbilling is important enough that we should reverse what we proposed or allow the statute to operate for overbilling and allow six months for underbillings, which the utility companies are not happy with.
Commissioner Redford commented that the regulated utilities sometimes make a big deal of the fact that rebilling is called for in the rules and tariffs, and maintain they therefore have a right to proceed pursuant to the rules as opposed to businesses operating in the free market that don’t have the right. He said there has to be some sort of an accommodation between the two, and so he wasn’t concerned about the symmetry.
Commissioner Kempton said he had been briefed on the background of this rulemaking and although he wasn’t privy to some of the discussions leading to the rule change, he could support the six-month and three-year provision. He said the symmetry issue is probably not something the utilities would want to strongly contest in the long run.
Commissioner Redford asked for a vote. Commissioner Smith moved that the Commission adopt the changes proposed in Rule 203, with the exception of adding the words in 203.03 “no more than three years” after the word “extended” in order to address Idaho Power’s concern as to how long the rebilling period may be extended under certain circumstances. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Rule 204 (Inaccurately Billed Service Under Correct Tariff Schedule): Mr. Howell reviewed the proposed rule change and discussion ensued regarding rewording of language to address situations where bills are incorrectly prepared due to incorrectly installed meters. Ms. Nordstrom of Idaho Power clarified that the company is proposing language that is technically correct because the problems have been in the programming of the company’s billing system, not with the actual meters. In answer to a question from Commissioner Kempton about whether the meters are hardwired or if there is software incorporated in them, she explained that some meters have advanced capabilities but the majority of the meters strictly read and record usage that a meter reader collects. Commissioner Kempton asked Idaho Power if it had any problem using the words “programming and installation” and Ms. Nordstrom replied it did not have any objections.
Following the discussion and given the input from Ms. Nordstrom, Mr. Howell suggested the new wording for rule 204.01 should be “meter equipment was incorrectly installed or programmed.” Commissioner Kempton made a motion to accept the language. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Rule 300 (Further Definitions) and Rule 600 (Definitions): Mr. Howell stated the proposed changes are identical in both rules. He reviewed the section of his Decision Memo explaining the changes. He stated the utilities all supported the changes but Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) was opposed to simple e-mail being the only notice a customer receives prior to termination of service.
Commissioner Smith said that she has sympathy with ICAN’s concerns but noted the customer has to both request electronic billing and consent to receive notices by e-mail. She said consent to receive notices by e-mail can either be withheld initially or withdrawn at any time later and then the company would have to send written notices. She said it is in the hands of the consumers to decide how to receive notices and if they choose electronic, then she didn’t see any reason to make the company go to the expense of also mailing a paper notice.
Commissioner Kempton commented that it is more process than anything else in terms of having a fair and equitable opportunity to know if you are going to be disconnected. He said if the fine print is embedded in an agreement then he could see there would be times when customers wouldn’t have any idea what they had agreed to unless it is done in a separate selective process, which would have to be inserted in the rule. He said the customer should be given a separate opportunity to select or not select the option of having an e-mail notice prior to disconnect.
Commissioner Smith asked Ms. Barker about the series of notices that go to a customer before disconnection, and if a customer chooses electronic billing, how many of the notices would be eliminated if a customer chooses electronic notification. Ms. Barker reviewed the notice requirements and stated that with electronic notification, the customer will get at least two electronic notices and the company would still attempt to contact the customer by phone. She pointed out that when Staff had conversations with the utilities, it did specify it would be an opt in selection on the part of the customer—i.e. if customers choose electronic billing, it does not mean they automatically also get electronic notices because they have to proactively choose that option in addition to the electronic billing in order to get the whole package of electronic mailing.
Commissioner Kempton asked about the proposed language to explain the choices. Ms. Barker replied that the wording is “if the customer is billed electronically and consents to electronic notification.” She said they were open to suggestions. Commissioner Kempton suggested it could be worded exactly as she explained it—i.e. as an “opt-in, opt-out” selection choice. He said he thought the Legislature would be more comfortable with that explanation.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed wording in the rule. Several suggestions were made. Commissioner Smith proposed the wording “the customer is billed electronically and separately opts to have electronic notification.” Commissioner Kempton and Commissioner Redford were in agreement. Ms. Barker read the revised second sentence: “Written notice may be provided by electronic mail—i.e. email—if the customer is billed electronically and separately opts to have electronic notification.” Commissioner Kempton made a motion to use this language in the rule. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Mr. Howell confirmed that the motion included the identical change to Rule 600.
Rule 302 (Grounds for Denial or Termination of Service with Prior Notice) and Rule 310 (Insufficient Grounds for Termination or Denial of Service): Mr. Howell reviewed the section of his Decision Memo explaining the proposed change to these rules. Terri Shoen of Intermountain Gas stated she had nothing additional to add to the company’s stated objection to the rule change. Commissioner Smith moved the Commission adopt the proposed changes in Rule 302.08 and 310.01 with the addition of the words “or applicants” as suggested by Idaho Power to make it clear that either customers or applicants are covered by this provision. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Rule 310 – Other Changes: Mr. Howell reviewed the proposed changes outlined in his Decision Memo, which were all suggestions made by Idaho Power and approved by Staff. Commissioner Smith made a motion to accept the changes. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Rule 311 (Times When Service May Be Denied or Terminated – Opportunity to Avoid Termination of Service): Mr. Howell reviewed the proposed changes. Commissioner Redford commented that we need to consider the basics for the rule to start with, and that is to make sure families don’t get their utility service cut off over the weekend. He said in consideration of the people we are trying to protect it is not unreasonable to prohibit disconnection on Friday. He said he is not so concerned about the internal workings of termination as he is about the people we are trying to protect. Commissioner Kempton added that he also supported the change and believed it would be favorably supported by the Legislature. Commissioner Kempton made a motion to approve the proposed rule change. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.
Rule 311.03 and Rule 311.06 (Customer-Requested Termination: Mr. Howell reviewed two changes recommended by Idaho Power regarding removal of the words “denial or” from 311.01, 311.02, 311.03, 311.04 and 311.05 and revisions to wording in 311.06 regarding customer-requested termination. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the revisions. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Rule 311.04 – Confidential Information: Mr. Howell reviewed the final change for Rule 311, which was proposed by Intermountain Gas, deleting the requirement that a utility company employee who is at a customer’s premise to perform a disconnection have in his or her possession “the past due account record of the customer….” He stated Staff’s position on the matter. Ms. Shoen of Intermountain Gas provided clarification about the company’s concerns and conceded that the company would not be opposed to a rule with a provision that gave the customers an opportunity to make a phone call to the company to find out their past due account balances.
Ms. Barker further clarified that the company’s concern about the rule related to situations where an applicant applied for service as opposed to a situation with an actual customer. She stated that given the preceding decision to delete all the references in Rule 311 to denial of service then Intermountain Gas’s objections would go away because we are no longer talking about denial of service but only talking about termination of service.
Don Howell stated that given Intermountain Gas’s concession, there weren’t any more changes to the rules proposed by the Commission. He said the only remaining issues were the three proposals that Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) had recommended pursuant to Rules 306 and 308 and a host of rules dealing with an expansion in the winter moratorium, medical certificates, and having notices and other important documents translated into languages other than English and Spanish. He said the Commission did not propose any changes to its rules in those areas, but Idaho Code allows the Commission to adopt a pending rule that varies in content from what was originally proposed if the Commission determines that the ICAN proposals meet the requirements of the statute.
Mr. Howell added that if directed by the Commission, Staff could examine the proposals and host a workshop and encourage participants to give their views about these three rules and the Commission could then decide if it wishes to engage in a rulemaking. He pointed out that in considering ICAN’s 2004 petition, the Commission declined to adopt any changes to these particular rules, so the Commission would be initiating an informal proceeding to look at something that previously had not been adopted, but it is certainly this Commission’s prerogative. Commissioner Redford stated it was incumbent upon ICAN to do it by petition, which would mean their proposed changes would be considered next year.
Mr. Howell replied that the Administrative Procedures Act does provide for an interested person or party to petition an agency for a rulemaking, and if it is the Commission’s decision not to embark on the endeavor on its own, then ICAN can file its petition if it decides to pursue changes in those three areas.
Commissioner Redford stated ICAN needs to come to the Commission not just generally but specifically as to the need for the rule changes. He stated that unless there was some objection by the other members, that was his ruling. Hearing no objections, he asked Mr. Howell to communicate with ICAN.
Commissioner Smith asked how the utilities now accommodate customers who speak languages other than English or Spanish. Ms. Barker replied that generally speaking, all of the energy utilities do have options available for Spanish-speaking customers because that is the largest population of non-English speaking customers in the state and then it varies utility-by-utility as to what each can do to accommodate applicants or customers who speak something else. She said some have accommodations and some do not.
Mr. Howell stated that in the 2004 petition, ICAN had recommended all important notices, documents and a yearly summary of rules be translated and made available in seven languages.
The next order of business was a continuation of MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Don Howell’s October 26, 2007 Decision Memorandum re: Updating the Commission’s Railroad Safety-Sanitation Rules and Rescinding the Commission’s Railroad Accident Reporting Rules, Docket Nos. 31-7103-0701 and 31-7102-0701.
Don Howell’s October 26, 2007 Decision Memorandum re: Updating the Commission’s Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) Rules, Docket No. 31-1201-0701.
Mr. Howell stated that the Commission had not received any comments on these two items. Commissioner Smith moved for approval of items 8 and 9. There was no discussion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Redford stated that item 10 under the category of FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS would be deliberated privately.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session. Mr. Howell announced the purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss with legal counsel pending litigation and to examine the renewal of the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) administrator’s contract. He stated that with those two grounds, the Commission was required by the Open Meeting Law to make a motion and vote on the record to go into Executive Session. A vote was taken on the motion to adjourn to Executive Session and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Redford then adjourned the regular session.
Following the Executive Session, the Commission reconvened and voted unanimously to renew the contract of the TRS Administrator, Robert Dunbar, for three years.
DATED this ______ day of October, 2007.
____________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
6