HomeMy WebLinkAboutgraves.pdf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 1
Q. Please state your name and business address for
the record.
A. My name is Dan Graves. My business address is
472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission as a Utilities Compliance Investigator.
Q. What is your educational and professional
background?
A. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Management from Tarkio College in 1987 and a Master of
Public Administration from the University of Missouri in
1990. I attended the NARUC Management Analyst training,
September 1987, the NARUC Basic Training for Management
Analysts, June 1988, and the NARUC Regulatory Studies
Program, August 1991. The Missouri Public Service
Commission from 1987 to 1992 employed me as a Management
Services Specialist for four years and Assistant to the
Chairman for one year. I have been in my current
position of Utilities Compliance Investigator since
December 2000.
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
proceeding?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss my
findings from a review of Idaho Power Company’s (Company)
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 2
public notices and address the Company’s compliance with
the Idaho Public Commission’s (Commission) Utility
Customer Relations Rules (UCRR), IDAPA 31.21.0100, et
seq., and Utility customer Information Rules (UCIR),
IDAPA 31.21.0200, et seq. I will summarize the written
comments filed with the Commission by customers following
Idaho Power Company’s Applications requesting authority
to issue energy cost recovery bonds, recover related
energy cost bond charges and change the Power Cost
Adjustment (PCA) Rate for electric service from May 16,
2002 to May 15, 2003. I will discuss briefly some of the
comments made by customers who attended the public
workshops and hearings. I will also summarize and
discuss the informal complaints filed with the
Commission’s Consumer Staff against Idaho Power Company
following the establishment of the tiered rate structure
in the 2001 PCA. I will describe briefly a number of
Demand Side Management (DSM) programs initiated by the
Company to encourage and promote energy conservation
among its customers. I will detail Idaho Power’s efforts
to mitigate the impact of rate increases on its low-
income customers.
Q. Has the Company complied with Utility Customer
Information Rules (UCIR) with regard to customer notice
of the applications for authority to issue energy cost
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 3
recovery bonds and recover the Company’s 2002 PCA
expenses?
A. Yes, with some modifications approved by the
Commission. On March 29, 2002, the Company filed a
request for wavier of the bill stuffer requirement for a
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA). The Company, on March 11,
2002, sent a special mailing to all its Idaho retail
customers notifying them of the application for
authorization to issue energy cost recovery bonds and the
impending application for the 2002 PCA. The Company
described the amount of the PCA application with and
without the issuance of energy cost recovery bonds. The
Company expressed concern that an additional bill stuffer
would lead to confusion rather than provide notification,
citing the fact that customers had already been notified
of the pending PCA application. The Company pointed out
that most customers would not receive a bill stuffer if
it were issued on a normal cyclical billing basis until
after scheduled hearings were held.
In Order No. 28995 issued on April 5, 2002, the
Commission determined that bill stuffers mailed during
the normal Idaho Power billing cycle would not allow
sufficient time for the Company’s customers to file
comments. The option of doing a special direct mailing
to customers was considered, but rejected because
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 4
customer might confuse it with the Company’s earlier
mailing regarding its request for an energy cost
financing order. As a result, the Commission in Order
No. 28995 granted the Company’s request to waive the bill
stuffer requirements and directed the Company to use paid
advertisements to notify the Company’s customers of the
scheduled hearings and written comment deadlines.
Q. What opinions did Idaho Power customers express
in the written comments submitted to the Commission in
Case No. IPC-E-02-03.
A. As of April 22, 2002, the Commission received
200 written comments from customers. Slightly more than
half (52%) were opposed to the tiered rate structure.
Many of these customers indicated they lived in all-
electric homes and felt they were now being penalized for
it. They talked about the influence Idaho Power exerted
during the seventies to build “Gold Medallion” all-
electric homes. These customers are now experiencing
high electric bills and claim it is impossible to keep
usage under 2000 kWh, which in many cases puts the
majority of their usage in the third tier (8.4 cents per
kWh). Many also commented that they do not have access
to an alternative heat source like natural gas and are
consequently being singled out to bear the brunt of Idaho
Power’s energy costs. Others commented that the three-
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 5
tiered rate structure is discriminatory. One customer
commented, “I don’t mind paying a fair share for
electricity-have been for nearly 70 years, but this 3
tiered rate fiasco is the ultimate ‘rip-off.’” Another
comment read, “Those of us with electricity as our only
source of heat are subsidizing electricity users that
have other heating sources. This is unfair!” Finally,
one customer commented, “Reduce my rates and go back to
one flat rate.” The few customers in favor of tiered
rates were generally customers who favored the PUC
directing Idaho Power to institute additional
conservation measures and believed that the three-tiered
rate structure sent a strong conservation message to
high-end users.
Q. Did you get the impression from customer
comments that the three-tiered rate structure has had a
positive impact on conservation?
A. Many customers, especially those living in all-
electric homes, expressed strong feelings about the
perceived punitive nature of the tiered rate structure,
which compelled them to conserve. However, these
customers indicated that tiered rates did not send any
conservation message to those customers who have
alternative heat sources. Again, customers expressed a
strong sense that the burden to conserve was shifted from
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 6
all Idaho Power customers to only those with all-electric
homes.
Q. Do you think these customers in all-electric
homes are aware of the increases experienced by customers
who heat with natural gas over the past twelve months?
A. None of the customers who indicated they lived
in all-electric homes acknowledged that natural gas
customers had experienced approximately a 50% increase in
rates. It is possible that a lack of awareness that both
gas and electric customers experienced sizable increases
in energy costs made electric space heating customers
feel singled out.
Q. You also reviewed customers’ written comments
filed in this case regarding Idaho Power’s request to
issue revenue bonds to recover the Company’s power supply
costs. What were some of the concerns expressed by
customers?
A. The Commission received 26 comments addressing
the issue of energy bonds. Ten customers commented
favorably toward the PUC allowing Idaho Power to issue
revenue bonds. Sixteen customers emphatically opposed
the issuing of bonds, commenting that they would rather
see the debt paid off in a year rather than spreading it
over three years. Although the Commission approved
adoption of the load reduction costs for inclusion in the
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 7
PCA, some customers believed these costs were solely the
result of poor decisions made by Idaho Power. For
example, one customer commented, “Now Idaho Power
threatens us with even higher bills unless we agree to
let them sell bonds to pay off their bad decisions.”
Another customer stated, “The bond proposal appears to be
an effort by Idaho Power to cover up its poor management
decisions under the guise of an artificial rate
reduction.”
Q. The Commission held workshops and public
hearings to gather public input on Idaho Power Company’s
request to issue revenue bonds, the annual Power Cost
Adjustment (PCA), the tiered rate structure, and funding
of a comprehensive DSM program. What was the response
from the customers who testified on these issues?
A. Workshops and public hearings were held in Twin
Falls, Idaho, on April 10, 2002, and in Pocatello, Idaho,
on April 15, 2002. A total of forty-nine people attended
the workshops and forty-six people attended the hearings
that followed the workshop. Seventeen people testified
before the Commission. Ten spoke out against tiered
rates, but others admitted that they thought the three-
tiered rate structure sent a strong signal to customers
with high consumption to conserve. A majority of
customers testifying opposed authorization of energy
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 8
bonds to pay off the power supply costs. Several
testified that while they preferred to pay it off in one
year, they thought spreading costs over multiple years
was necessary to alleviate the hardship to others.
Finally, there was almost an even split both for and
against the Commission allowing Idaho Power to fund its
DSM program through a small surcharge added to rates. A
final public workshop and hearing is scheduled from April
25, 2002, in Boise.
Q. Has the Commission’s Consumer Staff received
many complaints from customers following last year’s PCA
rate increase?
A. Yes. From May 2001 through April 19, 2002, the
Consumer Assistance Staff has taken approximately 332
informal complaints regarding increased rates, the tiered
rate structure, and high bills and consumption.
Generally, many customers strongly opposed the three-
tiered rate structure and many saw their Budget Pay
amount increase significantly with relatively little
increase in consumption. As of April 22, 2002, Staff
logged 119 complaints from customers who received
unexpectedly high bills resulting from a combination of
increased rates and higher consumption during the past
heating season. Many of these customers had not
experienced the rate shock from the rate increase until
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 9
the weather turned cold enough to push their consumption
over the 2000 kWh level. In still other cases, a number
of customer complaints were a result of Idaho Power meter
readers that misread meters or estimated usage.
Q. Were there an unusual number of billings based
on estimated meter readings?
A. The number of estimated bills for the year 2001
was 31,137, a significant increase over the prior year
when 17,000 were issued. The Company cautioned against
comparing the number of calendar year 2000 estimated
bills against the number of estimated bills issued in
calendar year 2001. Their reasoning was that under the
old Customer Information System (CIS) that was in place
until November 2001, seasonal and irrigation customers
were not read during the off-season. Instead, these
customers were billed at some pre-determined amount as
actual reads. The new CIS system now labels all those
accounts as “estimated.” The Company indicated that
there is no way to determine the total number of seasonal
and irrigation accounts that were coded as actual reads
under the old CIS system and coded as estimated under the
new system. Thus, it is impossible to make an accurate
year-to-year comparison.
As of April 5, 2002, the Commission Staff received
approximately 156 complaints from customers opposing the
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 10
higher rates and the three-tiered rate structure. Many
of these customers were elderly and on fixed incomes.
Some expressed deep concern that they were required to
make choices between paying power bills or buying food
and medicine. Some feared losing their homes due to an
inability to pay energy costs.
Q. One indication that customers are having
difficulty paying their electric bills may be the number
of disconnection complaints received by Consumer
Assistance Staff. Was there an increase in the number of
disconnection complaints this year over last year?
A. For calendar year 2000, the Consumer Assistance
Staff registered 250 complaints involving disconnections.
For calendar year 2001, a total of 368 complaints were
registered. This represents a 47% increase. The
Consumer Staff has registered 93 customer disconnection
complaints from January 1, 2002 to April 19, 2002,
compared to 91 for the same period last year.
Q. To what do you attribute this increase?
A. Higher energy costs in general certainly
contributed to the increase in disconnection complaints.
However, during the 2000/2001 heating season 3,535
customers declared eligibility for protection from
disconnection under the Utility Customer Relations Rules
codified in IDAPA 31.21.01.306. During the 2001/2002
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 11
heating season, 7,872 customers declared eligibility.
Customers are eligible for protection from disconnection
if their household includes children, elderly or infirm
persons. Although these customers are required to pay
their bills, frequently they either pay nothing or make
partial payments that result in a large balance owing on
March 1st - the date when utilities can disconnect
service.
Higher rates no doubt increased the number of
customers who were unable to pay their bills in full,
which resulted in a significant increase in the number of
past due accounts. In anticipation of the increased need
for collection activities, the Company hired six
additional field collection staff to meet the anticipated
workload. With increased collection activities by the
Company, the Commission Consumer Staff witnessed an
increase in the number of customers calling and seeking
help to prevent disconnection of service.
Q. How are Idaho Power’s low-income and elderly
customers on fixed incomes able to cope with the high
energy bills?
A. In calendar year 2001, 10,360 of Idaho Power’s
customers received a total of $2,185,905 in financial
assistance through programs such as Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 12
funds. This represents a significant increase over
calendar year 2000, in which 7,985 customers received a
total of $1,490,785 in LIHEAP and Project Share funds.
LIHEAP is the primary source of financial
assistance to customers who are unable to pay their
energy bills and requires that customers qualify under
federal income guidelines. Assistance amounts to a one-
time payment made directly to Idaho Power. Since the
LIHEAP grant is simply not enough to keep utility service
from being disconnected, customers often must seek
additional funds elsewhere.
Additional funds are often available through
the Project Share program. It is funded by donations and
is available on a case-by-case basis in emergency
situations. Idaho Power supports this fund through
donations. The Company and its shareholders contributed
$139,299 in 2001, a significant increase over the prior
years contribution of $40,972. Idaho Power customers
contributed $159,730 in year 2000 and slightly less,
$142,998, in year 2001 by adding an extra amount to their
monthly bills. Applicants need only to contact
organizations like the Salvation Army, American Red
Cross, or a local Community Action Agency to apply for
assistance.
Q. What other resources are available to
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 13
customers?
A. County welfare benefits are often available,
but recipients may be asked to pay back a portion or all
of the assistance they receive. Local churches are
another source for funds and will often help when
contacted directly by the customer.
Q. Does Idaho Power offer a levelized payment
program to its customers?
A Yes, the Company offers Budget Pay to customers
who want to mitigate the impact of seasonal highs and
lows in energy bills. The plan allows customers to pay
their projected annual usage in twelve (12) monthly
installments. The payment amount is normally reviewed
and recalculated, when necessary, on the anniversary of
the date the customer began the plan. Although some
customers stopped participating in the Budget Pay program
due to the increased monthly payments that resulted from
higher rates, others apparently found the plan helpful.
As of April 2002, the Company had 43,218 customers
participating in Budget Pay, a net increase of 2,655
customers over the same time last year when 40,563
customers were using Budget Pay.
Q. What is Idaho Power’s policy regarding payment
arrangements for customers that have difficulty paying
their energy bill?
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 14
A. Customers need to call the Company when they
know they will have difficulty paying their bill. Idaho
Power is required to make reasonable payment
arrangements. If the customer fails to make the agreed-
upon payment, the Company may make a second agreement but
is not obligated to do so. Idaho Power also offers
several payment options, e.g., Preferred Pay, Check by
Phone and electronic or online payment. The key is that
customers must communicate with the Company when they
experience problems paying their electric bills before
they are disconnected.
Q. Energy Conservation can assist low-income
customers to reduce their energy consumption and thus
reduce their electricity bills. What is Idaho Power
doing to assist these customers?
A. Idaho Power participates in the Low-Income
Weatherization Assistance program through grants that
supplement federal funding to support weatherization
projects. This program is designed for low-income
customers whose homes are not energy efficient and cannot
afford to upgrade windows, doors, or insulation.
Qualified households are recruited by local non-profit
agencies using federal low-income eligibility guidelines.
Idaho Power pays 50% of the cost of qualifying
conservation measures plus a $75 administration fee per
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 15
home. In year 2000, 213 weatherization jobs were
completed in Idaho and cost the Company $211,273. In
year 2001, The Company completed 266 weatherization jobs
at a cost of $331,125.
Q. What other financial contributions has Idaho
Power made in the interest of energy conservation?
A. In 2001, Idaho Power contributed $1,246,818 to
the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The Company
also spent $567,253 on a Conservation Advertising
Campaign, which included newspaper ads, radio and TV ads,
outdoor billboards and a number of printed publications
that were mailed directly to customers. In addition,
Idaho Power created a compact florescent light (CFL)
packet. The packet contains one CFL bulb, an Energy Cost
Calculator, a tip sheet for home energy conservation and
literature on conservation. The initial mailing of these
packets was targeted to low-income customers and 7,608
were mailed in December 2001. In January 2002, Idaho
Power offered in a bill stuffer to provide a CFL packet
for those customers using 2000 kWh or more in a month.
The Company distributed 1,900 CFL packets in response to
the bill stuffer invitation. Idaho Power continues to
distribute the remaining 2,500 CFL packets.
The cost of the CFL packet program, $90,416 to
date, was not included as part of the cost of the Ad
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 16
campaign or weatherization program. Instead, it was
funded separately through the Bonneville Power
Administration’s (BPA) Conservation and Renewables
Discount (C&RD) Program. The C&RD credit of $525,000 per
year is available to Idaho Power through 2004. The
Company plans on using these funds for residential
conservation programs, which includes a weatherization
program.
Idaho Power is now offering a new packet of
conservation information to the Company’s Spanish-
speaking customers. The packet, also offered in English,
contains the “Home Energy Audit and Checklist,” a rates
“question and answer” information sheet, a Energy Cost
Calculator for appliances and equipment, and an “Energy
Planner” brochure with 55 conservation tips. Customers
must contact Idaho Power via mail, email or by calling to
obtain the new packet.
Q. What else is Idaho Power doing to assist low-
income consumers in reducing energy consumption?
A. Idaho Power developed an “Energy Planner” or
home energy audit package that is sent out to customers
who have called regarding their high consumption. The
Energy Planner contains information and suggestions to
assist customers in lowering their home energy usage.
When a customer calls the Company, the Customer Service
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 17
Representative (CSR) attempts to determine consumption
patterns and offers to send an Energy Packet. The Energy
Planner packet contains a printed history of the
customer’s usage, an Energy Cost Calculator and the
business card of the Delivery Service Representative
(DSR) assigned to the customer. If the CSR and Energy
Packet do not satisfactorily answer the customer’s
questions, the customer can contact the DSR directly.
Once the DSR is assigned to further address the
customer’s concerns, he/she will then decide if a site
visit and home energy audit are appropriate. The DSR
then schedules an appointment with the customer in order
to conduct the audit.
Q. How many audits has the Company performed?
A. For calendar year 2001, Idaho Power conducted
1,118 energy audits, slightly more than the 1,110 audits
done in 2000. During the first three months of year
2002, the Company has performed 258 energy audits. When
asked why the number of energy audits performed had not
increased correspondingly with the significant increase
in customer contacts regarding high consumption, the
Company attributed it to the energy conservation packets
that were distributed to low-income customers and
customers who called about high bills. The Company
surmised that in an effort to conserve, more customers
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 18
are conducting their own audit using the home energy
audit checklist contained in the energy packet.
Q. The Commission’s Consumer Staff received a
number of complaints from customers upset when their
billing cycle exceeded 30 days, which in some cases
caused a portion of their usage to be charged at the
highest tiered rate. How has Idaho Power responded to
these complaints?
A. Since May 2001, the Commission’s Consumer Staff
has investigated 24 complaints concerning billing cycles
in excess of 30 days. Customers complained that the
number of times they were billed for more days than the
normal 30-day billing cycle had increased. In some
cases, customers stated they were billed for to as many
as 34 days. Any customer with usage averaging around
2000 kWh in a 30-day period will likely have a portion of
his usage charged at the highest tiered rate for the 1-4
days beyond the 30 days. Some customers see this as an
opportunity for Idaho Power to increase revenue by
adjusting billing cycles. One customer in his complaint
suggested Idaho Power read meters on weekends and
holidays to insure the 30-day billing cycle is followed.
Idaho Power responded in writing to a recent
customer complaint with the following statement:
“Although customers may feel that we have tried to
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 19
increase the number of days in each billing cycle in
order to collect more revenue, any increase during 2001
was due solely to the need of the Company to manage the
implementation of the new billing system while keeping in
mind the other criteria considered when setting the
schedules (e.g., avoiding holiday and weekend reads when
possible, trying to keep the billing within the 3-4 days
of the meter reading). Idaho Power’s Tariff Rule D.6
(Sheet No. D-3) provides for meters to be read normally
at intervals of approximately 30 days. However, the
interval between meter reads can be as great as 45 days.”
If the Commission decides to keep the tiered rate
structure, I recommend that it encourage the Company to
limit the instances of billing periods exceeding 30 days.
I also recommend that the Company’s tariff be amended to
reflect a more reasonable range of number of days to be
included in a billing period.
Q. In your opinion, have tiered rates generally
succeeded in making customers more aware of their energy
usage?
A. A number of customers submitting comments and
filing complaints with the Commission admitted to having
taken measures to conserve and cut back on energy usage.
Most talked about replacing or adding insulation, closing
cracks under doors and around windows, replacing
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 20
inefficient windows and doors, and turning thermostats
down.
Q. In your opinion, do you think there were other
issues that customers opposed to tiered rates perhaps did
not consider when they filed their comments and
complaints with the Commission?
A. Oftentimes, when Consumer Staff investigated a
complaint, they found billing errors were the cause for
the customer’s complaint and not tiered rates per se.
Billing errors included misreads and estimated reads,
which coupled with the tiered rate, would result in the
customer receiving an unnecessarily high bill. In many
cases the animosity towards tiered rates is misdirected.
In the Mini-Cassia area Idaho Power
investigated a problem that was created by an
inappropriate and unauthorized estimation of electricity
usage. The Company analyzed the records of more than
3,000 customers in the Mini-Cassia area to determine the
extent of the problem. The Company found that 225
customers were affected by the problem and made billing
adjustments totaling $1,568. The average adjustment per
account was $6.96, but for some individuals, the
adjustment was much greater. Each affected customer was
mailed a letter explaining the situation and indicating
the amount of the adjustment to expect on his or her next
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-2 GRAVES, D (Di) 21
IPC-E-02-3 STAFF
4/22/02
bill. In addition, all Oakley customers were mailed a
postcard offering an apology and an opportunity for
customers to discuss the bill in person with Company
personnel.
Q. Based on your review of all the written
comments in this case and the consumer complaints filed
with the Commission’s Consumer Assistance Staff, do you
believe the energy crisis and the subsequent rate
increases have had any positive results?
A. Yes. It has made customers more atuned to
their actual energy consumption versus the dollar amount
they pay for energy. The Northwest has historically
benefited from having the lowest energy rates for energy
in the country, so customers have not received the sort
of price signals that encourage energy conservation.
Customers now appear to be more aware of their daily
energy consumption and how taking some basic conservation
steps can positively impact their energy bills.
Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony in
this proceeding?
A. Yes, it does.