First Intermountain Gas.pdf

.- ):l:;~
EXECUTIVE OFFICES RECE\VED
f\LEO
555 SOUTH COLE ROAD. P.O. BOX 7608. BOISE, IDAHO 83707. [phone]" FAX: 377-97 .D~ 4:
'l.Q~l ~KW \ 2
mt';HO PU\:1Li~S\GNullLrOtS CQ~1t1.
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
November 12 2002
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , ID 83720-0074
RE:Intermountain Gas Company
Case No. GNR-02-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Pursuant to the above referenced Case , attached are an original and seven copies of Intermountain
Gas Company s response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff.
The following person prepared the attached responses and is the record holder of same:
Terri Shoen
Director - Customer Service
Intermountain Gas Company
555 So. Cole Road
Boise, ID 83709
Phone - [phone]
Should the need arise, the following individual could sponsor the attached responses at a hearing:
Paul Powell
Senior Vice President Administration
Intermountain Gas Company
555 So. Cole Road
Boise, ID 83709
Phone - [phone]
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the attached , please contact me
at 377-6064.
Sincerely,
Paul Powell
Sr. Vice President Administration
PP/slk
Attachments
Request No.1: Given the following scenario , does each of the four described outcomes
provide an accurate illustration of how a customer would be affected by both the current
moratorium and the proposed Winter Protection Program? If not, please explain the basis for
distinction and provide an illustrative example of how a customer would be affected.
Scenario. On December 1 , the customer declares inability to pay and has children under
18 in the household. The customer has a past due balance of$100. The customer is billed $75 in
December, $100 in January, and $125 in February for energy usage. For simplicity, interest
charges, which would normally apply, are not included in these examples.
Outcomes Under Existing Moratorium Rule 306
Customer elizible for LIHEAP The customer makes no payment from personal funds for
the months of December through February. The utility receives an Energy Assistance benefit
amount of $250 in January, which is applied to the customer s past due balance of $275 ($100
balance carried forward plus $75 bill for December and $100 bill for January.) The utility is
prohibited from disconnecting the customer s service from December through February. On
March 1, the customer has a past due balance of $150 ($25 remaining from January bill plus
$125 February bill) and is disconnected. To restore service, the customer must pay the past due
balance (or make other acceptable payment arrangements) plus a reconnection fee and a deposit.
Reply to Scenario "Customer eligible for LIHEAP"The scenario above is an accurate
illustration of how a customer would be affected by the existing moratorium under Rule 306.
Customer not elizible for LIHEAP.The customer makes no payment for the months of
December through February. The utility is prohibited from disconnecting the customer s service
from December through February. On March 1 , the customer has a past due balance of $400 and
is disconnected. To restore service, the customer must pay the past due balance (or make other
acceptable payment arrangements) plus a reconnection fee and a deposit.
Reply to Scenario "Customer not eligible for LIHEAP"The scenario above is an
accurate illustration of how a customer not eligible for LIHEAP would be affected by the
existing moratorium under Rule 306.
Outcomes under proposed Winter Protection Program "WPP"
Customer eligible for LIHEAP.The customer s regular level pay amount (based on
estimated annual usage plus the past due balance of $100 divided into 12 monthly installments)
is $90. The customer s monthly payment amount under the Winter Protection Program for
December, January and February is $45 , one-half the regular level payment amount. The
customer pays $45 in December as agreed. The utility receives an Energy Assistance benefit
amount of $250 in January, which is applied to the customer s actual balance of $230 ($100
balance carried forward plus $75 bill for December and $100 bill for January minus the $45
payment made in December.)* The $20 credit balance is carried forward on the customer
February bill, so the customer pays $25 ($45 WPP amount minus credit of $20). After March 1
the customer must renegotiate payment arrangements. Options available include calculating a
new regular level payment amount, making special payment arrangements to payoff the balance
owing over a prescribed length of time, or paying the balance of $100 ($125 February bill minus
$25 payment) and paying future bills as they become due.
* At the customer s request, the utility may recalculate the monthly payment amount
following receipt of a LIHEAP or other "bulk" financial assistance payment.
Reply to Scenario "Customer eligible for LIHEAP"As long as the customer s account
balance is equal to or greater than 1/2 of level pay , then they would still need to make their
minimal monthly payment of 1/2 of level pay " each month during the months of December
January and February. So in the situation listed above, the customer would need to pay $45
rather than $25 in February (their balance in February would be $105 or ($100 + $75 -$45 +
$100 $250 + $125) = $105). On March rt their balance would be $60 and the options
available include calculating a new payment plan, special arrangements or paying the $60
balance and paying future bills as they become due.
Beginning Balance 100.
December 75.175.
December 45.130.
January $100.230.
January 250.(20.00)
February 125.105.
February 45.60.
Customer eligible for LIHEAP but fails to make pavment The customer s regular level
pay amount (based on estimated annual usage plus the past due balance of$100 divided into 12
monthly installments) is $90. The customer s monthly payment amount under the Winter
Protection Program for December, January and February is $45, one-half the regular level
payment amount. The customer fails to make the initial $45 payment in December as agreed and
the utility has not yet received Energy Assistance benefit payment on behalf of the customer.
The customer fails to respond to 7 day and 24 hour notices from the utility and is disconnected.
The customer pays the $45 owing under the WPP agreement and service is restored. The utility
includes the reconnection fee on the January bill and waives collection of a deposit. The utility
receives an Energy Assistance benefit amount of $250 in January, which is applied to the
customer s actual balance of$250 ($100 balance carried forward plus $75 bill for December, the
$100 bill for January, and a $20 reconnection fee minus the $45 payment made in December.) *
The customer pays $45 in February. After March 1 , the customer must renegotiate payment
arrangements. Options available include calculating a new regular level payment amount
making special payment arrangements to payoff the balance owing over a prescribed length of
time, or paying the balance of $80 ($125 February bill minus $45 payment) and paying future
bills as they become due.
* At the customer s request, the utility may recalculate the monthly payment amount
following receipt of a LIHEAP or other "bulk" financial assistance payment.
Reply to Scenario "Customer eligible for LIHEAP but fails to make payment"When
service is disconnected in December, the customer would be able to reconnect service for the
missed payment of $45.
moratorium period.
The deposit will be billed separately at the conclusion of the
After March the customer must renegotiate payment arrangements. Options available
include calculating a new regular level payment amount, making special payment arrangements
to payoff the balance deposit owing over a prescribed length of time, or paying the balance of
$80 the deposit balance and paying future bills as they become due.
At the customer s request, the utility may recalculate the monthly payment amount
following receipt of a LIHEAP or other "bulk" financial assistance payment.
Beginning BalanceDecember $ 75.
Customer disconnected for failure to pay $45
Customer is reconnected for $45, utility bills the reconnect & depositDecember $ 45.00 $ 130.
(reconnect fee billed) $ 20.00 $ 150.
January $100.00 $ 250.January $ 250.00 February $ 125.00 February $ 45.00 125.
80.
Customer not elizible for LIHEAP The customer does not qualify for the WPP and must
pay bills as they become due. Other payment arrangement options are available. The customer
regular level pay amount (based on estimated annual usage plus the past due balance of $100
divided into 12 monthly installments) is $90. Alternatively, the customer may negotiate a special
payment arrangement tailored to his or her particular circumstances. The utility may disconnect
service if the customer fails to pay bills as they become due or to keep a payment arrangement.
If disconnection occurs, the customer must pay the past due balance plus a reconnection fee and
a deposit.
Reply to Scenario "Customer not eligible for LIHEAP": The scenario above is an
accurate illustration of how a customer not eligible for LIHEAP would be affected by the WPP.
Request No.2: In the Application at page 2, eligibility for the proposed Winter
Protection Program is defined as "any residential customer who declares that he or she is unable
to pay for utility service during the specified months of December, January and February and
whose household qualifies for energy assistance from a local Community Action Agency . Is
the reference to "energy assistance from a local Community Action Agency" meant to generally
apply to any financial assistance provided through a local Community Action Agency for the
purpose of paying energy bills, including Project Share? Alternatively, should this phrase be
more narrowly construed as eligibility to participate in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)?
Reply to Request No.2: Yes, the reference to "households who qualifY for energy
assistance from a local Community Action Agency " is meant to apply to a customer whose
income levels meet those established to qualifY for energy assistance. The intent was to follow
the that is set for the state of Idaho.
Request No.3: Is it the intention of the Applicants that eligibility for participation in the
proposed Winter Protection Program be based on State of Idaho income criteria established for
LIHEAP, which may vary from year to year?
Reply to Request No.3: Yes.
Request No.4: In the Application at page 5 , the statement is made that "Termination of
service may occur if customers do not participate in the Winter Protection Program through
establishing monthly payments with the exception of special dispensation customers under
medical emergency' designation Is the reference to a medical "exception" based on the
requirements of Rule 308 of the Utility Customer Relations Rules? If not, please provide further
explanation of how the utilities intend to provide special dispensation in cases of medical
emergencIes.
Reply to Request No.4: Yes, the reference to a medical " exception " is based on the
requirements of Rule 308 of the Utility Customer Relations Rules.
Request No.5: Rule 308 of the Utility Customer Relations Rules provides for a 30-day
extension for payment. At the utility s option, another 30-day extension may be granted. What
criteria will be used to determine whether to grant this second medical extension? Will the
criteria differ during the winter heating season as opposed to any other time of year?
If a customer receives a full 60-day medical extension but the same medical conditions
exist at the end of the 60 days , will further extensions be granted? If not, why not? If so , what
criteria will be used to determine whether further extensions should be granted?
Reply to Request No.5: The criteria to grant a 2nd medical extension will be the same as
it is under the present rules, it is handled on a case by case basis regardless of the time of year.
Customers with existing conditions following a full 60-day medical extension will be granted
further extensions, as needed based, on Rule 308.
Request No.6: Applicants have requested temporary exemption from Rule 306.01-06.
Would Applicants be opposed to maintaining the part of the current moratorium that prohibits
disconnection of customers who are infirm? If so, why?
Reply to Request No.6: Intermountain Gas Company is opposed to administering the
disconnection of infirm customers under Rule 306 and would rather grant the same prohibition
rights according to Rule 308.
Request No.7: The proposed Winter Protection Program will exclude customers who do
not meet LIHEAP income eligibility criteria. What payment options will be available for the
working poor, defined as those customers who fall between 150% and 200% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines? Will any special consideration be provided to these customers? If
, please describe.
Reply to Request No.7: Customer arrangements are negotiated on a case by case basis
taking into consideration many factors and customer situations, such as their payment history,
date of last payment, number of broken arrangements, etc.
Current usage (the amount can vary)
Fixed Pay (where the customer pays an agreed upon amount until the account is current)
Level Pay (where the customer pays an average bill amount every month)
Special Pay (partial payments between 50% and 100% of level pay)
Customers experiencing financial difficulties and extenuating circumstances should
contact the Intermountain Gas Customer Service Center. They will be informed of the available
payment options listed above and will also be counseled on ways to find additional sources
funding (other than LIHEAP) through other assistance agencies. Special consideration will be
extended to those who are making an effort on their account and the utility will be willing to
make more lenient arrangements.
Request No.8: For each Applicant, please provide the number of residential customers
served at the end of the calendar year for 1999, 2000 and 2001. For Avista, please provide a
further breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only, gas and
electric combined.
Reply to Request No.
Total number of residential customers with Intermountain Gas Company:
Year
1999
2000
2001
186,777
197,222
205,246
Request No.9: For each Applicant, please provide the number of residential customers
served at the end of the calendar year for 1999, 2000 and 2001 who were on a Level Payment
Plan. For Avista, please provide a further breakdown of customers by the following categories:
electric only, gas only, gas and electric combined.
Reply to Request No.
Residential customers on a Level Payment Plan:
Year
003
073
018
1999
2000
2001
Request No. 10: For each Applicant, please provide the total number of residential
customers who declared eligibility for protection from disconnection during the moratorium for
the 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 heating seasons. For Avista, please provide a further
breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only, gas and electric
combined.
Reply to Request No. 10
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Total number of residential customer coded for moratorium protection:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
93,973
100,218
105 494
Request No. 11: For each Applicant, please provide the number of residential customers
served at the end of the calendar year for 1999, 2000 and 2001 who declared eligibility for
protection from disconnection during the moratorium and were on a Level Payment Plan or a
Winter Payment Plan. (Please list each type of plan separately.) For Avista, please provide a
further breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only, gas and
electric combined.
Reply to Request No. 11:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Number of customers coded for moratorium protection that were on a Level Payment
Plan:
Year
1999
2000
2001
17,481
428
924
Number of customers coded for moratorium protection that were on the Winter Payment
Plan:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
Request No. 12: Of those customers identified in the response to Request No. 11 above
how many received a LIHEAP benefit? How many received financial assistance from Project
Share?
Reply to Request No. 12:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Number of customers coded for moratorium that received a LIHEAP benefit:
Year
277
627
692
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
Number of customers coded for moratorium that received benefit from Project Share:
When a payment from Project Share is posted to an account it is not specially coded and posts
similar to a regular payment. Since there is not code available, the number of Project Share
payments that were applied to moratorium accounts is not available. The total number of Project
Share payments are listed below:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
213
222
463
Request No. 13: For each Applicant, please provide the total number of customers who
declared eligibility for protection from disconnection during the moratorium for the 1999-2000
2000-01 and 2001-02 heating seasons and made no payments during the months of December
January and February. For Avista, please provide a further breakdown of customers by the
following categories: electric only, gas only, gas and electric combined.
Reply to Request No. 13:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Customers protected under winter moratorium and made no payments:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
N/A
4144
7518
Request No. 14: For each Applicant, please provide the total number of customers who
declared eligibility for protection from disconnection during the moratorium for the 1999-2000
2000-01 and 2001-02 heating seasons and were disconnected for non-payment the following
March, April or May. (Please list each month separately.) For Avista, please provide a further
breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only, gas and electric
combined. Please also provide the total amount owing at the time of disconnection for each
month.
Reply to Request No. 14:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Number of moratorium customers disconnected following the heating season:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
992
759
2062
666
1155
1661
880
1421
1317
538
335
040
Total amount owed as a result of disconnection following moratorium:
Due to system limitations, the data for the total amount owing as a result of disconnection is
based on the average amount owing at the time of multiplied by the total number of moratorium
customers disconnected as a result of non-pay.
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
$158,551
$219,943
$480 755
$79,473
$291 291
$301 155
$98 683
$321 245
$192,400
$336,707
$832,479
$974 310
Request No. 15: Ofthose customers identified in the response to Request No. g 14, how
many were subsequently reconnected within 10 days of disconnection?For Avista, please
provide a further breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only,
gas and electric combined.
Reply to Request No. 15:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Customers reconnected within 10 days of turn off following moratorium:
Year
1999-2000 535 270 321 126
2000-2001 264 391 436 091
2001-2002 119 812 493 424
Request No. 16: Of those customers identified in the response to Request No. -H- 14
how many did not reestablish service and had made no payment 90 days after disconnection?
For Avista, please provide a further breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric
only, gas only, gas and electric combined. Please also provide the total amount owing 90 days
after disconnection for each month. What percentage of total residential write-offs does this
represent for the same time period?
Reply to Request No. 16:
The number of customers coded for moratorium protection includes all customers that have been
coded with children or elderly in the home during normal updating of the customers
information. Previously, Intermountain Gas Company did not require customers to re-declare
for moratorium protection on an annual basis.
Year
Number of Customers - No payment 90 days after disconnect:
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
404
446
817
144
665
697
498
816
668
046
927
182
Total Amount Owing of customers with no payment 90 days following disconnect:
Due to system limitations, the data for the total amount owing after 90 days of non-pay is based
on the average amount owing at the time of disconnection multiplied by the total number
moratorium customers disconnected that did not pay for 90 days..
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
$64 571
$129 241
$190,483
$17 183
$167 713
$126 373
$55 845
$184,473
$97 588
$137 599
$481,427
$414 444
Percentage of total write-offs (% of total write-offs that are a result of customers
disconnected following moratorium and no payments for 90 days):
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
31.33%
38.49%
32.91 %
24%
28.94%
20.70%
34.71%
54.48%
20.81%
23.91 %
38.39%
24.99%
Request No. 17: For each Applicant, please identify the total amount that the Company
received in LIHEAP benefits for Idaho customers during the 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-
heating seasons. For each Applicant, please identify the total amount received in Project Share
payments during the 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 heating seasons. For Avista, please
provide a further breakdown of customers by the following categories: electric only, gas only,
gas and electric combined.
Reply to Request No. 17:
Total amount received in LIHEAP benefits:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
$581,972
$633,041
$1,500,621
Total amount received from Project Share:
Year
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
$22,180
$19,546
$54 907
Request No. 18: At the conclusion of the Winter Protection Program pilot, what criteria
should be used to judge whether it was successful? What data should be collected by each utility
and reported to the Commission to aid in its evaluation of the pilot?
Reply to Request No. 18:
The intent of proposing the pilot was to reduce the balance owing and number of
disconnections in the spring and to help customers to establish regular monthly payments. We
will be tracking information to show that the pilot does reduce balances as of March minimize
the number of accounts that are disconnected and that customers have established regular
monthly payments.
Each utility should track the following information.
~ #
and of Customers that participated in the WPP during December, January and February
~ #
and of Customers that participated in the WPP that were disconnected for not paying
their monthly minimum during December, January and February
~ #
and of Customers that participated in the WPP that were disconnected during the
months of March and April (compared to the number of customers that participated in
Moratorium the previous year and were disconnected in March or April)
~ #
and of Customers that participated in the WP P that made their monthly minimum
payment during December, January and February
Balance of the accounts participating in the WPP as of December January February
and March