20090526_2580.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:CO MMISSI 0 NER KEMPTON
CO MMISSI 0 NER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:MARIL YN PARKER
DATE:MAY 21, 2009
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF MR. AND MRS. HERBERT PAWLIK
AGAINST A VISTA UTILITIES
On February 19, 2009, the Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Herbert
Pawlik of Harrison, Idaho. The letter accused Avista of practicing "unethical and perhaps criminal
procedures" related to its rebilling of the Pawliks after the Company discovered that its metering
equipment serving the Pawliks failed to operate correctly for 5 months. The customer s letter was
forwarded to the Consumer Assistance Division to be handled as an informal complaint.
THE COMPLAINT
From September 2008 to December 2008 , Avista s computer billing system prepared 4
months of estimated monthly billings for the Pawliks. A vista s billing system flags a customer
account if the customer receives an estimated bill for 4 consecutive months. On December 30 2008
Avista issued a work order for a field technician to investigate the metering problem at the Pawlik'
residence. The technician checked the residence meter on January 19, 2009. At that time, the
technician discovered that the meter had been working properly but that the TW ACS (Two Way
Automated Communication System) unit that transmits the meter readings automatically back to the
office for billing had ceased to function. The TW ACS malfunction was the reason for the 4 months
of estimated billings. Both meter and TW ACS unit were replaced immediately. Because the meter
had continued to operate properly, the technician was able to see precisely how much electricity had
been used by the customer during the four months (plus a part of January 2009).
DECISION MEMORANDUM MAY 21 , 2009
The last undisputed meter reading was on August 8, 2008; the reading on that date was
64004. On January 19, 2009, when the meter was removed and replaced, the meter reading was
85839. Because the billing should have been to January 12 2009 and the actual reading was taken
on January 19, the Company prorated the meter reading back from the 19th to the lih and billed to a
reading of 82507. Between August 8, 2008 and January 12 2009, the customer was billed for a total
of 8883 kilowatt hours. Based upon the actual reading taken on January 19, the customer should
have been billed for a total of 18503 kilowatt hours. This represents a billing shortfall of 9620
kilowatt hours between August 2008 and January 2009. Had the Company rebilled for 9620
kilowatt hours, the rebilled amount would have been for $1 647.30. However, Avista reduced the
amount of its rebilling to $1,433.56; a $213.74 savings to the customer.
The "old" meter (No. 12093810) was removed and replaced on January 19 2009. It was
tested for accuracy on April 2, 2009. The meter test showed a full load test of 99.79% and a light
load test of99.59%. The "new" meter (No. 12151537) was installed on January 19 2009, and at the
request of the customer, was tested on April 10, 2009. Those test results were: full load 99.96% and
light load 99.84%. Staff asserted these test results are within acceptable limits.
In an effort to further appease the customer, A vista credited an additional $200 on
April 3, 2009, as a good faith PR (public relations) gesture to mitigate the customer for his time
associated with his rebilling dispute. The Company further offered the customer an extended length
oftime to repay Avista. According the Commission s Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR)
(Rule 204.04), the utility is required to give the customer the same length oftime to repay a rebilled
amount as the length of time for which the under billing had accrued. In this case, according to the
Rule, the customer should have been allowed 5 months to repay Avista. However, Avista offered
the customer 12 months to repay.
After investigating the complaint, the Staff investigator determined that A vista had complied
with the Commission s UCRR (Rule 204.02) regarding the rebilling ofthe Pawliks. Avista had
given the customer twelve months to repay the rebilled amount, more time than the Utility Customer
Relations Rules require. Additionally, Avista had credited the account $413.74.
Mr. Pawlik was not satisfied with the informal complaint resolution and on May 5 , 2009
was provided with the procedures on how to file a Formal Complaint. On May 18 2009 , the
Commission received another letter from Mr. Pawlik indicating that his initial letter of
February 12 2009 should have been interpreted as a Formal Complaint.
DECISION MEMORANDUM MAY 21 , 2009
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Pawliks are not satisfied with the outcome of their informal complaint. Consequently,
they have requested that their complaint be handled as a formal complaint. Staff recommends that
the Commission open a case and process it under modified procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. and Mrs. Pawlik's Formal Complaint? If so, does
the Commission wish to issue a Summons to the Company or issue some other proceeding?
Marilyn Parker
Attachments
i:udmemosfFormal Complailt of Herbert Pawlik against Avista Utilities
DECISION MEMORANDUM MAY 21 , 2009
/~ fl-
/! . y.
It) /
;l ai--/ v,.,A ~--,;)./1"
CDVl
Rachel & Herbert Pawlik RECE\\fFD
ZOu9 FEB ! 9 AM 8: 26
U T! L ~k C(j8'(r~~ j;~;3 3'3 hi
February 12, 2009
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re:A vista metering and billing practices
Dear Madame, dear Sir:
Enclosed, please find copies of several documents reflecting some questionable practices
employed by A vista. We believe the Idaho Public Utility Commission ought to be made aware of
those unethical, perhaps criminal procedures.
In summary, Avista notified us in late January 2009 about a 'communication problem' they had
with their power meter at our property. It turned out the problem had persisted since August
2008. Instead of replacing the defective meter in a timely manner, Avista opted to 'estimate ' our
power usage over the next six billing cycles. The faulty meter was finally replaced on January
2009.
A vista now claims to-have "under estimated.." our power consumption by $1 466.51 and
demands payment. Aside from the fundamental question of a defective meter s viability to
properly record power usage, there are several additional issues with the way A vista determined
the resultant amount:
(a) Avista did not include the 'underestimations ' of August and September '08 in their final
calculation. Consequently, the vast majority of the alleged shortfall is allotted to those billing
cycles in which A vista had raised the utility rates. In other words, A vista tries to use its own
incompetent dealing with the broken meter to fleece the customer for additional profits.
(b) A vista pretends billing accuracy by showing kWh-usage fractions to the fifth decimal for the
piIrposeof applying different rates. Fact is, however, all these calculations are based on pure
conjecture and substandard guesswork, as A vista is not even able to determine power usage from
month to month.
(c) In its 'corrected bill' for November , December and January, Avista refers to 'estimated'
usage based on meter #12151537. This meter is currently (since January 19 2009) installed on
our property and shows a total recording of approximately 5,000 kWh. This discrepancy between
reality and billing veracity is just another example of Avista s shoddy record keeping practices.
I -
It needs to be noted" our household consists of two adults. No one else resides on our property.
Our home is a residence, only; there is no commercial use of any kind, not even a 'home office
Over the past four years, we have ardently invested in energy conserving measures, such as
installation of low-E windows, replacing 95% of our light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs
changing to more energy efficient appliances, such as a 13 SEER heat pump, a new refTigerator
etc. In light ofthose efforts, Avista s contrived claim of a shortfall of$1466., above and
beyond the utility amounts we already paid during the periods in question, is absurd at best.
As the enclosed document copies affirm, A vista has pulled out every stop to baffle customers
with the facade of a valid claim, when in fact A vista has failed to maintain the minimum
accuracy and reliability necessary to legitimize their dubious demand.
It is our hope, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission has the authority to protect consumers like
ourselves from Avista s monopolistic utilities supply position by stopping Avista from pursuing
its questionable claims. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may
have regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
Herbert Pawlik
Enclosures
May 18 09 09:23a Herbert Pawlik 208-676-1603 flU
f!lcvilji"--
Rachel & Herbert Pawlik :;:~ECEj'
lutiS rL~Y 18 Pr'112: 01+
May 15 2009
U Ii ~j~f'i~~t~::d~)(i5\:
~~~/.%
le.- -r/r.,(p.yJfvz-
..."
.Jo it 2DR-'33if-37-b2
~ '-
5/IJ 1()9 01~~
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re:A vista metering and billing practices
Dear Ms, Parker
Thank you for your letter of May 12 2009.
As you are well aware, we filed a cDmplaint with IPUC on February 12, 2009, substantiating in
writing an enumerated and detailed account of Avista's mismanagement and its deceiving and
fraudulent practices. Our complaint had all the hallmarks of 'formal' as described in 'Rule 54'
You responded to our complaint on the authority of IPUC. We had no cause or reason to doubt
your position as an authorized agent of WCC, and we had no cause or reason to believe IPUC
would consider OUT complaint anything less than formal.
Before even recognizing or comprehending the ramifications of A vista s processes and procedures
in view of general consumer protection, you sided with line and supervisory staff at Avista
customer service, dismissed our complaint, and validated the legitimacy of Avista s disputed claim.
Encouraged and backed by your concurring decision, Avista abandoned our dispute mid-way and
threatened us with power shut..off, sequaciously pointing to your affirmation of their practices.
In our complaint case you acted as an agent of IPUC. In this capacity you made a "ruling" affecting
the parties involved. Consequently, we must insist on receiving ITom IPUC a formal, actionable
statement regarding your decision. For details, please refer to our letter of May 5 , 2009.
Your immediate attention and response to this matter is expected.
Sincerel" ,
. .), (' ~ ,
te t&c, ~llHerbert Pawlik