20160125_4890.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:DANIEL KLEIN
DATE:JANUARY 22,2016
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF “YOUR EQUITY SOURCE,YES
MORTGAGE”AGAINST AVISTA
On January 8,2016,the Commission received a “formal”complaint (Attachment A)from
Mel E.Wach,owner of Your Equity Source,Yes Mortgage (Yes Mortgage)against Avista
Utilities.Yes Mortgage shares a building with another tenant and electric service for each tenant
was separately metered by Avista.Unbeknownst to Avista and Mr.Wach,the service meter for
Mr.Wach’s property was measuring usage for the other tenant,and vice versa.Yes Mortgage
was billed for the other tenant’s usage for over seven years due to the misidentification of
meters.Avista issued a credit covering three years,but Mr.Wach is requesting a refund for the
additional four and a half years.Mr.Waeh was unsatisfied with the outcome of the Staffs
efforts to informally resolve his complaint (Rule 2 1-24)and has filed this “formal”complaint
pursuant to Rules 24 and 54,IDAPA 3 1.01.01.024 and .054.
BACKGROUND
Last fall,Mr.Wach noticed that his electric bill decreased considerably when the
business tenant next door moved out of the adjacent suite.On October 16,2015,he contacted
Avista to ask that the meters be checked.According to Mr.Wach,it took Avista two on-site
visits to determine that Suite A and Suite B’s meters were switched.Avista compared the usage
of Suite A and B and determined that Yes Mortgage had been overbilled.On November 13,
2015,Yes Mortgage received a credit of$1,866.20 for overbilling dating back to October 2012.
This amount represents the difference between the amount previously paid by Yes Mortgage and
the amount billed to the other tenant over the three year period.
DECISION MEMORANDUM -I -JANUARY 22,2016
On November 17,2015,Mr.Wach filed an informal complaint with the Commission
regarding the overbilling.Staff investigated the matter and verified that Avista had correctly
calculated the amount overbilled.In addition,Staff determined that Avista had complied with
the requirements of Rule 204.02.b of the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules
(IDAPA 31.21.01).See Attachment B.At the customer’s request,Staff made arrangements
with Avista to issue a refund check instead of maintaining a large credit balance on Yes
Mortgage’s account.
In his “formal”complaint,Mr.Wach is asking for full credit back to the lime his
Company started service at this location.Mr.Wach states that the misidentification of meters
was not caused by Yes Mortgage.Furthermore,Mr.Wach maintains that he questioned his
usage shortly after moving to the current location in 2008 and contacted the utility.He says the
utility sent a technician to the property and assured Mr.Wach that everything was in order.
According to Avista,it does have customer records going back to 2008,but there are no notes on
the customer’s account regarding Mr.Wach contacting the Company in 2008 about this matter.
Mr.Wach is also concerned about possible misidentification of the gas meters as well.
Avista states that on October 21,2015,it verified that the gas meters were correctly identified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mr.Wach was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal complaint.Consequently,
he filed a “formal”complaint.See Rules 23,25 and 54,IDAPA 31.01.01.023,.024 and .054.
Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Summons to Avista Utilities,Inc.and direct the
Company to file a response to the complaint.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr.Wach’s formal complaint?Does the
Commission wish to issue a Summons to Avista?
Daniel Klein’/
UdmcmosfYcs Mortgage Formal Complaint dcc memo
DECISION MEMORANDUM -2-JANUARY 22,2016
ejnS‘.‘-
r>ec
YES Mortgage
Local Mortgage Experts
Idaho Public Utilities CommissionOfficeoftheSecretaryDecember29,2015 RECEIVED
JAN 082016IdahoPublicUtilitiesCommission
472W.Washington
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074 Boise,Idaho
Attn:Ms.Jean Jewell,Commission Secretary
RE:Avista Utilities /Via USPS Priority Mail
Dear Ms.Jewell,
I would like to file a formal complaint against Avista Utilities for incorrect billing with respect to our utility
bills from the period of April2008 to August 2015.
Although I realize that the time period for remediation of billing errors is typically 36 months,as detailed in
IDAPA 3121.01,Section 204 whereby the maximum amount of time a Utility Company may seek restitution
from a customer is established for “Errors in Preparation [ofbilling statements)-Malfunctions [in
equipment)—Failure to Bill,in this particular situation,there are exigent circumstances that I would like to
take this opportunity to address:
1.This is not a situation of a simple billing error,a malfunction in the meter/other equipment,
or a failure to bill but rather it is a situation where we have been billed for another
company’s usage for over seven (7)years.
2.In this situation,after several months of high bills,I contacted Avista in August of 2008 to
address my concerns regarding what I considered to be extremely high bills.Avista
responded by sending a technician out to investigate the situation and I was assured that
everything was in order.
3.In September 2015,the neighboring office,North Idaho Home Health,vacated their office
when they moved to another location and our utility bills dramatically decreased.It was
obvious that there was an issue and we contacted Avista.Avista came out and once again,
advised that there were no issues:the meter and equipment were performing correctly.
4.In October 2015,we AGAIN contacted Avista and asked that they look at this situation
further as there was obviously an issue.They scheduled a time to come out and inspect
both office suites on October 27,2015.It was discovered that the two (2)meters were
incorrectly registered at Avista whereby our usage was being billed to North Idaho Home
Health and their usage was being billed to us.As you will note below,there is a significant
difference in not oniy the office square feet,but in the number of employees;therefore,this
error negatively affected us for over seven (7)years.
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 1 of7
5.If Avista had properly researched the issue back in 2008 when it was first brought to their
attention,this situation could have been resolved back then;therefore,we should not be
penalized due to their failure to properly address the situation.
To further clarify above item #1 and #2:
Our building is setup as a commercial duplex in the Riverstone Complex and as such has two (2)separate
office suites with (2)two separate meters for utilities.The overall building has 4,951 square feet and our
particular suite is substantially smaller than the adjacent suite with only 1,468 sq.ft.(or 29.6%of the overall
building space)and the adjacent suite has 3,483 sq.ft.(See Exhibit A).To put the space differential in
prospective,the adjacent suite,North Idaho Home Health,had a staff of 20-25 people and they were open 7-
days a week.Our understanding is that they also held monthly company meetings with sometimes up to 30+
people in attendance.
Our business,Your Equity Source,lit,has a much smaller staff which consisted of four (4)people from 2008
until 2014 and only five(S)people in 2015.Not only are we not open on weekends,but we were only open 34
days on Fridays.
As mentioned above,the utility hills seemed extremely high for such a small space with limited equipment
and employees which is why we asked Avista to research the situation back in 2008.When Avista advised us
that everything was correct,we then contacted the owner of the building,MICA CREEK LLC and expressed
our concerns.As a result,they had extra insulation put in to see if this would help with the high utility bills.
The utility bills never changed and now we can see why since the benefit was likely realized by the
neighboring office.
To further clarify above item #3 and #4:
In September,2015 North Idaho Home Health vacated their office suite when they relocated to another
location and when we received our October 2015 statement,our average billing went from $200+/-per
month to $50+f-per month.We again contacted Avista Utilities to express our concerns.
On Thursday,October 22,2015,they sent their utility personnel out to check the meter.At that time,they
again verified that the meters were in working order and once again advised that everything was in order.
Basically,it was the same response we received from them in 2008.
I strongly disagreed with their analysis and we once again contacted Avista and expressed our concerns -they
scheduled a second inspection for Tuesday,October 27,2015 whereby the Avista utility personnel conducted
a test of the meters in both suites (our suite and the now vacant suite which was formerly occupied by North
Idaho Home Health).They instructed us to shut all our electric equipment off prior to their coming out in the
morning and upon their arrival and we had our staff member-Amy Adkinson on sight to assist and confirm
that the test was actually conducted.They instructed her to stay upstairs in our office while they activated
the electrical panel.
It was determined by this physical testing of the meters that in fact,the meter to our business and the
business next door to us (North Idaho Home Health)were crossed;thereby,creating a major billing error.
We were assured that they would correct the issue and that we would be adjusted for any overpayments.
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 2 of 7
In Summary:
The end result is that we were being billed for North Idaho Home Health’s usage forthe entire time we
occupied our office starting April,2008.The utility personnel said they would report this to their billing
department and request that we be reimbursed for the averages we had been charged.
We received a letter dated November 13,2015 from Avista Utilities stating that a recent investigation of the
electric metering equipment revealed that the meter was mixed with another address.Our account was
credited in the amount of $1,866.20 for 18510 kwhs billed between 10/2/2012 and 8/3/2015.(See attached
Exhibit B).There was nothing included to show how they arrived at their calculations and they only went
back 36 months.
Although IDAPA 31.21.01,Section 204 and Section 61-642 indicate the timeframe for restitution is 36
months,this appears to be more in line with the maximum amount of time a Utility Company may seek
restitution from a customer for “Errors in Preparation [of billing statements)-Malfunctions fin equipment)
—Failure to Bill.Not only is this not the case in this situation,but the fact of the matter is that we did bring
this to Avista’s attention back in 2008 and they did not take the time or the initiative to properly research
this situation.They had complete control of the situation with full access to evaluate the meter wiring and
the ability to compare the two office suite billing data upon our initial request in 2008.Instead,their only
initiative was to check for the functionality of the meter itself.
Since April of 2008,we have paid a total of $19,219 to Avista which actually represents the adjacent space’s
billing and as detailed below,their space is 70%of the overall square footage.
It would appear that such problems are not uncommon and State Utility Commissions and Governing officials
do have the ability to allow for remediation beyond the typical period established within state statutes.
For example,in Grace Edwards vs.connecticut Light and Power,the consumer was awarded restitution for 25 years
of overcharges when it was determined that additional items were incorrectly connected to her Meter.
As another example,there have been so many such instances in the State of New York whereby consumers were
harmed by Utility Company errors that the laws were changed to give consumers the ability to seek restitution for
the actual amount of time they were financially harmed.In their statement:
Billing errors caused byfaulty wire connections,incorrect computations,installation mishaps or other mistakes often
continue for years without detection,the bill says.Even when a utility company acknowledges the error and con
accountfor the amount of the mistake,the liability is far [a limited period,according to current state statutes.
This causes an inequitable situation whereby a customer can prove the overchargefor a longer period of time,but
cannot be compensatedfor his total loss,’the measure says.This legislation changes the statute oflimitationsfar
these utility company billing errors ...,thereby providing afairer basis to settle these matters.
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 3 of7
Our request is simple.We have,in good faith,substantially overpaid for our utility services since 2008 when
Avista failed to properly research the problem after our initial complaint;therefore,we feel we should not be
encumbered by the 36 month period.We are requesting that Avista Utilities make available the actual billing
information from April2008 to December 2015 for our actual usage and we are requesting for the
commission to set aside the 36 month review period due to the unique circumstances and require Avista
Utilities to promptly refund to us the full amount overpaid.We not requesting interest on the amount due;
however,we are requesting that they issue us a refund check instead of a credit on the account.
***Also,Avista Utilities bills us not only for the electrical portion of our utilities,but also for the gas portion
of our utilities.We have asked for the gas meter to also be checked and thus far,this has not been
addressed.We are requesting that Avista check to ensure that the gas meters are not also incorrectly wired.
As a small business owner,I can assure you that keeping every expense in line is critical,especially for a small
business in the Mortgage Industry (such as ours)which has endured decreased revenue over the past 10
years due to the real estate market.I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter and should you
have any questions or need any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Mh
Owner
CC:Daniel Klein,Idaho Utilities Compliance Investigator (via email)
RaüI Rafael Labrador,Idaho Congressman 1st District (hand delivered)
YOUR EQUITY SOURCE
YES Mortgage,M’vLS #3079
2426 N.Menltt Creek Loop,Stilte A
Coeur d’Alene,ID 83814
208-664-9260 PHONE
208-667-8516 FAX
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 4 of 7
PROPERTY DETAILS
•Built-in reception area
•Copy /Supply Room
•Break room
•4 large private offices
•Large office area for cubicals
•Lower level conference room
•Secured file storage
L
fr.
t&tt
‘I.
CI Ira.
r
I
aC -
>4
1
—I
.
-.---.
±3,483 square foot Class A office space
located in beautiful Merritt Creek Office Park
with in Riverstone
‘i:
42 N MáThltOtfr Loop
-I
/
ji.
Casey Brazil
208.770.2595
[e-mail]
Josh Beebe,SIOR
208.699.7980
[e-mail]
}ULEMLE &
HAGOOD
C 0 M P A N Y
2087702590
khco .comAttachmentA
Decision MemorandumPagesof7
—I
.t,c .o r
t:
Secure
Storage
I
Josh Beebe,SIOR
208.699.7980
[e-mail]
Casey Brazil
208.770.2595
[e-mail]
KIEMLE &
HAGOOP
C 0 M P A N Y
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 6 of 7
208.770.2590
khco.ccm
November 13,2015
Your Equity Source
2426 N Merritt Creek Loop Ste A
Coeur d’Alene ID 83814
Re:Account Number 5658810000
Dear Your Equity Source,
ExHIBIT S
A recent investigation of the electric metering equipment at 2425 N Merrit Creek Loop Ste A
revealed that the meter was mixed with another address.
We have credited your account $1866.20 for 18510 kwhs billed between 10/2/2012 and
8/3/2015.
If you have any questions,please contact our office.Avista Customer Service Representatives
are available to assist you Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.and Saturday 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.at [phone].You can also visit us at www.avistautiiities.com.
Sincerely,
-f_If
5’I—/flio1
Dk(cS S odct 5a-
R&d 2o-&5
c4
k
oPen 7d4q/”‘/3
ckere ;‘
RJj a-ercvrecI
3 CjâS
Len \\VLL 5’a
frer;t oog —
3H&QAL jJ4be
fr ((eCLr ar b1 OitUL
k Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 7 of 7
UTILITY CUSTOMER RELATIONS RULES IDAPA 31.21.01
204.INACCURATELY BILLED SERVICE UNDER CORRECT TARIFF SCHEDULE -
FAILURE TO BILL FOR SERVICE (Rule 204).
01.Errors in Preparation —Malfunctions —Failure to Bill.Whenever the billing for utility
service was not accurately determined for reasons such as a meter malffinctioned or failed,bills
were estimated,metering equipment was incorrectly installed or programmed,or bills were
inaccurately prepared,the utility shall prepare a corrected billing.If the utility has failed to bill a
customer for service,the utility shall prepare a bill for the period during which no bill was
provided.(4-2-08)
02.Rebilling Time Period.(4-2-08)
a.If the time when the malfunction or error began or the time when the utility began to fail to
bill for service cannot be reasonably determined to have occurred within a specific billing period,
the corrected billings shall not exceed the most recent six (6)months before the discovery of the
malfunction,error,or failure to bill.(4-2-08)
b.If the time when the malfunction,error,or failure to bill began can be reasonably determined
and the utility determines the customer was overcharged,the corrected billings shall go back to
that time,but not to exceed three (3)years from the time the error or malfunction occurred as
provided by Section 6 1-642,Idaho Code.(4-2-08)
c.If the time when the malfunction or error can be reasonably determined and the utility
determines the customer was undercharged,the utility may rebill for a period of six (6)months
unless a reasonable person should have known of the inaccurate billing,in which case the
rebilling may be extended for a period not to exceed three (3)years.Utilities shall implement
procedures designed to monitor and identify customers who have not been billed or who have
been inaccurately billed.(4-2-08)
03.Refunds.The utility shall promptly prepare a corrected billing indicating the refund due to
the customer and issue a credit on the customer’s next bill.Any remaining credit balance shall be
credited against future bills unless the customer,after notice from the utility,requests a refund.
The utility shall advise the customer of the option to have any remaining credit balance refunded
to the customer.(4-2-08)
04.Additional Payments.The utility shall promptly prepare a corrected billing for a customer
who has been undercharged indicating the amount owed to the utility.An unbilled or
undercharged customer shall be given the opportunity to make payment arrangements under Rule
313 on the amount due.At the customer’s option,the term of the payment arrangement may
extend for the length of time that the underbilling accrued or the customer was not billed.
(4-2-08)
[Adopted as Rule 8.2 and 8.3.0.N.17744;amended and recodified.0.0.177.j
Statutory Reference:Idaho Code §6 1-642.
Cross-Reference:Rules 005,203,313.
Attachment B
Decision Memorandum