20030429Comments.pdf

'7QLf
RE: CASE # ATL-03-
zaD3 PR 28 PM 2= 03
April 2qD~P9*,UE;L
UilllTIES cm'H-iISSION
RECEIVED
FILED
Commission Secretary
P. U. C.
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , 10 83720-0074
Dear Secretary of the Commission:
This is a formal response to the P.C. document of April 10 2003 , Case #
ATL-03-
, "
Notice of Proposed Order" and "Notice of Comment Deadline.
The first line of the August 25 , 2000 request from citizens of Atlanta
stated
, "
We hereby request a formal investigation into the quality of
electrical service for the Atlanta townsite." It is difficult to understand why
the Commission changed our request to an informal investigation without
an explanation.
We hereby formally object to this change of venue and to the lack of priority
given the matter by the Commission.
In your related "decision memorandum" or October 4 , 2000 , at the end of
the staff recommendation , the staff stated that the investigation would take
approximately four months. It has now been over 2 1/2 years since our
August 25 , 2000 formal request and since an "investigation" was initiated.
A reasonable person would easily question why there is such total
disregard for the Atlanta Power (AP) customers. As we have
communicated in writing and orally with P.C. staff during the past few
years , there have been numerous lengthy outages during that period
time and poor service has continued. (Support documents are enclosed.
Some of us also were taken to court by Mr. Stevenson in what appeared to
be a retaliatory action. He also made threatening late-night telephone
calls. Note that we did win the court case.
II.
Regarding our original petition , the first paragraph of the decision
memorandum of October 4 , 2000 stated that only six customers of record
were identified as having signed the petition. Please document this charge.
(Granted , some signers , such as Alva Greene, one of the largest power
users in the area had their electricity listed under a different name , but Mr.
Page 2
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
Stevenson was well aware who the signers are). Please explain how and
who concluded that only six customers were "of record.
Secondly, to our knowledge , even a single person can file a formal
complaint regarding service. Is there is a regulation or law on the books
that prohibits a person from protesting to the regulatory agency about the
lack of electricity that has been paid for? Please provide any regulation
. that indicates that such an individual is not allowed to complain to the
regulatory agency when the disruption of power interferes with their lives
and service that has been paid for does not occur.
Third , if there is a regulation that a certain number of people must
complain for the P.C. to regulate the utility -- if this is a "numbers
game " please let us know the number of people required.
III.
Please explain why AP is continuously allowed to violate P.C.'s proposed
orders. For example , as per your document , the "notice of proposed order
under the "summary of staff's investigation , #1" an electrical company is
ordered to promptly repair a system when outages occur. Your rulings are
clear that customers are not to be unnecessarily inconvenienced. As you
are aware , we have documented that this P.C. order is not followed by
AP.
Therefore , we absolutely disagree with the staff's findings. We have
consistently documented problems to the P.C. over the years. (Please
see support documents.) The outages since 1983 have been unnecessarily
lengthy, and this has continued during the past 2 1/2 years , during the
staff's investigation.
The following is just one recent example, On March 4 , 2003 , the power
went out at 6:42 p., and we were without power for approximately 75
hours, (Power was back about 10:00 p.m. on March 7.If that had
occurred in your geographic area , heads would have rolled.
In Atlanta , the problem was not even officially diagnosed until after the first
20 hours. A back-up generator was promised , but it was never brought
into the area. Once again , people s food ruined and their lives were
Page 3
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
disturbed even though they had paid their bills on time (some patrons even
pay at a rate over $700 per month).
The people who are designated as the local people who can provide service
as this example indicates , are not always available and often have other
priorities. One was out of town doing another job, Later, he drove in and
then back out of town "to buy parts." However , that next day, he did not
bring back a generator, which belies your document's position that a
generator is brought in by AP within 24 hours.
Then lhe parts did not fix the problem (completely, or at all). If they had
the power would have returned after the operator returned to town.
I nstead , it was out for 75 hours straight.
A reasonable person would conclude that the power company did not
promptly return power to the area , as your documents and regulations
order.
As the support documents indicate , this example is far from an isolated
instance. In fact, it has been a predictable pattern during the lifetime of
AP.
Please explain in writing why the P.C. has been so reluctant to enforce its
own regulations as indicated on page 3 of Order # 24925
, "
non-compliance
with Idaho Code #61-405 , etc.
IV.
Case No. ATL-03-1 also refers to the "perceived lack of communication
between AP and its customers. Your document lists a phone number that
AP customers can call now to find out when the power will be turned off or
why it is out. The P.C. document praises this "solution." To my
knowledge, we have not personally received any notice from the power
company of the telephone number and the policy. Please explain:
. What good is a tape-recorded answering machine message when
scheduled maintenance occurs if customers don t know when to call the
telephone number? Are we to routinely call the number several times
day and listen to the message just in case there will be an outage?
Please remember that what customers asked for by petition and other
correspondence to the P.C. was advance notice of outages related to
routine maintenance , as well as reliable information concerning when
the power will be resumed during unplanned outages. Do you
understand that we are asking for information so that we can plan our
lives? Having lived in cities in many other states , we know first-hand
Page 4
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
that this is a common courtesy extended by other power companies (as
well as "good business
. Yes, the answering machine message is a start toward a solution.
However , your document praises AP and infers that the problem has
been solved so you have no further responsibility to intervene. There is
still a flagrant lack of communication, The problem is very real. If you
lived here and your power consistently went off unexpectedly and you
had incurred major expenses replacing electrical equipment damaged
by "bad power " you would understand. You would never, ever put up
with the situations you have expected us to overlook.
Regarding your statement that key and advance communication occurs
via the post office , Beaver s Lodge , and The Hub , you have been
misinformed because this simply isn t true,
Although your document mentions that friction (lack of communication)
exists between Mr. Stevenson and his customers, there is also a lack of
communication between his key on-site person and customers.
. Again , most customers have not been notified of the telephone number
to call.
Regarding your comments that a company-owned backup generator is not
warranted , the town desperately needs AND DESERVES a backup
generator. In fact , we previously paid for one.
Please provide documentation regarding how many hours the previous
backup generator ran. AP used the town s money to buy an old , worn-out
unit that would not last. Understand that generators are designed to last
and last for year and years, so a responsible businessperson would be
expected to use public money to buy a unit that would last. Also , even if
AP bought a used generator , AP would be expected to maintain it in good
working condition. It is our understanding that this didn t occur. For
evidence, you can review your own in-house documents indicating that
does not tend to do preventive maintenance. The unit was seldom run
because Mr. Stevenson said it "was too expensive to turn it on." Therefore
what good did it do us to buy a generator the first time? Since AP won
even rent a generator when the power is out for days in a row now (e.
Page 5
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
during the last 75-hour outage), what makes the P.C. think that he would
operate differently?
Please explain why AP was allowed to purchase a "junk generator" with
customer money that he now claims is old , inefficient, and not economical
to repair.
Please provide records showing: 1.) how many hours the old generator was
run before it "broke" and 2.) how many hours the P.C. expected the town-
funded equipment to function.
The town should absolutely not be expected or required to fund the
purchase for another generator when AP appears to have misused our
money the first time.
Please consider the following information which can lead to an alternative
solution.
For the $60 000+ that the townspeople pay for electricity per year , the
town can do better. If we had access to the lines in town , we could use a
modern diesel generator that received proper maintenance. Such a
generator could provide 24.hour power, seven days a week , for less than it
currently costs to generate hydropower through AP.
A new generator would cost between $30 000 - $35 000. Fuel would cost
about $2 per gallon , and the generator would use about 1 1/2 gallons per
hour. At a cost of about $17 000 - $20 000 , $10 000 would remain for
miscellaneous expenses as well as labor to service and operate the
equipment.
When you review these estimates, doesn t it also occur to you that
something must be very, very wrong regarding the current "costs" of
running AP, especially since AP is not buying diesel?
There are certainly more reliable ways to serve a paying public , so we
hereby formally request that you consider this option.
VI.
Regarding your assumption that there are trained and reliable backup
personnel to solve problems , it sounds like you think the problem has been
solved and you can relinquish any responsibility to push for improvement.
Page 6
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
Please explain: Who is the "third person who lives in Atlanta" who can
assist with system problems. Has this worker been adequately trained and
given the authority to really fix problems by himself? (The last 75-hour
outage as the basis for this question.
VII.
Contrary to your document's conclusions, although small changes have
occurred , our major problems remain.
Please explain why we were virtually ignored by the P.C. for over two
years since the petition (when we were promised information or changes
within a four month period of time).
VIII.
Please explain why It appears that the P.C., which is supposedly a
regulatory agency, requires so little accountability from AP? As per the
attached documents, AP has not even complied with your Order # 24925
and Idaho Code #61-405, case # ATL-93-
Is there some reason we should believe that AP will now provide the service
we pay for and that AP is supposed to provide?
In spite of legal regulations and requirements, it would appear to a
reasonable person that Stevenson has no fear of sanctions or fines from the
C. for noncompliance. And , why should he, after so many years of
noncompliance?
The fact that nearly a third of AP customers finally felt compelled to buy a
personal generator so they circumvent AP's long power outages is not an
excuse for AP not providing the service we all pay for. Remember , we pay a
service fee" every month. Is that the case in any other part of the U.
Your document mentioned that a company-owned backup generator cannot
provide electricity to all customers under all outage scenarios. This would
also be true in the Boise area , but it wouldn t prohibit the P.C. from
carrying out its regulatory authority and compelling a power company to
act in a responsible manner.
In our case , a backup generator would provide power to all customers in
instances when the plant stops functioning, and that covers the vast
Page 7
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
majority of the instances in which we are without power for a long period of
time.
IX.
Regarding the "staff audit," please explain how the staff can accurately
audit a company when they have not complied with their Orders #24925
and #24702 or Idaho Code #61-405? A reasonable person would ask
que~tions, such as:
. What is AP trying to hide from the regulatory agency and the public?
Is there a reason for allowing what appear to be "Enron accounting
methods?"
. What is the real reason P.C. won t perform its statutory and
regulatory duties?
Your documents state that AP earned $3 000 more than it should have in
1999 using improper accounting methods. As per your audit , AP still has
not corrected the problem. How much has AP overcharged its customers
from 1999 to 2003 and the year prior to the audit, starting June 4, 1993
when Order # 24925 was issued, plus the fact that annual reports have
not been filed since 1997? This overpayment by customers would most
likely have purchased a new generator for the town, which would have
solved the ongoing problem of long outages.
We formally request that AP be ordered to go back in time and correct ALL
of it improper accounting practices from the date of your last order in
1993. We also formally request that AP be ordered to file all of its annual
reports since 1997. Please understand why this is so important. All of the
overpayments made by the customer base could be refunded to
customers and the town could use the money to fund its own new
generator. This new generator could be used as a badly-needed backup
system if we had access to the town lines.
As for AP's total disregard of your previous orders # 24925 and 24702
and for not complying with Idaho Code 61-405 and not filing their state
paperwork, as well as for the disregard shown to customers over the
years, the staff should pose a substantial fine or sanction. This will finally
send a message to AP to change and correct their past and consistent
misbehaviors , such as not following the orders of the regulatory agency
(P.U..). At a minimum , AP should bear the added cost P.C. has had to
Page 8
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
incur such as taking over two years to do an audit that could have taken a
month.
As per your decision memorandum of March 6, 2003, it is clear that AP
does not seem to mind paying late fees or interest. Since that is true,
why doesn t P.C. force AP to follow P.C.'s orders? Is P.C. not truly
a "regulatory" agency?
The onl real P.C. order that AP a ears to have followed was the order
0 file the 1992 annual report which then allowed AP to raise the ower
rates. Then , AP resumed its old pattern of not filin annual reports until
AP lost its cor orate name for not filin its re orts (which our document
notes has occurred more than once.
In view of the above, doesn t AP's record indicate that it responds ONLY to
fines and sanctions? Don t his bill-paying customers deserve that you
respond to AP in the only method they respect and follow -- fines and
sanctions?
We hereby request that you respond to AP with fines and sanctions. When
a company, according to your own records, is willing to incur late fees and
interest of more than $35,000, it appears that they could and would pay a
$10,000 fine for noncompliance with your orders. Again , note Section X
page 11 of Attachment A of your report to note AP's pattern of paying
obligations in an untimely fashion.
It is beyond our understanding how the federal agency (FERC) on May 9
2002 could have issued a 30-year license for the AP station hydroelectric
project, without first consulting with the P.C. regarding the credibility of
the current license holder.
Please answer the following questions:
Given AP's history, what makes the staff believe that AP will follow any
order that is issued?
. What makes P.C. staff believe that AP will suddenly change and will
begin to bring a generator to town for an outage of more than 24 hours?
Page 9
Response re: CASE # ATL-03.
XI.
Please note the following regarding AP overcharging its customers because
of improper tariffs , Tariff No., page 4 of 4, schedule 4, issued on June 29
1993, deals with the charges for connection and reconnection of service.
Customers disconnected for a period of more than 30 days are charged
$200. Please see Title 21 , chapter 1 IDAPA 31.21.01 because Rule 011
conflicts with utility tariffs. It states that if a utility tariff on file with the
commission contains provisions that deny or restrict customers' rights
protected by any of the P.C. rules , the P.C. rules supercede any
conflicting tariff provisions that deny or restrict any of these rights (7 -93).
The AP tariff listed above clearly violates a customer s right to be
considered a new customer after being disconnected for more than 60
days. In Rule 5 .. 01 and 02 (ii), the 60 day rules for an applicant and a
customer are clearly defined. I.e., after 60 days , a customer must be
considered a "new customer.
Therefore, we hereby file a formal complaint against AP for the violation
above and demand that the tariff be removed and that all money
erroneously collected from Atlanta customers (because of this tariff) be
refunded to them. Again , note that the effective date was June 15 , 1993.
Please note: This issue was decided in favor of Atlanta citizens as per
case in the Elmore County court in which AP lost.
XII.
Regarding erroneous determination of the rates customers must pay:
According to P.C. documents, for over twenty years (since 1983), the
rates for AP customers have been based on Lynn Stevenson s "oaths
verifying that his expenses were valid IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
C. DOCUMENTS STATE THAT HE DID NOT HAVE RECORDS TO
SUPPORT HIS OATHS. This is ludicrous. Please consider the following:
This very same individual blatantly refuses to follow orders issued by
. P.C. documents describe the P.C. audit disallowing some rather
bizarre "ineligible expenditures" such as over $3 500 to Kinko s without
a single receipt. This is the same audit that it took P.C, two years to
do because your documents indicate that P.C. staff had to construct
records themselves because of improper accounting and record-keeping
procedures.
Page 10
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
. AP has refused to follow P.C. orders
. AP has violated both his own tariffs and P.C. regulations
Stevenson frequently tells P.C. staff he will do something and does
not follow through or is "seriously late" in doing so.
Please answer the following question: How and why can the P.C. justify
penalizing AP customers by accepting the "oath" of such an individual --
with "improper records?" How and why can the P.C. justify doing so
when AP customers already pay the highest base rates in the nation
and a monthly service charge?
XIII.
C. can stop the current AP practices. We formally request that you:
Fine and sanction AP
Disallow all expenses in the past, present, and future that do not have
supporting documentation. The rest of the U.S. is at least attempting to
clean up Enron accounting practices. Documentation indicates that
C. has given AP over 20 years to clean up their books. Your own
records indicate there has been little or no progress , and a reasonable
person would have to conclude that AP is scoffing at P.
XIV.
Please answer the questions below:
. How can P.C, base the town s rates on "estimates" and "oaths" without
supporting documentation? Utility rates are supposed to be based on
hard data -- figures, receipts, bank records , invoices , an equipment
inventory, etc. P.C. records indicate that such have often been
lacking, yet P.C. has not yet fined or sanctioned AP. The customers of
AP have been repeatedly penalized by paying the highest rates in the
nation.
. What are the true costs of generating power at Kirby Dam?
Page 11
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
We hereby formally object to our rates being based (according to P.
documentation) on "oaths" and "estimates" of an individual who does not file
required reports or follow P.C, orders. We ask that the situation
rectified immediately. A 1993 P.C. document spelled it out clearly when
a staff member wrote that the town s rates should not be based on a "trust
" representation of utility management.
Subs~qu~nt docL.Jrnents also indicated that Stevenson received a fee
management raise of $6 000 without documentation of Board minutes or
approval.
Please answer the following questions:
Is it true that customers should not be asked/required by AP to fund
new transformers?
. What is the reason that customers should be required to take so much
of their personal time (e., conducting research and writing this
document to you) simply to receive the assistance of a "regulatory
agency" to gain the services for which they pay one of the highest rates
in the nation?
xv.
We also formally request:
A total list of P.C. orders that have not been complied with to date
A list of AP investors and stockholders. Specifically, please answer this
question: Is there some kind of conflict of interest that is impeding P.
from doing its duties as a regulatory agency?
XVI.
After a limited response from P.C. for over two years to the town
petition , we were only given 30 days to respond to your correspondence.
The abusive treatment of AP customers is so blatant that we could easily
continue to document problems and flood you with many more pages.
could also have done an even more thorough response if time had allowed
versus having less than three weeks to respond (from April 10 to May 1.
Page 12
Response re: CASE # ATL-03-
Our 2000 request was worded in the way that P.C. staff member , Judy
Stokes , said to word it. We later found out that she neglected to tell us
that we could have tied it to an existing case number , which would have
required greater action from the P.
Therefore , we hereby request the highest possible response and urgency be
given to this document.
I We reserve the rightto amend and plea further.
XVII.
We have provided you with a great deal of data. In conclusion , we ask that
you also search your conscience and your heart. Assume for just a minute
that you lived in this area and suffered power outages for days on end , in
spite of the fact that you had sought assistance from the regulatory agency
for years. Imagine opening your cupboard to have peanut butter and
crackers for dinner once again because your couldn t open your refrigerator
." just in case your food might not spoil this time.
You are the regulatory agency. We hope that you will do the humane thing,
the required thing, and the right thing for fellow citizens.
;Pr/
Bill Uhl
Other concerned citizens of Atlanta (Please also see the next page.
Signature If you are not currently
/12. .. c---/: ,.l an Atlanta Power customer
U(tVvt7~~
but would be if the situation
was improved, please note
, ~.
this fact.
(Y)f'ft.1
Bfrp-'f\MOC-'"'tff
~(/
J:)W/t4/1- ff?d,
(m.~MMJ
Mu7J rPl
/ll,4/2-Y ,O.e-A-/hC
hy 5(Vkp\AA-b~
Name (printed)
l/;l f' J-- r VI
;;
~jn
N~
?~ p
Kelt" v~/Vl OOSM It'"
cfod
7'&/J~
Lt1j;
I/v7l'll~ hooK
Name (printed)Signature If you are not currently
an Atlanta Power customer
but would be if the situation
was improved , please note
this fact.
u..l?z. be..- C GL 5 f:() Uc
S~v'V\~-e Wc-'\,$ 'Z-'(C/c;"loLc-
C,,- v\. A t; t- /Co it'o\ c"
(~
\f).~~
----f/;,Jtf. ~tri6-
~~ ))/'. ~~~&--
0~
~IYA If1
t; Y,
~ /
7Y;
C1JWtt~~ /tJ~ -fu f/cfft
t0r ~/vi. =r-
Il'
LOooc...-l '- \0 €. 0-- Ct;V-t L ~j,-.tb
r~
\k. '2. ~ ~ v u \. c.. e LV J4 ~
l~ e.J.. ~ -fk u-~ t4 /L) cl 4-f -\-0
(;...
J-C! G b
~ i J"\ :I~ ~~&'-
f 1);-
f".f~k- ~Wk/S PUG flAK fQ~~
I\+lc~ ?~-W~ v~.s MVlc-f/re0sJ
FAoPl? Cecse IV , /9-i-L '-
!?.
Cj1-1
CY RfJ :L 'T1 2..j--
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly describedabove and after review of the filings of record and transcript herein, IT ISHEREBY ORDERED and Atlanta Power Company is hereby directed to submit
amended tariff schedules to reflect the rates and charges shown above. . Thechange in tariff rates and charges that we authorize shall not become effectiveuntil the date the Company files its 1992 Annual Report with the Commission
Secretary .
The Company is further ordered to adopt, impl~ment , and utili~e proper
utiltty accbiliitirig -prOCedures and recordkeeping, including, but not limited to.the preparation and retention of adequate source documentation.
The Company is further ordered to prepare within 90 days an inventory
of all of its long-term assets, including serial numbers and material and suppliesinventory, together with an explanation of the valuation method used.
The Company is further ordered to submit its 1992 Annual Report to
the Commission on or prior to June 15, 1993.
The Company is further ordered to prepare and submit to theCommission with 30 days a written customer relations plan.
The Company is further ordered to implement a regular pole testing
program, as more particularly described above.
The Company is further ordered to implement a program for written
documentation of all work performed (safety and maintenance).
Finally, it is further ordered that the customer petition requesting an
additional hearing in Atlanta, Idaho in Case No. ATL-E-93-1 be and hereby is
denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or
in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously
issued in Case No. ATL-93-1 may petition for reconsideration within
twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter
decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in CaseNo. ATL-93-1. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See
Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
ORDER NO. 24925 - 18 -
J-u'r
~ )
Jc..;030;
(~'
'2-Z~
\ \ '
. s 5
; ,
page FAX
[phone]
TO:Keith Hessing
FROM:Doris Helge and Bill Uhl
SUBJECT:Atlanta Power Company
DATE:12.27-
gLV' 0) -y4J4- \
~!~
C\( /:t~,~
~ ~~
2-))
-------
cLfLL
Dear Keith:
Thanks for your responsiveness to our telephone calls concerning the
electrical outage of December 20 and 21 , 2001.
Because P.C. still has not responded to a petition signed by a significant
percentage of the town about 1 1/2 years ago , we feel a need to put this
matter in writing and once again askfor the P.C. to take action rather
than forget about "the Atlanta problem" until we face yet another outage.
The last outage is just another instance in which a lengthy power problem
occurred and Dave was unavailable to fix it. The highway district
commissioner, Ron Shears , stated by telephone on 12-21-01 that "Dave
first responsibility is to the road , not the power company."
The power was out at least by 4:00 a.m. I know because I got up at that
time. The street lights were out , and our house lights wouldn t work. Since
Dave was observed (by Patti Inama with whom you have spoken) leaving
town about 6:30 a., a reasonable person might assume that he chose
not to check on the power outage before he left town. In any event, he did
not return until approximately 3:15 p.m. the next day even though
commissioner Shears discussed the outage with Dave on 12-21-01.
(Shears saw Dave on the road as he was on his way back into town on 12-
21-01.)
~ p~wer in our house did not come back on until 4:40 p.m. on 12-21-01 I' whIch IS an outage of over 36 hours.
')
I\\'"
Not only were consumers without power for over 36 hours, a private citizen tr4~'
had to furnish a generator to the school so the kids could have their
Christmas party.
Other examples of outages: '-tL---0~c;~~
~ .
L--
,-~\.
lU;' 10-00: \'--1).:'1..- y.a -...-."'~ .c~\
The power was out from 2:10 - 2:40 p.m. and 3:01 - 3:50 p.m. rrt' .-t:"i"'-L--
31-00: . ~Q.I('tL()-.(,+
The power was out for 3 hours. Mr. Gill was working on a private job and could-
not be found by the citizens.
(J)
27-
Electricity out from 1:45 -2:15 p.
00:
2:45'~4:4-5p~m. electricity out
6:00 - 8:00 p.m. electricity out
00:
Power off at 8:46 p.
Back on at 10:30 a.m.) ".'6,- 01) (
00:
off at 3:15 p.m. and out the remainder of the day and evening.
00:
Electricity back on at 7:45 p.m. after 28 1/2 hours
00 and 7-00:
Power out at 3:45 p.m. and on and off all afternoon.
4- 19-00:
power out at 5:05 - 5:35 p.
Bad power from 8:05 - 8:35 p.m. during the period (began about 3-27-00)
received a certain number of hours of power per day. No allowance was made to
increase the number of hours of power that day.
William s notes said to see highway district file for info on power plant being out
27-00 to 4-00.
12-16-99:
Snow beginning to slide. Power off 11:10 - 11 :30 a.
10-27-99:
Electricity out 4:30 - 9:05 p.
Dave unavailable.
20-99:
Electricity out 11:15 -11:35 p.
30-99:
- Electricity out 12:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.
Electricity out 2:23 a.
power out for a few hours (3:00-7:00 a.m. and 11 :30 a.m. - 12:20 p.
99:
Electricity our from 11 :49 a.m. to 1 :35 p.
Dave unavilable to fix the power.
29-99:
Electricityout 12:06- 12:50 p.
16-99:
Electricity out 1 :30 - 2:05 p.
12-30-98:
10: 10 a.m. electricity out
Dave unavailable and the power was out all day
12-29-98:
Electricity out before 10:00 a.m. and back on about 11 :35 a.
12-98:
Power out by 6:45 a.m. and back on about 9:30 a"m.
12-98:
Power out 4:30 a.m. - 1 0:30 a.
Not a snow related problem.
11- 11-98:
Electricity out 2:09 a.m. for about 36 1/2 hours
More examples are listed in the Highway District file.
Over the years, we have requested that problems be solved , and this has not
happened.
November 13, 1998
Attention: Commissioners
Idaho P.
P. O. Box 83720
Boise , ID 83720-0074
rl llJ4kC~L fx, r )~ ('Zc\~_I.:
Dear Commissioners:
---
The purpose of this correspondence is to put in writing what I've voiced in person
to P.C employees CJ. and Rose since this summer. When I called Rose again
this morning, she explained that you are reviewing the problems in Atlanta.
...-.
I came here in mid-June and began to pay the highest price for power in Idaho (and
probably in the nation). Twice since that time, my food has ruined and I have lost
income due to long-term power outages. (Part of my household income depends
on having a fax machine, computer, and printer that run so that I can meet
deadlines. We are also four hours from a grocery store, so the inconvenience of
food loss is as important as the economic loss.
When the outage happened this summer, I called P.C and was told that the
person in charge, Lynn Stevenson, was supposed to have a (1) back-up generator
and (2) a back-up operator, and that we should never experience such a long-term
power outage.
I had hoped that efforts were being made to correct the problem, but the problem
recurred this week. We were without power for 33 hours before Mr. Stevenson
came to look at the problem. Once here, he solved the problem in about 3 1/2
hours. I understand that there have been other recent outages of shorter duration
To be fair, I will only comment on those which I personally experienced. During
the outage this week, we were without power for over 36 1/2 hours. When I called
CJ. this summer, we were without power for over 24 hours.
3 5*~~
-'.
The weather before the outage had been clear, and the problem was not weather-
related. In fact, it is my understanding that the problem could have been avoided if
appropriate maintenance had occurred.
Specifically, I was told that the system needed new brushes. Since all of us know
that brushes wear out, wouldn t regular maintenance have prevented the problem?
Maintenance does not appear to be a big priority for Mr. Stevenson. For example
wire poles have been leaning all summer by Yuba River. There is a 99% or greater
chance that the poles will fall during a winter storm. Maintenance is not only
preferable to problems, but it is definitely less expensive to do maintenance during
the summer than during the winter.
The power plant is a part-time business for Mr. Stevenson, and it is also a part-time
responsibility for Dave Gill , the Atlanta operator, as Dave has several other jobs
including being full-time head of the Atlanta Highway District. Of course, when
storms/heavy snow occur, electricity and roads both require a full-time person to
keep up with problems.