20030630Comments.pdf

Page 1 of 20Jean Jewell"..""""""""".o"".o"""'.oS.o,.o"""".o.o"""'.o"".o"""'.oS.o""""".o.o"""'.o"".o"""'.oS.o,.o"""".o.o"""'.o"".o"""'.oS.o,.o"..,,".o.o"""'.o"".o"""'.o,.o,.o"""".o""..".o"".o"""'.o,.o'.o".."".o"""".o"".o""..'.o,.o,.o"""".o"""".o"".o""..'.o,.o'.o"""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o".o""""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o".o""""".o"""".o"".o""..'.o".o""""".o"""".o"".o""..'.o """"".o"""".o"".o""..'.o".o""""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o".o""""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o".o""""""""""""""'..'.o,.o,.o"""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o,.o,.o"""".o""..".o"".o""..'.o,.o,.o"""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o,.o,.o"""".o""..".o"".o'"'..'.o,.o,.o"""".o"""".o"".o"""'.o,.o,.o"""".o""..".o"".o""..'.o".o"".."...o,".. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o .....o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o From:secretarySent: Saturday, June 28 , 2003 9:29 PMTo: Barb Barrows; Ed Howell; Janet Bahora; Jean JewellSubject: FW: PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT RE: CASE # ATL-03-----------From: Doris Helge(SMTP:SEMINARS~EMOTIONALSTRENGTH.COM)Sent: Saturday, June 28 , 2003 8: 18: 12 PMTo: se creta rySubject: PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT RE: CASE # ATL-03-Auto forwarded by a RulePLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL. In the past , we have been told that some ofour emails to the P.C. were lost or "not received.
TO:C. Commission Secretary and President
FROM:Bill Uhl and Doris Helge , Atlanta Power Customers
P. O. Box 32 , Atlanta , 10 83601
DATE:June 28 , 2003
SUBJECT:COMMENTS REGARDING THE 6-28-03 P.C. WORKSHOP
6/30/2003
Page 2 of 20PLEASE ENTER THESE INTO THE RECORD RE: CASE # ATL-03-1 AND ALL OTHERCASES RE: ATLANTA POWER COMPANYWe appreciated an in-person opportunity to meet staff.Senator Fred Kennedy provided an excellent summary near the end of the meeting, thatincluded:) "Everyone at P. U. C. agrees that the A. P. needs to improve its record keeping." (This facthas been documented by P.C. staff for years.) "
C. ordered A.P. to use proper accounting procedures. According to P.
documentation of April 1 0 , the company had still not completed such orders that dated as far
back as 20 years ago. Since the company filed the annual report required to secure its rate
increase , it has not filed another annual report.
) "
From 1993 forward , P.C. has stated that the company should have a satisfactory
maintenance program and was to have had a plan for that. This hasn t happened.
Senator Kennedy also stressed that A.P. should have:
) proper record keeping and
) an effective maintenance schedule.
Furthermore , Senator Kennedy felt strongly that a backup generator should be acquired for the
entire community versus individuals having to buy and run personal generators (P.
6/30/2003
Page 3 of 20recom m endation).The P.C. attorney encouraged constituents to also send in comments saying that this shouldoccur, and we hereby do so because we concur with Senator Kennedy s statements andsummary.We were as concerned as was Senator Kennedy when P.C. staff , including the attorneyconfirmed that the P.C. does not require A.P. to file annual reports. The statement wasespecially confusing because Tricia had stressed the importance of annual reports forauditing. You can understand why we still feel that the core issue is that our power rates arebased on "fiction vs. fact." To use the P.C. staff member s terminology, the rates are basedon "trust-me bookkeeping.The meeting was a bit confusing. Twice , the P.C. attorney said , "I can t imagine thecommissioners will continue to be patient with A." But at other times , we kept hearing thatthe P.C. issues orders and doesn t follow-up to make sure they are followed. (In fact , wewere told that P.C. doesn t even keep a list of orders issued and not followed. This meansthat "patience " regarding noncompliance would come pretty easily.The P.s history withA. P. certainly indicates that this is true.
We were appreciative when Senator Kennedy stressed that "the LAW states that annual
reports MUST be filed." And , we were again a bit confused when the P.C. attorney
answered that the comm ission can "tailor the requirements of an annual report." Tailoring the
requirements is quite different than not following up on orders to do the reports.
In conclusion , we concur with Senator Kennedy s summary and statements. The core issue is
that our rates have not been based on an adequate audit trail. Until that happens , it is easy to
see why it feels like the company or P., which is so unwilling to regulate A., must have
something to hide.
In view of the above , the entire process seems quite unfair (particularly when , as one
participant said
, "
The power poles and the general system seem to be falling apart around
).
We assume that neither of the above are your fondest desire.
Please remember: Lynn Stevenson AGREED LONG AGO to comply with the orders P.
issued but has not followed the orders.
6/30/2003
Page 4 of 20In view of: 1.) the history that includes outages of over 75-hours in both the winter andsummer and 2.) Stevenson s habit of telling both the P.C. and constituents that he will be the scene as much as two days before he actually arrives , we suggest that the P.C. order areasonable, maxim um response time to a power outage of 6 hours unless snow is on the roadand 16 hours when snow conditions make travel difficult."Incidentally, since the commission likes to check "customers of record " it would be interestingto do so re: the participants at today s meeting. You just might discover that most of thosepresent are not permanent or full-time residents who have endured the outages over the years.WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHER.
Below are comments that we gave the staff in person during the meeting.
TO:C. Commission Secretary and President
FROM:Bill Uhl and Doris Helge , Atlanta Power Customers
P. O. Box 32 , Atlanta , 10 83601
DATE:June 28 , 2003
6/30/2003
Page 5 of 20SUBJECT:Case # A TL -E -03-1 and ALL other previous case num bers re:Atlanta Power Com panyWe hereby ask that this document become part of the written record regarding Case #ATL-03-We hereby ask the P.C. for a written response to the questions herein.Please note that the following do not represent the total sum of our concerns.We hereby reserve the right to amend and plea further.
UNFAIR AND INAPPROPRIATE PRACTICES REGARDING THE SETTING THE RATES
FOR A.P. CUSTOMERS
Please see: 1.) Order # 24925 , 2 ) your April 1 0 , 2003 response to our September 2000
petition , beginning with question 6; and 3.) our petition of April 28 , 2003.
Such documents substantiate that A.P. rates have been set without proper documentation
of the costs of generating power. The above documents clearly demonstrate that: 1.) A.
was ordered to develop and maintain proper accounting practices , 2.) A.P. agreed to do so , 3.
P. did not do so , and 4.) P.C. then established the rates we pay on oaths , affirmations
trust me bookkeeping ), and a lack of appropriate receipts , records , or a credible inventory.
In other words , there was no audit trail.
6/30/2003
Page 6 of 20In the "preface " of your June 18 , 2003 document , it is clear that without an audit trail , thereare no "legitimate costs." You also state that customers are by law supposed to pay only areasonable fee.While the rest of the nation has initiated a clean-up of Enron-like accounting practices , P.continues to allow them. This is significant because , according to P.C. documents , ourpower rates are based on fiction (a lack of factsPage 2June 28 , 2003
records , an inventory, receipts , etc.
). For some bizarre reason , P.C has continued to
accept A.P.'s oaths and affirmations in spite of the fact that A.P. does not follow P.
orders or regulations (even when they pledge to do so).
Allowing A.P. to continue improper accounting practices appears to be related to the
fact that we pay the highest rates in the nation.
To quote a P.C. staff member, the amount we pay for power is based on "trust me
accounting.
We also wonder (as taxpayers), who pays the costs of audits when the P.C. has to virtually
construct a company s books.
Furthermore, our rates were "adjusted" without having a rate case, which is a legal
requirement. (Please refer to Orders #24925 and 23367 , p. 8 , Schedule 5 , Temporary kwh
surcharge 4.5 cents/kwh) as well as to your June 18 , 2003 document. There was no footnote
6/30/2003
Page 7 of 20in the order to rem ind A. P. that rates should be adjusted upon satisfaction of the note to ISWRTr. pp. 152 , 153. According to your documents , the note to IDWR for $57 000 for installation ofa hydraulic gate on top of the dam was paid off, yet the 4.5 cents/kwh surcharge was neverremoved.After reading P.C. rules and regulations , it is our understanding that , without a rate case , theabove surcharge could not legally have become a permanent part of the rates for A.customers. It is our understanding from reviewing your regulations that the surcharge shouldbe returned to A. P. customers for the period of time that began after the loan was paid off.Although it is true that the P.C. staff can t make A.P. follow P.C. orders andregulations, the Commissioners can do so. In our April 28 , 2003 document , we specificallyasked, "Does any P.C. commissioner or staff now or in the past have a financial or otherconflict of interest that interferes with the P.C. doing its job (enforcing its own orders andregulations, fining A. P., etc. )?" Instead of answering the question with a "yes" or "" thestaff's response simply told us what we already know -- that it is illegal to have a conflict ofinterest.Therefore , we feel compelled to repeat our question , "Does any P.C. commissioner orstaff now or in the past have a financial or other conflict of interest that interferes with the
C. doing its job (enforcing its own orders and regulations , fining A., etc.
Prejudicial treatment of customers also contributes to our exorbitant electrical rates.
Idaho Code 61-315 specifies that both discrimination and
Page 3
June 28 , 2003
preferential treatment are prohibited. Yet, the P.C. has continued to allow A.P. to
undercharge selected customers. E., contrary to A.P. Tariff No., original sheet No. 12
Master Metering Standards , A.P. appears to discriminate in favor of some customers and
6/30/2003
Page 8 of 20against others , on a regular basis. In reviewing this document , note that "tenant" means anyperson who intends to rent for a period of not less than one month. In Section 0 , "multi-occupant residential buildings " requesting new service after the effective date of these rulesand regulations shall have each unit individually metered by the company. P.C. is awarethat: 1.) there are rooms rented by the month (and longer), and 2.) the rentals are notseparately metered. The P.C. is also aware of the retail business run from a buildingseparate from the owner s house , which is not separately metered.This issue is directly related to how A.P. customer rates are set. A.P. continues to "cry poorto the P., but revenue has been both: 1.) inadequately collected and 2.) collected in adiscriminatory manner. The P.C. has been notified of this fact in the past (e., the latestexample is the document that was delivered to the P.C. on April 28 2003). The P., asper its June 18 2003 document chooses to take no action.If the tariff was enforced, A.: 1.) would have more income and 2.) could lower the ratesfor other customers , which would be fair and consistent with the law.Again , the fact that exceptions are made for some customers and not for others i., the A.tariff and the P.C. regulations are ignored or altered for some customers but not for others --indicates prejudicial treatment , which contradicts Idaho Code 61-315 , which dictates that
utilities treat all customers equally.
Requiring us to pay a service fee without reasonably prompt service is also related to
the high rate we pay.
Even though it is our understanding that we pay the highest power rates in the nation , as
documented in our April 28 , 2003 petition , a 75-hour power outage is not uncommon.
A. P. would make more money if: 1.) preventive maintenance occurred and 2.) service during
outages was prompt. (P.C. documents including those reference above have stated that
both should occur and do not. When customers use power, A.P. makes money; it does
not make money during power outages occur (except for the monthly service fee).
For years , P.C. has been aware that the key local person in charge of maintaining the power
system has a full-time job and that highway district comm issioners have stated that his first
priority is with the highway district (which
6/30/2003
Page 9 of 20Page 4June 28 , 2003often takes him out of town when outages occur). The P.C. stated in the June 18 2003document that the problem has been solved , but the outage this week confirms that hasn t been. When the power went out on 6-24-03 about 8:30 p., both the primary and thenew backup person were out of town. Both were working for the highway district. Over 12hours after the outage began , there was still no message on the answering machine (which theC. document also purported had solved our problem of no one having information aboutoutages). After calling several times before the power came on after 3:00 p.m. on 6-25-, wehave a comment: Someone must post a message on an informational answering machinebefore it can be helpful to the public.
The above example also illustrates tardy diagnosis and problem-solving. The power was
out about 15 hours before Mr. Stevenson came to diagnose it. How will you resolve both of
the above issues? We need and deserve: 1.) responsive diagnostics and solutions to
problems , and 2.) updated information regarding both. The staff's response of June 18 , 2003
was sad and inadequate. ("Customers should pay more. "Our rates are already based
on fiction , and we are not receiving adequate service. There is no indication that
receiving more money would change A.s behaviors.
II.
P. is continuously allowed to violate P.C.'s proposed orders. For example , as per
your own 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 your own files and documents , such as
6/30/2003
Page 10 of 20the documentation of the March 4 , 2003 to March 7 , 2003 75-hour outage.If such behavioroccurred 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 prom ised , but it was never brought into the area. Once again , people s foodruined and their lives weredisturbed even though they had paid their bills on time (some patrons even pay at a rate over$700 per month). If your advice truly is for citizens to "buy personal generators " werecommend that you return our monthly "service fees" for that purpose.Again , we ask , why is the P.C. so reluctant to enforce its own regulations as indicatedon page 3 of Order # 24925 , "non-compliance " with Idaho Code #61-405 , etc. Doessomeone have a conflict of interest?Page 5
June 28 , 2003
Also , an attorney advised us that it is "racketeering " to accept a service fee and not
provide service. Please give your opinion regarding his analysis.
Also , isn t it illegal for public utilities not to follow P.C. regulations , orders and directives?
Isn t it illegal for P.C. not to follow its own regulations and not to require its legal directives to
be followed?
ALTHOUGH THE STAFF CANNOT MAKE A.P. PERFORM ACCORDING TO
REGULATIONS, THE P.C. COMMISSION CAN DO SO.
6/30/2003
Page 11 of 20III.We question the figures in the June 18 , 2003 document regarding running a generatorversus using hydropower. The document purported that A. P. customers should buy theirown generators or pay a higher fee for power. This overlooks the facts that A.P. was originallyallowed to use customer s money to buy an old generator that was not properly maintained.Adding insult to injury, the generator was seldom run during outages. Customers were usuallytold it was "too expensive to run it." Now , the P.C. document states that customers shouldfund another generator. Why would customers think that a new generator would be operated?Since AP won t even rent a generator when the power is out for days in a row now (e., duringthe last 75-hour outage), what makes the P.C. think that A.P. would operate differently?Furthermore , re: the answer to Question # 29 , in the June 18 , 2003 document, it isillogical to assume that running a diesel generator could be more expensive than usinghydropower. How were the figures in the document derived?The following figures were derived from calling several vendors in Boise (the area from whichwe have been told that A.P. rents a generator). PLEASE NOTE: According to P.C. staffmember, Keith Hessing, A.P. is currently using a 100 kw unit. Please note the followingfigures and estimates.
SESCO 1-800-479-3337
25 kw
Full load 1.7 gal. Rent by the month = $1 200
% load 9 gal. Rent by the month $1 ,200
Page 6
June 28 , 2003
6/30/2003
Page 12 of 2070 kwFull load 3.9 gal. Rent by month = $1 800% load 2.3 gal. Rent by the month = $1 ,800) United 1-800-877 -368745 kw 2 5 Full load 3.9 gal Full load 7.% 2.4 gal = $1 150 = 5.% 1.9 gal.
Based on the realistic figures of 3 gallons/hour and $2 per gallon , please revise your p. 19
response cost figure from $122 640 to $52 560 per year. (3 gal/hour X $2 per gal. = $6 per
hour X 24 hr./day = $144 per day. $144 x 365 days/year = $52 560 fuel costs.In other
words , your document provided peak prices , but according to Keith Hessing, P.C. staff
member , the town system peaks at 100 kw. This means that it only uses that much power at
its peak load. Therefore , the system would not be running at full load for 24 hours/day and
would idling much of the time. In fact , it might be idling as much as 80-85010 of the time
including during most of the night hours. Because the system peaks at 100 kw , most of the
time it would be run at ~ 4 gallons to % at 2.3 gallons. Therefore , the $52 560 fuel cost
above was based on the figure of 3 gaL/hour. Of course , with the new fuel cell technologies
now available , the cost would be considerably less. The system priced rents for $2 000 per
month; and the price for long-term rental could be negotiated downward. Other adjustments
could be made if the unit was purchased or if the town chose to have power off from midnight
to 6:00 a., etc.
, again , please refer back to the statement that the townspeople currently pay A.P. $60 000
per year for electricity. (NOTE: Your previous document stated that the cost of running the
plant in 1999 was less -- only $57 000
--
AND THAT WAS WITHOUT AN AUDIT TRAIL!
We don t really know the true cost of running the plant , do we?)
6/30/2003
Page 13 of 20Regarding the P.C. comments that a company-owned backup generator is not warrantedthe town desperately needs AND DESERVES a backup generator. Again , we previously paidfor one.When you review these estimates , doesn t it also occur to you that something must bevery, very wrong regarding the current "costs " of running A., especially since: 1.P. lacks adequate records , and 2.) A.P. is not buying diesel fuel?Page 7June 28 , 2003
There are certainly more reliable ways than what currently exists to serve a paying public.
Therefore , we hereby formally request that you consider options rather than holding us
hostage to the current system.
Customers should not have to buy personal generators. (Nor should the town have to fund a
second generator.
IV.
Regarding the $200 reconnection fee , it is additional evidence of: 1.) disregard for A.
customers , 2.) the P.s unwillingness to enforce its own regulations (see our April 28
document), and 3.) inaccuracies in the June 28 , 2003 response , that document stated that the
$200 reconnection fee was not a problem because "no one com plained about the fee.When
we questioned staff regarding this erroneous statement , we were told that only some
departments within the P.C. have access to information regarding complaints. We question
this for many reasons including: 1.Our April 28 , 2003 described that we had won a court
6/30/2003
Page 14 of 20case concerning this issue , 2.) Beverly, of your staff , interviewed us for hours (on Stevensonbehalf) regarding this issue and recorded this , and 3.) Curtis Stigers and Amy O'Brienobjected to this policy in their written response to your survey. Doesn t the P.C. consult itsown documents when writing a document so important to A. P. customers?It is sad for the June 18 , 2003 document to attempt to defend taking 2 % years to respond toour September 2000 petition by writing that: 1.) the P.C. couldn t contact A.P. customersand 2) that the staff tried to contact a couple of people and couldn t reach them. (See question, page 4.The P.C. clearly demonstrates a lack of concern for A.P. customers.VI.Continuing to answer our pleas for assistance with , "What if A. P. pulls out?" is also a saddefense.It is clearly not in the public interest for a public regulatory agency to reinforce orpromote additional improper behavior by allowing it , time and again. If it is true (as a variety ofC. staff have said for years) that A.P. has threatened to pull out of Atlanta for the lasttwenty years but has not done so , doesn t that tell you something?
Page 8
June 28 , 2003
VIII.
Regarding "bad power " it is still a valid and serious concern. The power cell often bleeps
when turning on an appliance. From talking to various citizens , it appears that it is related to
the distance between transformers
6/30/2003
Page 15 of 20as well as the overall capacity of the system. Therefore , we ask the following questions:What is the maximum distance allowed between transformers?How will the P.C. deal with problems regarding clearance for power lines going over theroadway?What will be done to assist citizens who have been required to pay for their owntransformers to recoup their expenses?IX.num ber of people in town are concerned that the meters are not always read on a consistentdate. This affects the rates paid by customers who receive so many kw per month for a setfee. E., when the meter is read after the first day of the month , they pay more during themonth that the meter wasn t read on tim.
As per the freedom of information act , we request:
A copy of all P.C. orders issued to A.
A list of all orders that have not been followed.
If P.C. intends to say, "they don t know" again , please answer the following questions: 1.
Why use the taxpayers ' money to issue orders? 2.What exactly does the P.C. regulate?
XI. Due to time constraints , we did not respond to every inaccuracy in your last document.
Therefore:
6/30/2003
IWE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHERI
6/30/2003
Page 16 of 20
Page 1 7 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 18 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 19 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 20 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 1 of 20Jean Jewell".o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o""'" "S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o""'" "- ".o"""""',,,.. "".o"".o""'" "- ".o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o""'" "S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o"""""',,,.. "'.o"".o"",,"S.o,.o"....'...",.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o.. .. .....o .....o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o ...o .o.o.o From:secretarySent: Sunday, June 29 , 2003 4:56 PMTo: Barb Barrows; Ed Howell; Janet Bahora; Jean JewellSubject: FW: Case # A TL-03-----------From: Doris Helge(SMTP:SEMINARS~EMOTIONALSTRENGTH.COM)Sent: Sunday, June 29 2003 3:45:00 To: se creta rySubject: re: Case # A TL-03-Auto forwarded by a RulePLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL. In the past , we have been told that some ofour emails to the P.C. were lost or "not received.
TO:C. Commissioners , Consumer Affairs Staff , & Keith Hessing
FROM:Bill Uhl and Doris Helge , Atlanta Power Customers
P. O. Box 32 , Atlanta , 10 83601
DATE:June 29 , 2003
SUBJECT:REVISED COMMENTS REGARDING THE 6-28-03 P.C. WORKSHOP
PLEASE ENTER THESE INTO THE RECORD RE: CASE # ATL-03-1 AND ALL OTHER
CASES RE: ATLANTA POWER COMPANY
6/30/2003
Page 2 of 20Dear Commissioners:We appreciated an in-person opportunity to meet staff.Senator Fred Kennedy provided an excellent summary near the end of the meeting, thatincluded the statements below. Since I take shorthand , the wording below is close to verbatim.) Everyone at P.C. agrees that the A.P. needs to improve its record keeping. (This facthas been documented by P.C. staff for years.) P.C. ordered A.P. to use proper accounting procedures. According to P.documentation of April 1 0 , the company had still not completed such orders that dated as farback as 20 years ago. Since the company filed the annual report required to secure its rateincrease, it has not filed another annual report.3. ) From 1993 forward , P. U. C. has stated that the com pany shou Id have a satisfactorymaintenance program and was to have had a plan for that. This hasn t happened.
Senator Kennedy also stressed that A.P. should have:
) proper record keeping and
) an effective maintenance schedule.
Furthermore , Senator Kennedy felt strongly that a backup generator should be acquired for the
entire community versus individuals having to buy and run personal generators (P.
recom m endation).
The P.C. attorney encouraged constituents to also send in comments saying that this should
occur , and we hereby do so because we concur with Senator Kennedy s statements and
summary.
6/30/2003
Page 3 of 20We were as concerned as was Senator Kennedy when P.C. staff , including the attorneyconfirmed that the P.C. does not require A.P. to file annual reports. The statement wasespecially confusing because Tricia had stressed the importance of annual reports forauditing. You can understand why we still feel that the core issue is that our power rates arebased on "fiction vs. fact." To use the P.C. staff member s terminology, the rates are basedon "trust-me bookkeeping.The meeting was a bit confusing. Twice , the P.C. attorney said , "I can t imagine thecommissioners will continue to be patient with A." But at other times , we kept hearing thatthe P.C. issues orders and doesn t follow-up to make sure they are followed. (In fact , wewere told that P.C. doesn t even keep a list of orders issued and not followed. This meansthat "patience " regarding noncompliance would come pretty easily.The P.s history withA. P. certainly indicates that this is true.We were appreciative when Senator Kennedy stressed that "the LAW states that annualreports MUST be filed." And , we were again a bit confused when the P.C. attorneyanswered that the comm ission can "tailor the requirements of an annual report." Tailoring therequirements is quite different than not following up on orders to do the reports.In conclusion , we concur with Senator Kennedy s summary and statements. The core issue is
that our rates have not been based on an adequate audit trail. Until that happens , it is easy to
see why it feels like the company or P., which is so unwilling to regulate A., must have
something to hide.
In view of the above , the entire process seems quite unfair (particularly when , as one
participant said
, "
The power poles and the general system seem to be falling apart around
).
We assume that neither of the above are your fondest desire.
Please note:
) Lynn Stevenson AGREED LONG AGO to comply with the orders P.C. issued but has
not followed the orders.
The P.C. has often expressed that the situation faced by A.P. customers is unique
because we live at the "end of the road.The legislature mandates that records be kept and
reports be filed regardless of whether or not an area is remote. We were sad to hear that the
6/30/2003
Page 4 of 20staff auditor allowed the $3 500 "Kinko s expense " without receipts. Private citizens who areaudited are never allowed such a violation. As Senator Kennedy expressed , continuing toreinforce Mr. Stevenson for breaking the law will encourage him to continue to break or ignorethe law. Keeping receipts is not difficult. Even though the P.C. seems so reluctant to fineP. (as they ve done with other power providers), simply disallowing expenses that lack back-up receipts would help lower our power rates. It could also add to the credibility of P.C. as aregulatory" agency.In view of: 1.) the history that includes outages of over 75-hours in both the winter andsummer and 2.) Stevenson s habit of telling both the P.C. and constituents that he will be the scene as much as two days before he actually arrives , we suggest that the P.C. order areasonable, maxim um response time to a power outage of 6 hours unless snow is on the roadand 16 hours when snow conditions make travel difficult."We also hope that you will follow up on our recommendation that a third person (not anemployee of the highway district or someone else with jobs that take him/her out of townfrequently) become an additional "backup person " to flip the breaker when the power goes outand handle other routine problems. As we discussed , an "in-town person " would helptremendously to avoid unnecessarily long power outages. (We suggested Steve CramerChuck Smart , or Bob Bartimoccia to Keith Hessing. Other citizens may provide additionalnames.
Please note that we hereby formally request a copy of any and all "staff comments " re: the 6-
28-03 workshop in Atlanta , Idaho.
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHER.
6/30/2003
Page 5 of 20Below are comments that we gave the staff in person during the meeting.TO:C. Commission Secretary and PresidentFROM:Bill Uhl and Doris Helge , Atlanta Power CustomersP. O. Box 32 , Atlanta , 10 83601DATE:June 28 , 2003
SUBJECT:Case # A TL -E -03-1 and ALL other previous case num bers re:
Atlanta Power Com pany
We hereby ask that this document become part of the written record regarding Case #ATL-
03-
We hereby ask the P.C. for a written response to the questions herein.
Please note that the following do not represent the total sum of our concerns.
6/30/2003
Page 6 of 20We hereby reserve the right to amend and plea further.UNFAIR AND INAPPROPRIATE PRACTICES REGARDING THE SETTING THE RATESFOR A.P. CUSTOMERSPlease see: 1.) Order # 24925 , 2 ) your April 1 0 , 2003 response to our September 2000petition, beginning with question 6; and 3.) our petition of April 28 , 2003.Such documents substantiate that A.P. rates have been set without proper documentationof the costs of generating power. The above documents clearly demonstrate that: 1.) A.was ordered to develop and maintain proper accounting practices , 2.) A.P. agreed to do so , 3.P. did not do so , and 4.) P.C. then established the rates we pay on oaths , affirmationstrust me bookkeeping ), and a lack of appropriate receipts , records , or a credible inventory.In other words , there was no audit trail.
In the "preface" of your June 18 , 2003 document , it is clear that without an audit trail , there
are no "legitimate costs." You also state that customers are by law supposed to pay only a
reasonable fee.
While the rest of the nation has initiated a clean-up of Enron-like accounting practices , P.
continues to allow them. This is significant because , according to P.C. documents , our
power rates are based on fiction (a lack of facts
Page 2
June 28 , 2003
6/30/2003
Page 7 of 20records, an inventory, receipts , etc.). For some bizarre reason , P.C has continued toaccept A.P.'s oaths and affirmations in spite of the fact that A.P. does not follow P.orders or regulations (even when they pledge to do so).Allowing A.P. to continue improper accounting practices appears to be related to thefact that we pay the highest rates in the nation.To quote a P.C. staff member, the amount we pay for power is based on "trust meaccounting.We also wonder (as taxpayers), who pays the costs of audits when the P.C. has to virtuallyconstruct a company s books.Furthermore, our rates were "adjusted" without having a rate case, which is a legalrequirement. (Please refer to Orders #24925 and 23367 , p. 8 , Schedule 5 , Temporary kwhsurcharge 4.5 cents/kwh) as well as to your June 18 , 2003 document. There was no footnote
in the order to rem ind A. P. that rates should be adjusted upon satisfaction of the note to ISWR
Tr. pp. 152 , 153. According to your documents , the note to IDWR for $57 000 for installation of
a hydraulic gate on top of the dam was paid off, yet the 4.5 cents/kwh surcharge was never
removed.
After reading P.C. rules and regulations , it is our understanding that , without a rate case , the
above surcharge could not legally have become a permanent part of the rates for A.
customers. It is our understanding from reviewing your regulations that the surcharge should
be returned to A. P. customers for the period of time that began after the loan was paid off.
Although it is true that the P.C. staff can t make A.P. follow P.C. orders and
regulations , the Commissioners can do so. In our April 28 , 2003 document , we specifically
asked
, "
Does any P.C. commissioner or staff now or in the past have a financial or other
conflict of interest that interferes with the P.C. doing its job (enforcing its own orders and
regulations , fining A. P., etc. )?" Instead of answering the question with a "yes" or "" the
staff's response simply told us what we already know -- that it is illegal to have a conflict of
interest.
6/30/2003
Page 8 of 20Therefore, we feel compelled to repeat our question , "Does any P.C. commissioner orstaff now or in the past have a financial or other conflict of interest that interferes with theC. doing its job (enforcing its own orders and regulations , fining A., etc.Prejudicial treatment of customers also contributes to our exorbitant electrical rates.Idaho Code 61-315 specifies that both discrimination andPage 3June 28 , 2003preferential treatment are prohibited. Yet, the P.C. has continued to allow A.P. toundercharge selected customers. E., contrary to A.P. Tariff No., original sheet No. 12Master Metering Standards , A.P. appears to discriminate in favor of some customers and
against others , on a regular basis. In reviewing this document , note that "tenant" means any
person who intends to rent for a period of not less than one month. In Section 0
, "
multi-
occupant residential buildings " requesting new service after the effective date of these rules
and regulations shall have each unit individually metered by the company. P.C. is aware
that: 1.) there are rooms rented by the month (and longer), and 2.) the rentals are not
separately metered. The P.C. is also aware of the retail business run from a building
separate from the owner s house , which is not separately metered.
This issue is directly related to how A.P. customer rates are set. A.P. continues to "cry poor
to the P., but revenue has been both: 1.) inadequately collected and 2.) collected in a
discriminatory manner. The P.C. has been notified of this fact in the past (e., the latest
example is the document that was delivered to the P.C. on April 28 2003). The P., as
per its June 18 2003 document chooses to take no action.
If the tariff was enforced, A.: 1.) would have more income and 2.) could lower the rates
for other customers , which would be fair and consistent with the law.
Again , the fact that exceptions are made for some customers and not for others i., the A.
6/30/2003
Page 9 of 20tariff and the P.C. regulations are ignored or altered for some customers but not for others --indicates prejudicial treatment , which contradicts Idaho Code 61-315 , which dictates thatutilities treat all customers equally.Requiring us to pay a service fee without reasonably prompt service is also related tothe high rate we pay.Even though it is our understanding that we pay the highest power rates in the nation , asdocumented in our April 28 , 2003 petition , a 75-hour power outage is not uncommon.A. P. would make more money if: 1.) preventive maintenance occurred and 2.) service duringoutages was prompt. (P.C. documents including those reference above have stated thatboth should occur and do not. When customers use power, A.P. makes money; it doesnot make money during power outages occur (except for the monthly service fee).For years , P.C. has been aware that the key local person in charge of maintaining the powersystem has a full-time job and that highway district comm issioners have stated that his firstpriority is with the highway district (which
Page 4
June 28 , 2003
often takes him out of town when outages occur). The P.C. stated in the June 18 2003
document that the problem has been solved , but the outage this week confirms that
hasn t been. When the power went out on 6-24-03 about 8:30 p., both the primary and the
new backup person were out of town. Both were working for the highway district. Over 12
hours after the outage began , there was still no message on the answering machine (which the
C. document also purported had solved our problem of no one having information about
outages). After calling several times before the power came on after 3:00 p.m. on 6-25-, we
have a comment: Someone must post a message on an informational answering machine
before it can be helpful to the public.
6/30/2003
Page 10 of 20The above example also illustrates tardy diagnosis and problem-solving. The power wasout about 15 hours before Mr. Stevenson came to diagnose it. How will you resolve both ofthe above issues? We need and deserve: 1.) responsive diagnostics and solutions toproblems, and 2.) updated information regarding both. The staff's response of June 18 , 2003was sad and inadequate. ("Customers should pay more. "Our rates are already basedon fiction , and we are not receiving adequate service. There is no indication thatreceiving more money would change A.s behaviors.II.P. is continuously allowed to violate P.C.'s proposed orders. For example , as peryour own 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. Yourrulings are clear that customers are not to be unnecessarily inconvenienced. As youare 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 documentedproblems to the P.C. over the years. (Please see your own files and documents , such as
the documentation of the March 4 , 2003 to March 7 , 2003 75-hour outage.If such behavior
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 prom ised , but it was never brought into the area. Once again , people s food
ruined and their lives were
disturbed even though they had paid their bills on time (some patrons even pay at a rate over
$700 per month). If your advice truly is for citizens to "buy personal generators " we
recommend that you return our monthly "service fees" for that purpose.
Again , we ask , why is the P.C. so reluctant to enforce its own regulations as indicated
on page 3 of Order # 24925
, "
non-compliance " with Idaho Code #61-405 , etc. Does
someone have a conflict of interest?
Page 5
6/30/2003
Page 11 of 20June 28 , 2003Also, an attorney advised us that it is "racketeering " to accept a service fee and notprovide service. Please give your opinion regarding his analysis.Also , isn t it illegal for public utilities not to follow P.C. regulations , orders and directives?Isn t it illegal for P.C. not to follow its own regulations and not to require its legal directives tobe followed?ALTHOUGH THE STAFF CANNOT MAKE A.P. PERFORM ACCORDING TOREGULATIONS, THE P.C. COMMISSION CAN DO SO.
III.
We question the figures in the June 18 , 2003 document regarding running a generator
versus using hydropower. The document purported that A. P. customers should buy their
own generators or pay a higher fee for power. This overlooks the facts that A.P. was originally
allowed to use customer s money to buy an old generator that was not properly maintained.
Adding insult to injury, the generator was seldom run during outages. Customers were usually
told it was "too expensive to run it." Now , the P.C. document states that customers should
fund another generator. Why would customers think that a new generator would be operated?
Since AP won t even rent a generator when the power is out for days in a row now (e., during
the last 75-hour outage), what makes the P.C. think that A.P. would operate differently?
Furthermore , re: the answer to Question # 29 , in the June 18 , 2003 document, it is
illogical to assume that running a diesel generator could be more expensive than using
hydropower. How were the figures in the document derived?
The following figures were derived from calling several vendors in Boise (the area from which
we have been told that A.P. rents a generator). PLEASE NOTE: According to P.C. staff
member , Keith Hessing, A.P. is currently using a 100 kw unit. Please note the following
figures and estimates.
6/30/2003
Page 12 of 20SESCO 1-800-479-333725 kwFull load 1.7 gal. Rent by the month = $1 200% load 9 gal. Rent by the month $1 ,200Page 6June 28 , 2003
70 kw
Full load 3.9 gal. Rent by month = $1 800
% load 2.3 gal. Rent by the month = $1 ,800
) United 1-800-877 -3687
45 kw 2 5
Full load 3.9 gal Full load 7.
% 2.4 gal = $1 150 = 5.
% 1.9 gal.
6/30/2003
Page 13 of 20Based on the realistic figures of 3 gallons/hour and $2 per gallon , please revise your p. 19response cost figure from $122 640 to $52 560 per year. (3 gal/hour X $2 per gal. = $6 perhour X 24 hr./day = $144 per day. $144 x 365 days/year = $52 560 fuel costs.In otherwords, your document provided peak prices , but according to Keith Hessing, P.C. staffmember, the town system peaks at 100 kw. This means that it only uses that much power atits peak load. Therefore , the system would not be running at full load for 24 hours/day andwould idling much of the time. In fact , it might be idling as much as 80-85010 of the timeincluding during most of the night hours. Because the system peaks at 100 kw , most of thetime it would be run at ~ 4 gallons to % at 2.3 gallons. Therefore , the $52 560 fuel costabove was based on the figure of 3 gaL/hour. Of course , with the new fuel cell technologiesnow available , the cost would be considerably less. The system priced rents for $2 000 permonth; and the price for long-term rental could be negotiated downward. Other adjustmentscould be made if the unit was purchased or if the town chose to have power off from midnightto 6:00 a., etc., again , please refer back to the statement that the townspeople currently pay A.P. $60 000per year for electricity. (NOTE: Your previous document stated that the cost of running theplant in 1999 was less -- only $57 000 -- AND THAT WAS WITHOUT AN AUDIT TRAIL!We don t really know the true cost of running the plant , do we?)
Regarding the P.C. comments that a company-owned backup generator is not warranted
the town desperately needs AND DESERVES a backup generator. Again , we previously paid
for one.
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 A., especially since: 1.
P. lacks adequate records , and 2.) A.P. is not buying diesel fuel?
Page 7
June 28 , 2003
6/30/2003
Page 14 of 20There are certainly more reliable ways than what currently exists to serve a paying public.Therefore , we hereby formally request that you consider options rather than holding ushostage to the current system.Customers should not have to buy personal generators. (Nor should the town have to fund asecond generator.IV.Regarding the $200 reconnection fee , it is additional evidence of: 1.) disregard for A. customers , 2.) the P.s unwillingness to enforce its own regulations (see our April 28document), and 3.) inaccuracies in the June 28 , 2003 response , that document stated that the$200 reconnection fee was not a problem because "no one com plained about the fee.Whenwe questioned staff regarding this erroneous statement , we were told that only somedepartments within the P.C. have access to information regarding complaints. We questionthis for many reasons including: 1.Our April 28 , 2003 described that we had won a court
case concerning this issue , 2.) Beverly, of your staff , interviewed us for hours (on Stevenson
behalf) regarding this issue and recorded this , and 3.) Curtis Stigers and Amy O'Brien
objected to this policy in their written response to your survey. Doesn t the P.C. consult its
own documents when writing a document so important to A. P. customers?
It is sad for the June 18 , 2003 document to attempt to defend taking 2 % years to respond to
our September 2000 petition by writing that: 1.) the P.C. couldn t contact A.P. customers
and 2) that the staff tried to contact a couple of people and couldn t reach them. (See question
, page 4.The P.C. clearly demonstrates a lack of concern for A.P. customers.
VI.
Continuing to answer our pleas for assistance with
, "
What if A. P. pulls out?" is also a sad
defense.It is clearly not in the public interest for a public regulatory agency to reinforce or
promote additional improper behavior by allowing it , time and again. If it is true (as a variety of
C. staff have said for years) that A.P. has threatened to pull out of Atlanta for the last
twenty years but has not done so , doesn t that tell you something?
6/30/2003
Page 15 of 20Page 8June 28 , 2003VIII.Regarding "bad power " it is still a valid and serious concern. The power cell often bleepswhen turning on an appliance. From talking to various citizens , it appears that it is related tothe distance between transformers
as well as the overall capacity of the system. Therefore , we ask the following questions:
What is the maximum distance allowed between transformers?
How will the P.C. deal with problems regarding clearance for power lines going over the
roadway?
What will be done to assist citizens who have been required to pay for their own
transformers to recoup their expenses?
IX.
num ber of people in town are concerned that the meters are not always read on a consistent
date. This affects the rates paid by customers who receive so many kw per month for a set
fee. E., when the meter is read after the first day of the month , they pay more during the
month that the meter wasn t read on tim.
6/30/2003
Page 16 of 20As per the freedom of information act , we request:A copy of all P.C. orders issued to A.A list of all orders that have not been followed.If P.C. intends to say, "they don t know" again , please answer the following questions: 1.Why use the taxpayers ' money to issue orders? 2.What exactly does the P.C. regulate?XI. Due to time constraints , we did not respond to every inaccuracy in your last document.Therefore:
IWE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHERI
6/30/2003
Page 1 7 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 18 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 19 of 20
6/30/2003
Page 20 of 20
6/30/2003