20090526Decision Memo.pdf

. .
DECISION MEMORANDUM
\
TO:COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMSSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKNG FILE
if
V u -L.--~
FROM:MARILYN PARKR
DATE:MAY 21, 2009
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF MR. AND MRS. HERBERT PAWLIK
AGAINST A VISTA UTILITIES
On Februar 19,2009, the Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Herbert
Pawlik of Harson, Idao. The letter accused Avista of practicing "unethical and perhaps criminal
procedures" related to its rebiling of the Pawliks after the Company discovered that its metering
equipment serving the Pawliks failed to opeate correctly for 5 months. The customer's letter was
forwarded to the Consumer Assistance Division to be handied as an informal complaint.
THE COMPLAINT
From September 2008 to December 2008, Avist's computer biling system prepared 4
months of estimated monthly bilings for the Pawliks. Avista's biling system flags a customer's
account if the customer receives an estimated bil for 4 consecutive months. On December 30,2008,
Avista issued a work order for a field technician to investigate the metering problem at the Pawlik's
residence. The techncian checked the residence meter on Januar 19, 2009. At that time, the
technician discovered that the meter had been working properly but that the TWACS (Two Way
Automated Communcation System) unit that transmits the meter readings automatically back to the
offce for biling had ceased to fuction. The TW ACS malfwction was the reason for the 4 months
of estimated bilings. Both meter and TW ACS unit were replaced immediately. Because the meter
had continued to operate properly, the techncian was able to see precisely how much electrcity had
been used by the customer durg the four months (plus a par of Januay 2009).
DECISION MEMORADUM 1 MAY 21, 2009
The last undisputed meter reading was on August 8, 2008; the reading on that date was
64004. On Janua 19,2009, when the meter was removed and replaced, the meter reading was
85839. Because the biling should have been to Janua 12,2009 and the actual reading was taken
on Janua 19, the Company prorated the meter reading back from the 19th to the iib and biled to a
reading of 82507. Between Augu 8, 2008 and Januar 12,2009, the customer was biled for a total
of 8883 kilowatt hour. Based upon the actual reaing taen on Janua 19, the customer should
have been biled for a total of 18503 kilowatt hour. Ths represents a biling shortall of 9620
kilowatt hours between August 2008 and Janua 2009. Had the Company rebiled for 9620
kilowatt hours, the rebiled amount would have been for $1,647.30. However, Avista reduced the
amount of its rebiling to $1,433.56; a $213.74 savings to the customer.
The "old" meter (No. 12093810) was removed and replaced on Janua 19,2009. It was
tested for accuracy on April 2, 2009. The meter test showed a full load test of 99.79% and a light
load test of99.59%. The "new" meter (No. 12151537) was instaled on Janua 19,2009, and at the
request of the customer, was tested on April 10,2009. Those test results were: ful load 99.96% and
light load 99.84%. Staff asserted these test results are withn acceptable limits.
In an effort to fuer appease the cusomer, Avista credited an additiona $200 on
April 3, 2009, as a good faith PR (public relations) gestue to mitigate the customer for his time
associated with his rebiling dispute. The Company fuer offered the customer an extended lengt
of time to repay Avista. According the Commssion's Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR)
(Rule 204.04), the utlity is requied to give the cusomer the same lengt of time to repay a rebiled
amount as the lengt of time for which the under biling had accrued. In ths case, according to the
Rule, the customer should have been allowed 5 months to repay Avista. However, Avista offered
the customer 12 months to repay.
Afer investigating the complaint, the Staff investigator determined that A vista had complied
with the Commission's UCRR (Rule 204.02) regarding the rebiling of the Pawliks. Avista had
given the customer twelve months to repay the rebiled amount, more time than the Utility Customer
Relations Rules require. Additionally, Avist had credited the account $413.74.
Mr. Pawlik was not satisfied with the informal complaint resolution and on May 5, 2009,
was provided with the procedures on how to fie a Formal Complaint. On May 18, 2009, the
Commission received another letter frm Mr. Pawlik indicating tht his initial letter of
Febru 12,2009 should have been interpreted as a Formal Complaint.
DECISION MEMORADUM 2 MAY 21, 2009
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
The Pawliks are not satisfied with the outcome of their inormal complaint. Consequently,
they have requested that their complaint be handled as a formal complaint. Staff recommends that
the Commission open a case and process it under modified procedure.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. and Mr. Pawlik's Formal Complaint? If so, does
the Commission wish to issue a Sumons to the Company or issue some other proceeding?
~~
Marilyn Parker
Attchments
i:udmemosIonnal Complaiit of Herhert Pawlik against Avista Utilities
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3 MAY 21, 2009
/'Î .,U /1 l!'./t£it/-C~J--
.-/lC-vi ,
Rachel & Herbert Pawlik RE'CE~\/ED
2089 FEB ! 9 AM 8: 26
-iDAHO PL1EL1(~
UTILIr'IES COMi',;!1SS¡ON
Feoruy 12, 2009
Idao Pubilc Utilities Commsion
472 West Washigton
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: A vista meterig and biling prtices
Dear Madame, dear Sir:
Enclosed, pleae fid copies of several documents reflecg some questionable practices
employed by A vista We believe the Idaho Public Utiity Commssion ought to be made aware of
those unethca, perhaps criminal procedurs.
In sumar, Avista notified us in late Janua 2009 about a 'communcation problem' they ha
with their power meter at our propert. It tued out the problem had persisted since Augu
2008. Instead of replacing the defective meter in a tiely maner, Avista opted to 'estimate' our
power usage over the next six biling cycles. The faulty meter was finaly replaced on Janua
19,2009.
Avista now clais to.have "..under ested.." our power consumption by $1,466.51 and
demands payment. Aside from the fudaental question of a defective meter's viabilty to
properly record power usage, there are severa additiona issues with the way A vista determined
the resultat amount:
(a) Avista did not include the 'underestiations' of August and September '08 in their fina
calculation. Consequently, the vas majority of the alleged shortall is alotted to those billig
cycles in which A vista had raised the utilty rates. . In other words, A vista tres to us its own
incompetent dealing with the broken meter to fleece the customer for additional profits.
(b) A Vista pretends biling accuracy by showing kWh-usage fractons to the fift decima for the
pùros~'of applying different rates. Fact is, however, all these calculations are based on pure
corijectu and substdar guesSwork, as A vista is not even able to determne power usage fr. month to month. .
(c) In its 'corrcted bil' for November, December and Janua, Avistrefers to 'estated'
usage based on meter #12151537. Ths meter is curently (since Janua 19,2009) instaled on
our property and shows a total recordig of approxièly 5,000 kWh. Ths discreancy between
realty and biling veracity is just another example of Avist's shoddy record keeping prctices.
, .. '
It needs to be noted" our household consists of two adults. No one else resides on our propert.
Our home is a residence, only; there is no commercial use of any kid, not even a 'home offce'.
Over the pas four year, we have ardently invested in energy conservg measures, such as,
installation of low-E widows, replacing 95% of our light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs,
changig to more energy effcient appliances, such as a 13 SEER heat pump, a new refrigerator,
etc. In light of those efforts, Avista's contrved claim ofa shortall of$1466.51, above and
beyond the utilty amounts we already paid durg the periods in question, is absurd at best.
As the enclosed document copies affirm, A vista has pulled out every stop to bafe customers
with the facade of a vald claim, when in fact A vist ha faied to mainta the minimum
accuracy and reliabilty necessar to legitiize their dubious demand.
It is our hope, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission has the authority to protect consumers like
ourelves from Avista's monopolistic utilities supply position by stopping Avista from purg
its questionable clais. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concern you may
have regardig ths matter.
Respectfly,~iHerbert Pawli
Enclosures
May 18 09 09:23 Herbert Pawlik 208-76-1603 p.1 ,//IU
jlc.-fy'- .
I .,.
Rachel & Herber Pawlik F~E C:E ~ ~./~:':~ :"~:
"ijílt\ iil! " I!" PM 1/"'. fitLvi;':; i iiJ 1 0 i !"I i_" ~ l
May 15,2009
I. 1."... J. ~.J"-'c ~~'i r~ ~ . l ~! 'TH ti~n~ ~;/ r;~:/;5:'Tå0t'~'tr J'k fvl.) ~ -¡;i1 t i~_l..' ~;,..I,~'ii:r..._.---"""-
.J :i 2D-t., 33if- 3 l'b).
S'/IJ ¡ott 012S. ,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washingtn
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idao 83720-0074
Re: Avist metering and billing pracces
Dea Ms. Parker,
Than you tòr your letter of May 12,2009.
As you are well a~1le, we filed a complait with IPUC on Februa 12, 2009, sustantiting in .
wrting an enumerated and detailed accun of A",ist's i:smanement and its deceiving and
frudulent practices. Our complait had al the halmar of 'for' as describe in 'Rule 54' .
You resnded to our complait on the authority of IPUC. We ha no case or reason to doubt
your position as an auoried agen of IPUC, and we ha no cae or reon to believe IPUC
would consider our complait Bn)1h less th form.
Before even recogg or comprhend the rænifications of Avista's processes and procedures
in view of genera consumer protection, you sided with line and supervisory staf at Avista
cusomer service, dismissed our complaint, ard validated the legitimacy ofAvista's disputed clai.
Encoured and backed by your concurng decsion, A vista abadoned our disput mid-""-ay and
thratened us wi power shut::ff, sequaciously pointig to your afrmtion of their practices.
In our complaint ca you acted as an agent of IPUC. In ths capacity you made a "ruling" afecting
the pares involved. Consequently, we mus insist on receiving from IPUC a formal, actionable
statement regain your decision. For detais, pleae refer to our letter of May 5, 2009.
Your immediat attention and response to ths matter is expected.
Sincer~iy, r--.-...
./I .. i ~- ../.. ) ß1.'. ¡r'vO-('l/; : ~~
Herber Pawlik