20091007final_order_no_30920.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 7, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
HERBERT PAWLIK,
COMPLAINANT,CASE NO. A VU-09-
VS.
A VISTA UTILITIES,
ORDER NO. 30920
RESPONDENT.
On May 27, 2009, the Commission issued a summons to Avista Utilities (Avista
Company) in response to a formal complaint filed by Herbert Pawlik against the Company for
what Mr. Pawlik alleges are "unethical and perhaps criminal procedures" related to Avista
rebilling practices. Specifically, the Company rebilled the Pawliks after discovering that its
metering equipment failed to operate correctly for a period of approximately five months.
A vista filed its answer on June 17, 2009. The Company requested dismissal of the
complaint. On July 20 2009, Mr. Pawlik filed a reply to Avista s answer asking the Commission
to "revoke in its entirety Avista s unsubstantiated claim for utility charges" because the charges
were based on a defective meter. Reply at 5. For reasons set out in greater detail below, the
Commission grants A vista s Motion to Dismiss.
MR. PAWLIK'S COMPLAINT
Mr. Pawlik alleges that he was notified by Avista in late January 2009 that the
Company had experienced a "communication problem" with the electric meter at the Pawlik'
property. Tests performed by Avista technicians revealed that although the meter had been
registering electricity usage properly, the Two Way Automated Communication System
(TW ACS) that transmits meter readings automatically back to the Company had ceased to
function. As a result, the Pawlik's electric usage had been estimated for the prior five months
resulting in a billing shortfall of 9620 kilowatt hours, or $1 647.30.
Mr. Pawlik questions Avista s authority to demand payment for additional energy
usage after under-estimating his power consumption. The Pawlik's maintain that they have
ardently invested in energy conserving measures " and that a shortfall of more than $1 400 over
a five-month period is "absurd at best." Complaint at 2.
ORDER NO. 30920
VISTA'S RESPONSE
Avista asserts that a billing representative received a warning regarding the Pawlik'
account on December 12, 2008, indicating that the Pawlik's meter had been estimated for the
previous three months. A vista states that if the estimated read is for the first month and the
meter reader has commented on the reason for the estimate, the billing representative will
estimate use based on the customer s usage history during the equivalent time of year.l In
response to the warning received on the Pawlik's account, an internal tracker was created for the
electric meter in question (meter #12093810).
The meter was subsequently removed from the Pawlik's premises and sent to a billing
specialist for investigation. The meter tested at 99.79% accuracy. During a field visit by a
Company representative, Mr. Pawlik was informed that although the Pawlik's electric usage had
not been communicated through TW ACS, the meter was properly registering usage.
Consequently, the Pawliks would be receiving adjusted billings based on their actual usage. The
Company made adjustments when recalculating the Pawlik's actual usage that amounted to a
$213.74 savings. After further review and to assist with positive Company/customer relations
A vista provided an additional $200 credit. The Company offered the Pawliks an option to pay
their remaining account balance over a 12-month period, and reaffirmed its willingness to honor
that arrangement in the Company s answer to the Pawlik's complaint. Avista also offered to
provide the Pawliks an on-site weatherization audit to assist the Pawliks in energy conservation
and bill reduction.
While investigating the Pawlik's meter, it was noted by the Company that several
customers' meters in the immediate area surrounding the Pawlik's residence had also stopped
sending in reads during the same timeframe. All of the meters with malfunctioning TW ACS
including the Pawlik', were changed out.
MR. PAWLIK'S REPLY
On July 20, 2009, Mr. Pawlik filed a reply alleging "factual inaccuracies, distorted
time lines, and the omission of facts" in Avista s answer. Reply at 1. Mr. Pawlik argues that the
1 A vista reports that "
no reads" that require a billing representative to estimate usage are typically due to accessissues. Answer at 2.
2 After determining the root cause of the missed reads with respect
to multiple meters in the immediate areaadditional documentation and rigor were built into the Company s routines and tasks. Answer at 3-
ORDER NO. 30920
Company was delinquent in realizing and responding to his meter s "no read" status. He
emphasizes that access to his meter was never obstructed or denied. Mr. Pawlik questions the
validity of the testing performed on his meter and objects to taking "financial responsibility for
the defects and failings of Avista s systems and processes." Reply at
Mr. Pawlik asserts that "A vista falls short of reasonably explaining an approximately
300% usage increase recorded by a faulty meter over a five months (sic) period." Reply at 5.
Mr. Pawlik indicates a willingness to pay for the power that he actually used, but states that "
lieu of verifiable data, we would accept billing based on prior years' consumption averages.
Reply at 4. Further, Mr. Pawlik characterizes Avista s offer of a payment plan as "nothing short
of extortion.Id. He explains that failure to accept the Company s offer of a payment plan
would have resulted in disconnection of his electric service.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to Idaho Code ~~ 61-501 and 61-612 the Commission has jurisdiction to
resolve the complaint brought against A vista by Mr. Pawlik. The Commission finds that a
hearing is not required to consider the issues presented in Mr. Pawlik's complaint. Therefore
the Commission issues its decision based on the written record submitted including the materials
submitted prior to this matter becoming a formal complaint. See IDAP A 31.01.01.201.
The Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR) state that
(w)henever the billing for utility service was not accurately determined for
reasons such as a meter malfunctioned or failed, bills were estimated
metering equipment was incorrectly installed or programmed, or bills were
inaccurately prepared, the utility shall prepare a corrected billing.... IDAP A
31.21.01.204., UCRR Rule 204.01.
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. IDAPA 31.21.01.204.02., UCRR Rule 204.02(c).
A vista does not dispute that the TW ACS unit at the Pawlik's address malfunctioned and failed to
report the Pawlik's actual electric usage from September through December 2008. Following an
investigation, it was determined that although the TW ACS was not properly transmitting the
Pawlik's usage back to the Company s office for billing purposes, the meter was properly
ORDER NO. 30920
recording the Pawlik's actual usage. In fact, the Pawlik's meter tested at 99.79% accuracy - well
within the acceptable limits of2% variance.
A vista acknowledged that a flawed query in its system prevented the Company from
identifying the "no read" meters in the Pawlik's immediate area more quickly. In response
Avista implemented additional documentation and more rigorous reporting procedures to avoid
similar problems in the future. The Company did not bill the Pawliks for the visits by the
technicians, the testing of the old or new meter, the installation of the new meter, or any of the
time and effort that it took to investigate the Pawlik's complaint. Contrary to the Pawlik'
assertions, the Company does not expect, nor would the Commission allow
, "
customers to take
financial responsibility for the defects and failings of Avista s system and processes" based on
the facts as they have been presented here. Reply at 4.
However, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules, the Company is entitled
to recover compensation for electricity consumed by its customers. Rule 204.01 specifically
addresses rebilling based on meter malfunctions and billing estimations. Rule 204.04 further
directs that
(t)he 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 optionthe term of the payment arrangement may extend for the length of time thatthe underbilling accrued or the customer was not billed. IDAP A
31.21.01.204., UCRR Rule 204.04.
Commission Staff investigated the Pawlik's informal complaint and determined that
Avista had complied with the Commission s rules regarding the rebilling of the Pawliks. Mr.
Pawlik argues that the Company s rebilling practices are unethical and criminal. While the
Commission understands Mr. Pawlik's frustration regarding the meter and malfunctioning
TW ACS that resulted in an account balance owed to A vista, the Commission in reviewing the
record in this case cannot find that Avista s actions were unreasonable. Testing regarding
electricity usage revealed the meter was 99.79% accurate. Despite the TW ACS malfunction, the
Pawlik's usage was being recorded accurately. In rebilling the Pawliks, Avista utilized the
guidelines provided by the Commission s rules. In fact, A vista exceeded the minimum
requirements of rebilling procedures by offering to spread the Pawlik's undercharged balance
over 12 months.
ORDER NO. 30920
The Commission encourages the Pawliks to accept the Company s offer to provide an
on-site weatherization audit of their home. A vista is well-equipped to provide suggestions
and/or identify rebates that might assist the Pawliks in reducing their future energy bills.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission grants Avista s Motion to Dismiss.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Avista s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Consequently, Herbert Pawlik's complaint against Avista is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 7i-/\
day of October 2009.
/.
L--L
D. KEMPT ~SIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~~l
Commission Secretary
O:A VU-09-05 ks
ORDER NO. 30920