20091125reconsideration_order_no_30954.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 25, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
HERBERT PAWLIK,
COMPLAINANT,
CASE NO. A VU-09-
vs.
A VISTA UTILITIES,ORDER NO. 30954
RESPONDENT.
On October 7, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 30920 granting Avista
Motion to Dismiss the complaint of Mr. Herbert Pawlik. On October 28 , 2009, Mr. Pawlik filed
a Petition for Reconsideration asserting that the Commission "clearly misinterpreted the nature
and intent" of his complaint. Petition for Reconsideration at 2. The Company did not file a
response to Mr. Pawlik's Petition.
BACKGROUND
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 a
communications failure related to its metering equipment that lasted for approximately five
months.
Avista 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. On October 7, 2009, the Commission
issued its final Order finding that Avista s actions regarding the TW ACS malfunction' related to
Mr. Pawlik's meter were reasonable and complied with Commission rules and standards.
1 The Two Way Automated Communication System (TW ACS) that transmits meter readings automatically back tothe Company had ceased to function.
ORDER NO. 30954
Consequently, the Commission granted Avista s Motion to Dismiss Mr. Pawlik's complaint.
Order No. 30920.
RECONSIDERATION
Mr. Pawlik identified several issues in his request for reconsideration: (1) the validity
of the Company s investigation; (2) an assertion that meter testing was done only after the unit
was repaired/refurbished; (3) the Commission s failure to consider what Mr. Pawlik claims was a
300% spike in his power consumption during the time the TW ACS in his meter was
malfunctioning; (4) the unreasonable amount of time that it took for the Company to identify the
problem; (5) an assertion that rebilling was lumped into three billing cycles with higher rates
when the usage occurred across six billing cycles; and (6) "extortion" by the Company for
threatening to shut off the Pawlik's power if payment arrangements were not made.
As set out in greater detail below, the Commission denies Mr. Pawlik's request for
reconsideration.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a party to bring to the Commission
attention any question regarding a previous determination and thereby affords the Commission
with an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). Consistent with
the purpose of reconsideration, the Commission s Procedural Rules require that petitions for
reconsideration "set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the
order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity
with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
will offer if reconsideration is granted.Rule 331 , IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. "Grounds for
reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported by specific explanation may
be dismissed." Rule 332, IDAP A 31.01.01.332.
We find that Mr. Pawlik's Petition for Reconsideration fails to meet the requirements
of Rule 331. Based on the facts established by the record in this case, Mr. Pawlik does not
identify why Commission Order No. 30920 is unreasonable, unlawful , erroneous or not in
conformity with the law. The Company admitted that the TW ACS communication on Mr.
Pawlik's unit malfunctioned. When it came to Avista s attention that the Pawliks had gone
several months with an estimated, rather than an actual bill, the Company implemented new
ORDER NO. 30954
measures to ensure that similar errors would not occur in the future. Although the TW ACS
portion of the Pawliks ' unit failed, the meter recording actual electric usage tested at 99.79%
accuracy. Contrary to Mr. Pawlik's assertion, the record is void of evidence that the Company
repaired/refurbished the meter before it was tested and a review of the Pawliks' energy use does
not reveal a 300% spike in the Pawliks' power consumption during the time in which the
TW ACS was malfunctioning. The Company rebilled Mr. Pawlik using the degree days during a
warmer billing period - not a colder period as alleged by Mr. Pawlik - amounting to a $213.
savmgs.To further assist with positive Company/customer relations, A vista provided an
additional $200 credit.
Mr. Pawlik has failed to present evidence that A vista has acted unethically or
criminally. While Mr. Pawlik may have felt pressure from the Company to pay his outstanding
balance, as stated in the previous Order, the Company complied with, and exceeded, the
requirements of the Commission s Rules regarding rebilling.
The Commission continues to encourage the Pawliks to accept the Company s offer
to provide an on-site weatherization audit of their home. However, based on the foregoing, Mr.
Pawlik's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Herbert Pawlik's Petition for Reconsideration is
denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERA nON. Any party aggrieved by
this Order or other final or interlocutory order previously issued in this Case No. A VU-09-
may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code ~ 61-627.
ORDER NO. 30954
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of November 2009.
,/.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
fitf J a D. Jewell
mISSIOn Secretary
O:A VU-O9-05 ks2 Reconsideration
ORDER NO. 30954