20160331final_order_no_33490.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 31.2016
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MEL E.WAd,OWNER,YES MORTGAGE,)
)CASE NO.AVU-E-16-02
COMPLAINANT,)
)
v.)
)
AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA )
UTILITIES,)
)ORDER NO.33490
RESPONDENT.)
________________________________________________________________________________________
)
In December 2015,Mel E.Wach,owner of “Your Equity Source,Yes Mortgage,”
filed a complaint with the Commission against Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities.Mr.
Wach alleged that for seven and a half years,he was billed for his neighbor’s (higher)electricity
usage,and his neighbor was billed for his (lesser)electricity usage.Avista issued Mr.Wach a
refund for the amount he was overbilled for the most recent three years,but not the remaining
four and a half years.Commission Staff investigated the matter and determined that Avista’s
action complied with its statutory obligation.Mr.Wach was unsatisfied with Staffs efforts to
informally resolve his complaint,thus Staff raised the matter as a formal complaint before the
Commission in January 2016.IDAPA 3 1.01.01.024.
The Commission issued a Summons,notifying Avista of Mr.Wach’s formal
complaint,and directed Avista to file an Answer.Avista responded,and Mr.Wach filed a reply.
Consistent with prior decisions,applicable statutes,and Utility Customer Relations Rule 204,the
Commission now denies Mr.Wach’s complaint seeking additional reimbursement,orders Avista
to pay interest on the three-year reimbursement amount,and directs Avista to develop a protocol
for identifying switched meters,as more fully discussed below.
BACKGROUND
Mr.Wach rents one unit of a two-unit building for his company,Yes I’vlortgage.
Electric service for the building’s two units is separately metered by Avista.When Yes
Mortgage first moved into the building in April 2008,Mr.Wach contacted Avista,questioning
what he considered to be extremely high bills.According to Mr.Wach,Avista sent a technician
to investigate Mr.Wach’s meter then assured him that everything was in order.Because Avista
ORDER NO.33490 1
converted to a new computer system,it purged records including customer communications from
2008.Reply at 1.However,Avista acknowledged that,if a customer contacted Avista with
concerns about high bills,the Utility “would have sent a technician ...as described by [Mr.
Wach],to test the meter and ensure it was reading accurately.”Response at 5.Further,Avista
does not dispute Mr.Wach’s assertions that he contacted Avista.
At the end of July 2015,Yes Mortgage’s neighbor moved out of the adjacent unit.Id.
at 7.After that,Mr.Wach noticed a considerable decrease in his electric bill.Mr.Wach
contacted Avista on October 15,2015,and asked the Utility to check the building’s meters to see
if they had been switched,Id.at 3.During an on-site visit on October 27,2015,Avista’s
technician determined that “the electric meters at [Mr.Wach’s]premise and the neighboring
premise were indeed switched.”Id.Avista’s technician corrected the switched electric meters.
Id.at 4.Mr.Wach also questioned whether he was overbilled for gas usage.Avista confirmed
that Mr.Wach’s gas meter was correctly assigned to his premise.Id.at 3.
Avista noted that its responsibilities do not (and did not)include the wiring of the
structure where Mr.Wach receives electric service.Id.at 5.Avista also indicated that the
electric meter,though improperly wired,was properly operating.Id.at 8.According to Avista,
there “was no way for [Avista]to know that the meters were switched ...as both premises
involved were occupied from April 2008 through July 2015 and the meters were accurately
recording usage.”Id.
Comparing Mr.Wach’s usage record with that of his neighbor,Avista determined
that Mr.Wach had been overbilled during the period from April 2008 until the neighbor moved
out at the end of July 2015.Id.at 3-4.Mr.Wach was actually under-billed from July 31 until
October 27,2015,when the error was discovered.Id.In November 2015,Avista issued a refund
to Mr.Wach for $1,866.20,the amount he was overbilled from October 2012 to October 2015 —
the three-year period before he contacted Avista to investigate the meter-switch.Id.at 4.This
credit amount did not include interest.id.at 7.
Mr.Wach requests the remaining $5,085.98 that he overpaid between April 2008 and
October 2012,but for which he was denied a refund.
APPLICABLE LAW
Idaho’s Public Utilities Law requires that all charges “made,demanded or received
by any public utility ...be just and reasonable.”Idaho Code §61-301.Under the “filed rate
ORDER NO.33490 2
doctrine,”codified in Idaho’s Public Utilities Law,a “utility cannot charge more,and also
cannot charge less than”its approved rates and charges on file with the Commission.Order No.
30431 at 5;Idaho Code §‘61-313,61-315,The statute also provides that anyone may file a
complaint with this Commission asserting violation of a right under the law.Idaho Code §61-
612.
Pursuant to its statutory authority,the Commission has implemented procedural rules,
and rules governing utility customer relations.Idaho Code §6 1-507,6 1-601;IDAPA 3 1.01.01,
31.21.01.Under the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules,if billing for utility service
was not accurately determined,the utility shall prepare a corrected billing.IDAPA
31.21.01.204.01.Pursuant to Idaho Code §61-642,if the time of the billing error “can be
reasonably determined ...the corrected billings shall go back to that time,but not to exceed
three years.”IDAPA 31.21.01.204.02.b.
Where the Commission finds that a complainant was overcharged by a utility,the
Commission “may order that the public utility make due reparation to the complainant ...with
interest from the date of collection.”Idaho Code §61-641.The Idaho Supreme Court has held
that,in applying interest to a refund ordered by the Commission,the proper interest rate is the
12%annual rate set forth in Idaho Code §28-22-104(1),for money “after the same becomes
due,”“due on the settlement of mutual accounts from the date the balance is ascertained,”or
“due upon open accounts after three months from the date of the last item.”In re Ryder v.IPUC,
141 Idaho 918,927,120 P.3d 736,745 (2005).
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this complaint under Idaho Code §6 1-503
and 61-612.After reviewing the record in this case,we find there is sufficient evidence to
decide the matter without further process.
The facts of Mr.Wach’s complaint are not disputed.Avista determined that Mr.
Wach had overpaid a total of $6,952.18 between April 2008 and July 2015 (when the neighbor
moved out).Response at 4.Avista refunded Mr.Wach $1,866.20 —the amount Mr.Wach
overpaid from October 2012 to October 2015,but did not refund Mr.Wach the remaining
$5,085.98.Id.Avista asserted that the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rule 204.02.b
limits Mr.Wach’s “allowable remediation period”to three years.Id.at 4.Mr.Wach seeks
ORDER NO.33490 3
reimbursement of the remaining S5.085.98,the amount he overpaid during the four and a half
years before the remediation period.
Mr.Wach does not allege nor has he presented evidence that Avista caused the
improper installation or wiring of his meter.Further,Mr.Wach does not allege that he asked
Avista in 2008 to check whether the meters in his building had been switched.However,we do
not find it unreasonable that Mr.Wach failed to ask Avista (in 2008)to specifically check for a
switched meter when the utility investigated Mr.Wach’s report of extremely high electricity
bills.Indeed,we are sympathetic to Mr.Wach’s circumstance,seemingly at the mercy of a
utility that is better-positioned than its customers to be aware of problems such as switched
meters.
The record supports that,on Mr.Wach’s request in 2008,Avista investigated and
determined that Mr.Wach’s meter was functioning properly.It is clear that Mr.Wach’s billing
errors,from April 2008 through October 2015,were not due to a malfunctioning meter,but due
to the mis-wiring of his meter by a third-party,not identified in this proceeding.Avista has
refunded Mr.Wach,without question or challenge,for the three years that Mr.Wach overpaid,
as required by Rule 204.02.b.
Rule 204 operates to limit a customer’s refund to the three-year period before a billing
error was discovered,and also as a three-year limit to the period for which a utility may recover
for underpayments from a customer.See generally Order Nos.29372,30507,30431,30175,
28212.Also,under the filed rate doctrine,a longstanding principle of utility regulation,the
Commission cannot deny a utility recovery for a customer’s underpayment based on a finding of
inequity.Order No.30431 at 5;Idaho Code §61-313,6l3l5.l The doctrine provides that
utilities must charge,and customers are obligated to pay,the rate that is and was on file with the
Commission.Id.
Unfortunately,our rules as currently written do not permit us the discretion to direct
Avista to reimburse Mr.Wach for the remainder of his overpayment.Consequently,we find that
the statute,our Utility Customer Relations Rules,and past Commission Orders support the three-
year limitation here.However,we find it appropriate to exercise our discretion to order Avista to
Rule 204.02.c limits the time period during which a utility may recover underpayment from its filed rate to six
months “unless a reasonable person should have known of the inaccurate billing,in which case the rebilling may he
extended for a period not to exceed three years.”IDAPA 31.21 .OI.204.02.c.
ORDER NO.33490 4
pay interest on the amount of Mr.Wach’s refund,at 12%per year,for a total of $484.8 1.2 See
Ryder,141 Idaho at 927,120 P.3d at 745;Idaho Code §28-22-104(1).In addition,we direct
Avista to modify its protocol for responding to customer complaints about excessive bills for
electricity usage to include inquiry and identification of switched meters for locations with
multiple meters.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Avista pay Mr.Wach $484.81 in interest on his
refund amount of $1,866.20.As to Mr.Wach’s request that Avista refund him an additional
amount,Mr.Wach’s complaint is denied and dismissed as discussed herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avista develop a protocol for identifying switched
meters on receipt of customer inquiry or complaint about an excessive bill for electricity usage.
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 §6 1-626.
2 12%Interest Rate Compounded Annually
Year Balance Overpaid Interest Accrued Total Due Total Paid
1 $622.09 $74.65 $696.74 $622.09
2 1,318.83 158.26 1,477.09 1,244.18
3 2,099.18 251.90 2,351.08 1,866.27
Total interest owed $484.81
ORDER NO.33490 5
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this /
day of March 2016.
ATTEST:
4A
KR STINE RAPER,OMMISSIONER
/1 I ‘i/iI
en D,Jewel/
Cbmmission Secretary
O:AVU-E-I 6-O2djh
PA RESIDENT
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ORDER NO.33490 6