20160127Decision Memo.pdf

RECEIVED
DECI$ON MEMORAI{DIIM ?015 Jip ZS p6 l: b9
,,-,r',?ffio$lFfi18u,o*TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
F.ROM: DANIEL KLEIN Avu -L4b'ot-
DATE: JANUARY 22,2016
RE: I'ORMAL COMPLAINT OF *YOUR EQUITY SOURCE, YES
MORTGAGE" AGAINST AVISTA
On January 8,2A16, the Commission received a "formal" cornplaint (Auachment A) from
Mel E. Wach, owner of Your Equity Source, Yes Mo(gage (Yes Mortgage) against Avista
Utilities. Yes Mortgage shares a building with another tenant and electric service for each tenant
was separately metered by Avista. Unbeknownst to Avista and Mr. Wach, the service meter for
Mr. Wach's property was measiuring usage for the other tenanl, and vice versa. Yes Mortgage
was billed for the other tenant's usage for over seven years due to the misidentification of
meters. Avista issued a credit covering three years, but Mr. Wach is requesting a refrrnd for the
additional four and a half years. Mr. Wach was unsatisfied with the outcome of the Staffs
eflorts to informally resolve his complaint (Rule 2l-24) and has filed this "formal" complaint
pursuant to Rules 24 and 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.024 and .054.
BACKGROUND
Last fall, Mr. Wach noticed that his electric bill decreased considerably when the
business tenant next door moved out of the adjacent suite. On October 16, 2015, he contacted
Avista to ask that the meters be checked. According to Mr. Wach, it took Avista two on-site
visits to determine that Suite A and Suite B's meters were switched. Avista compared the usage
of Suite A and B and determined that Yes Mortgage had been overbilled. On November 13,
2015, Yes Mortgage received a credit of $1,866.20 for overbilling dating back to October 2012.
This amount represents the difference between the amount previously paid by Yes Mortgage and
the amount billed to the other tenant over the three year period.
DECISIONMEMORANDUM -1-JANUARY 22,2416
On November 17,2015, Mr. Wach filed an informal complaint with the Commission
regarding the overbilling, Staff investigated the matter and verified that Avista had conectly
calculated the amount overbilled. In addition, Staffdetermined that Avista had complied with
the requirements of Rule 204.02.b of the Commission's Utility Customer Relations Rules
(IDAPA 3 I .21 .01). See Attachment B. At the customer's request, Staff made arrangements
with Avista to issue a refund check instead of maintaining a large credit balance on Yes
Mortgage's account.
In his "formal" complaint, Mr. Wach is asking for full credit back to the time his
Company started service at this location. Mr. Wach states that the misidentification of meters
was not caused by Yes Mortgage. Furthermore, Mr. Wach maintains that he questioned his
usage shortly after moving to ttre current location in 2008 and contacted the utility. He says the
utitity sent a technician to the property and assured Mr. Wach that everything was in order.
According to Avista, it does have customer records going back to 2008, but there are no notes on
the customer's account regarding Mr. Wach contacting the Company in 2008 about this matter.
Mr. Wach is also concemed about possible misidentification of the gas meters as well.
Avista states that on October 21,2A15, it verified that the gas meters were corectly identified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Wach was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal complaint. Consequently,
he file d a "formal" complaint. .See Rules 23 , 25 and 54, IDAPA 3 I .01 .0 L023, .A24 and .054.
Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Summons to Avista Utilities, Inc. and direct the
Company to file a response to the complaint.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. Wach's formal complaint? Does the
Commission wish to issue a Summons to Avista?
UdmcmoslYcs Mongtgc Fonnol Complaint dcc mcmo
DECISION MEMORANDUM JANUARY 22,2016
t
tonsnr"
YES Mortgage
Locol Morlgogo Erperls
December 29,20L5
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washinglon
Boise, ldaho 837 20-007 4
Attn: Ms. Jean Jewell, Commission Secretary
ldaho P$lic Utitiries Commtssiono*ir.%9.,$?of'.o - -"
JAN 0 s 20t6
Bolse,ldaho
RE: Avisto Utilities / Via USPS Priority Moil
Dear Mt. Jewelf
I would like to file a formal complaint against Avista Utilitiet for incorrect billing with respect to our utility
bills from the period of Apri! 2008 to August 2015.
Although I realiee that the time period for remediation of billing erors is typically 35 months, as detailed ln
IDAPA i7,27.07, Sectlon 204 whereby the maximum amount of time a Utility Company may seek restitution
from a customer is ertablished lar oErrars ln Preparatlon [of btlltng stotements[ - Molfunctions [in
equipmentl - Failure to Bill, in this particular situation, there are exigent circumstances that I would like to
take this opportunity to address:
This is not a situation of a simple billing error, a malfunction in the meter/other equipment,
or a failure to bill but rather it is a situatlon where we have been billed for another
company's usage for over seven (7) years.
ln this situation, after several months of high bills, I contacted Avista in August of 2008 to
address my concerns regardlng what I considered to be extremely high bills. Avista
responded by sending a technician out to investigate the situation and I was assured that
everything was in order.
ln September 2015, the neighboring office, North ldaho Home Health, vacated their office
when they moved to another location and our utllity bills drarnatically decreased. lt was
obvious that there was an issue and we contacted Avasta. Avista came out and once again,
advised that there were no lssues; the meter and equipment were performing correctly.
ln October 2015, we AGAIN contacted Avista and asked that they look at this situation
further as there was obviously an issue. They scheduled a time to come out and inspect
both office suites on October 27,2015. lt was discovered that the two {2} meters were
incorrectly registered at Avista whereby our usage was being billed to North ldaho Home
Health and their usage was being bllled to us. As you will note below, there is a significant
difference in not only the office square feet, but ln the number of employees; therefore, thi:
error negatively affected us for over seven (7) years.
2.
3.
4.
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page I of7
5. lf Avista had properly researched the issue back in 2(FB when it was first brought to their
attention, this situation could have been resolved back then; therefore, we should not be
penalized due to their failure to properly address the situation,
To funher dorlfv obove iteq#l ond #2:
Our building is set up as a commercialduplex in the Riverutone Complex and as such has two {2) separate
office suites with (2)two separate meters for utilities. The overall building has 4,951sguare feet and our
particular suite is substantially smaller than the adjacent suite with only 1,468 sq, ft. {or 29.5% of the overall
building space) and the adjacent suite ha$ 3,483 sq. ft. (See Exhibit A). To put the space differentlal ln
prospective, the adjacent suite, North ldaho Home Health, had a staff of 20'25 people and they were open 7-
days a week. Our understanding is that they alto held monthly company meetings with sometimes up to 30+
people in attendance.
Our businest, Your Equity Source, L[C, has a much smaller staff which consisted of four {4) people from 2008
untif 2014 and only five (5) people in 2015. Not only are we not open on weekends, but we were only openk
days on Fridays.
As mentioned above, the utility bills seemed extremely high for such a small space with limited equipment
and employees which is why we asked Avista to research the situation back in 2(D8. When Avista advised us
that everything was correct, we then contacted the owner of the building, MICA CREE( LLC and expressed
our concerns. As a regult, they had extra insulation put in to see if this would help with the high utility bills.
The utility bills never changed and now we can see why since the benefit was likely realized by the
neighboring office.
Tofurther clarifu obove item #3 ond il4:
ln September, 2015 North ldaho Home Health vacated their office suite when they relocated to another
location and when we received our October 2015 statement, our average billing went from $200+/- per
month to S50+/- per month. We again contacted Avista Utilities to express our concerns.
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, they sent their utility personnel out to check the meter. At that time, they
again verified that the meters were in working order and once again advised that everything was in order.
Basically, it was the same response we received from them in 2008.
I strongly disagreed with their analysis and we once again contacted Avista and expressed our concerns - they
scheduled a second inspection for Tuesday, October 27 ,20L5 whereby the Avista utility personnel conducted
a test of the meters in both suites {our suite and the now vacant suite which was formerly occupied by North
ldaho Home Health). They instructed us to shut all our electric equipment off prior to their coming out in the
morning and upon their arrival and we had our staff member-Amy Adkinron on sight to assist and confirm
that the test was actually conducted. They instructed her to stay upstairs in our office while they activated
the electrical panel.
It was determined by this physical testing of the meters that in fact, the meter to our business and the
business next door to us (North ldaho Home Health) were crossed; thereby, creating a major billing error.
We were assured that they would correct the issue and that we would be adjusted for any overpayments.
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page2 of7
ln Sun,tmarv:
The end result is that we were being bllled for North ldaho Home Health's usage for the entire time we
occupied our office starting April, 2008. The utility personnel said they would report this to their billing
department and request that we be reimbursed for the overages we had been charged.
We received a letter dated November 13,2015 from Avista Utilities stating that a recent investigatlon of the
electric metering equipment revealed that the meter was mixed with another address. Our account was
credited in the amount of $1,866.20 for 18510 lqwhs billed between L0l2l20l2 andS/312015. (5ee attached
Exhiblt B). There war nothing included to show how they arrived at their calculations and they only went
back 36 months.
Although iDAPA37.27,07, Sedlon 2M and Section 61-642 indicate the timeframe for restitution ls 35
months, this appears to be more ln line with the maximum amount of time a Utility Company may seek
restitution from a customer tor "Errors in Preporation [of biilinq stotementsl - Mallunctlons fin equipment]
- Foilure to Bill. Not only is thir not the case in this situation, but the fact of the matter is that we did bring
this to Avista's attention back in 2008 and they did not take the time or the initiative to properly research
this situation. They had complete control of the situation with futl access to evaluate the meter wlring and
the ability to compare the two office ruite billing data upon our initial request in 2008. lnstead, thelr only
initiative was to check for the functionality of the meter itself.
Slnce Aprilof 2008, we have paid a totalof 519,219 to Avista which actually represents the adjacent space's
billing and as detailed below, their space is 70fi of the ovenll square footage.
It would appear that such problems are not uncommon and 5tate Utility Commissions and Governlng officials
do have the ability to allow for remediation beyond the typical period established within state statutes.
For eromgle, in Grucc Edwords vs. Conaedleut Llght ond Power, the contumer wos oworded rcstllutlon lor 25 yeon
ol overchorges when lt wos determincd thot odditionol items were lnconectly connected to her Meten
As onother example, therc have been so mony such lnstoacet tn the State of New Yorlt whercby ronsumcns were
harmed by Ucillty Compony cron thot the laws were changed to give eonsument the obilp to seek restitutbn lor
the octuol omount at time they were finonclally hormed. to thclr statemerrt:
f ",r,., "r*o coused by loulty wlre connettions, lncorrcct cornputotiont, lnstollotiod mishaps or othrr rirtrf., oftu)
I continue lor ycon without deteclion, the blll soys. Even when o utility compony oc*nowlcdges the enor and con I
I
account lor the dmount olthe mlstoke, thc tlobtlU tslor [o limited period, according to curr.nc stote rtotut?r.
I
I "f,i, .rrr", on lnequitable situotion whereby a customar con provs tbe overchorge lor a longer pertod ol ttme, but I
L-'*"';'::";:,,;:::l::,;:;;i,tr:"1:.:.':;::;tr#,;i:;",r:::::T,:x:;":i";::'H::!"'*'', )
Anachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 3 of7
Our request is simple. We have. in good fath. substantially overpaid for our utility services since 2008 when
Avista failed to properly research the problem after our initial complaint; therefore, we feelwe should not be
encumbered by the 35 month period. We are requesting that Avista Utilities make available the actual billing
information from April 2008 to December 2015 for our actual usage gg3! we are requesting for the
commission to set aside the 36 month review period due to the unique circumstances and require Avista
Utilities to promptly refund to us the full amount overpaid. We not requesting interest on the amount due;
however, we are requesting that they issue us a refund check lnstead of a credit on the account.
* "Also, Avista Utilities bills us not only for the electrical portion of our utilities, but also for the gas portion
of our utilities. We have asked for the gas meter to also be checked and thus far, this has not been
addressed. We are requesting that Avista check to ensure that the gas meters are not also incorrectly wired.
As a small business owner, I can assure you that keeping every expense in line is critical, especially for a small
business in the Mortgage lndustry (such as ours) whlch has endured decreased revenue overthe past 1O
years due to the realestate market. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter and should you
have any questions or need any additional information. please do not hesitate to contact me.
Daniel Klein, ldaho Utilities Compliance lnvestigator (via email)
Ra0l Rafael Labrador, tdaho Congressman 1n District (hand delivered)
CC:
YOUR EQWTY SOURCE
YES Mort*ase, NMIS tF3O79
2426 N. Meni* Creek Loop, Suite A
Coetr d'Nene, ID 83814
208-664-9260 PHONE
208-667-8516 Filr
Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 4 of?
13,483 squore foot Closs A office spoce
locoted in beouti{ul Merritt Creek Office Pork
with in Riverstone
Pngp-rnw Dsralus
. Built-in reception oreo
' Copy / Supply Room
Breok room
4 lorge privote offices
a
I
a
a
. Lorge office oreo for cubicols
Lower level conference room
Secured file storoge
Cosey Brqzil
248.770.2s95
[e-mail]
Josh Beebe, SIOR
208.699.7980
[e-mail]
KTEMLE &
HAGOOpCOMP.{NY
208.770.2590
Attachment A ti:cc-com
o."irion rtiurorandum tB
Page 5 of7
Cosey Brnzil
208.77A.2s95
cosey. b [e-mail]
Josh Beebe, SIOR Attachment A z0B.7r0.ts90
i?f,:f3J;"&t-?co.corn #;; il;;orandum krrco''loo
' r' -ttror! t ry.mltD $Es, t fiara, r nlt I (F* t ltryqJ 3m a ffi d- ffi brs Jr r-:': :';"ll..P;:jg*f if f"f ffi:*:*":*,ffi'7.t j:Tifi-,. .firy-.*B, 1..r._ n .r _ -,:d&,^ a;rfl,s *fr\r*1lff*
Exilmr B
November L3,2015
Your Equity Source
2426 N Merritt Creek Loop Ste A
Coeur d'Alene lD 83814
Account Number 5558810000
Dear Your Equity Source,
A recent investigation of the electric metering equipment at2426 N Merrit Creek Loop Ste A
revealed that the meter was mixed with another address.
We have credited your account 51866,20 for 18510 kwhs billed between 10/212012and
8l3l20Ls.
lf you have any questions, please contact our office. Avista Customer Service Representatives
are available to assist you Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. at (800t.227-9187. You can also visit us at www.avistautilities.com.
Sincerely,
Tnq onl-Y trtol"red
3 qefr(s- v)e'JL
bten h\111-{- ai^,er-
kPr; t 1008
5o t+.r,r*r 5lro"! olbe-
k Creo(.i 6 r d''l' o+l*L
Lt .{enrS .
ft{r, , *'tnu*'s
,n),W
nr, *L /^, ,
irJftich ig o 't cl 5i',-t'
*t.,r,k hry
^.
,3- r,,trrr"
f#";:,'if4,^ b
f lvre in o,-,tr of| i <t .Attachment A
Decision Memorandum
Page 7 of7
UTILITY CUSTOMER RELATIONS RULES IDAPA 3I.2T.01
204. INACCURATXLY BILLED SERYICE IINDER CORRECT TARIFF SCHEDULE _
FAILURE TO BILL FOR SERYICE (Rulc 204).
01. Errors in Preparation - Malfunctions - Failure to Bill. Whenever 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. If the utility has failed to bill a
customer for service, the utility shall prepare a bill for the period during which no bill was
provided. (4-2-08)
02. Rebilling Time Period.(4-2-08)
a. If the time rvhen the malfunction or error began or the time rvhen the utility began to fail to
bill for service cannot be reasonably determined to have occurred within a specific billing period,
the corrected billings shall not exceed the most recent six (6) months before the discovery of the
malfunction, error, or failure to bill.(4-2-08)
b. If the time when the malfunction, error, or failure to bill began can be reasonably determined
and the utility determines the customer was overcharged, the corrected billings shall go back to
that time, but not to exceed three (3) years from the time the error or malfunction occurred as
provided by Section 6l-642,ldaho Code.(4-2-08)
c. 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 knorvn 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 identi$ customers who have not been billed or who have
been inaccurately billed.(4-2-08)
03. Refunds. The utility shall promptly prepare a corrected billing indicating the refund due to
the customer and issue a credit on the customer's next bill. Any remaining credit balance shall be
credited against future bills unless the customer, after notice from the utility, requests a refund.
The utility shall advise the customer of the option to have any remaining credit balance refunded
to the customer.(4-2-08)
04. Additional Payments. The 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 malce payment anangements under Rule
313 on the amount due. At the customer's option, the term of the payment iurangement may
extend for the length of time that the underbilling accrued or the customer rvas not billed.
(4-2-08)
[Adopted as Rule 8.2 and 8.3, O.N. 17744; amended and recodified, G.O. 177.]
Statutory Reference: Idaho Code $ 6l-642.
Cross-Reference: Rules 005, 203, 313.
Anachment B
Decision Memorandum
YES Mortgage
Locol Morlgoge Experls
January 25,20t6
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise; lda ho 837 20-007 4
Attn: Ms. Jean Jewell, Commission Secretary
Via email: [e-mail]
ldaho Public Utilities Con,;i,s;to,r
Office of the SecretarvRECEIVED
JAN 2 5 20t6
Boise, ldaho
RE: Avisto Utilities / Vio USPS Prlorlty Moil
Addendum to Letter Dated 72-29-2075
Dear Ms. Jewell,
On December 29,2OL5,1 submitted to you a letter of complaint against Avista Utilities for erroneously billing
us for another company's usage for over seven (7) years.
I would like to take this opportunity to address a portion of my request whereby I asked to see the actual
bllling information for the usage we should have been paying for the past seven (7) years so that we could
determine the actual difference, Last week I did receive this information, as noted below, and as you can
see, the difference is substantial:
2008-2015 Amount Paid by YOUR EqUlTY SOURCE
(This amount was incorrectly billed to us)
2008-2015 Amount Billed to adjacent office
(This is the actual billing for YOUR EqUlry SOURCE)
Amount of overpavment by YOUR EQUITY SOURCE
s19,219.00
s10.196.06
$g,ozz.gq
The error created by Avista whereby they billed us for electric usage for another Business created a situation
where we were paying 88% more than our actual usage. This may not seem like a large amount; however, as
a small buslness wlth less than 5 employees, this ls a signlficant difference.
As stated in my previous letter, our request is simple. We have, ln eood faith, substantially overpaid for our
utility services since 2008 when Avista failed to properly research the problem after our initial complaint;
therefore, we feel we should not be encumbered by the 36 month period. We are requesting that Avista
Utilities promptly refund to us the full amount overpaid (as noted above), We are not requesting interest on
the amount due; however, we are requesting that they issue us a refund check instead of a credit on the
account.
*Also, we have still not had any communication regarding the gas portion of the bllling; therefore, we are
requesting that Avista research to ensure that the gas mete/s are not also lncorrectly billed.
I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter and should you have any questions or need any
additlonal lnformatlon, please do not hesitate to contact me.
(\.tt,\
MelE. Wach
Owner
YES Mortgage, NMLS #3079
2426 N. Merritt Creek Loop, Suite A
Coeur d'Alene, lD 83814
208-664-9260 PHONE
208-667-8516 FAX