28212.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MOUNTAIN MART EXXON (DALE SORBEL, OWNER)

COMPLAINT,

vs.

AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA UTILITIES — WASHINGTON WATER POWER DIVISION,

RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. AVU-E-99-7

ORDER NO. 28212

On September 2, 1999, a formal complaint was filed by Mountain Mart Exxon (Dale Sorbel) against Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities—Washington Water Power Division (Avista; Company). A summons was issued by the Commission on September 15, 1999. On October 7, 1999, Avista filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss. On October 19, Mountain Mart filed a Reply.
The underlying action is a billing dispute involving Avista’s purported use of an incorrect meter multiplier of one (1) in bill preparation while the meter for the account was calibrated with a meter multiplier of twelve (12). Recalculating and reaching back three years, the maximum period permitted under statute and Commission Utility Customer Relation Rule 204, the Company has demanded an additional $13,180.82 from Mountain Mart.
Mountain Mart contends that it is a small business in Moscow that cannot rebill past customers to recover increased and late discovered utility expense. Nor is it possible because of competition to increase present prices to recover the amount from current customers. Mountain Mart argues that Avista has not provided proof or documentation that an error occurred. During the alleged period of miscalculation, Mountain Mart states that it acted in good faith and paid all bills submitted. Mountain Mart charges the Company with incompetence and believes that its case and the Company’s practices warrant a complete investigation. Mountain Mart contends that the electricity used until this year could have been significantly less than it is using now and demands that the Company “prove it.”
Avista by way of response contends that the documentation of “proof” requested has been provided to Mountain Mart in the form of usage and billing history showing utilization of an incorrect meter multiplier. Avista contends that it determined the billing error through a newly introduced computer edit in May 1999. The customer was notified shortly thereafter in a letter dated June 29, 1999. The Company contends that the customer’s meter was at all times functioning properly.
Avista contends that it has followed the rules outlined in IPUC Utility Customer Relations Rules, specifically Rule 204(01)–errors in preparation, (02)–corrections and (03)–refunds and additional payments. See Attachment to this Order. Through June 1999, 22 other commercial accounts and 25 residential accounts were determined to have been billed incorrectly. Out of this total 48 accounts, the Company reports that 8 customers were owed refunds and their monies have been refunded. With the exception of Mountain Mart, the Company contends that all other customers found to owe additional amounts have either paid the additional amounts or have agreed to credit arrangements. Treating Mountain Mart’s billing error differently than other Avista customers, the Company contends would be discriminatory and preferential. Reference Idaho Code § 61-315 Discrimination and preference prohibited.
The Company contends that billing errors in Mountain Mart’s account began to occur on bills rendered beginning October 1994 when some additional meters were added at Mountain Mart Exxon’s site. Because of the three year limitation on back billing, the Company alleges that approximately $8,000 of revenue from services provided to Mountain Mart has been foregone and is non-recoverable. Additionally, the Company notes that the balance owed for the three-year period is to be recovered without accruing interest charges.
As reflected in Company records, Avista contends that billing for the Mountain Mart account began in July 1993. Fifteen individual monthly bills were rendered for that account through September 1994 ranging from a low of $200 to a high of $512 with an average of $334. Following the meter changes in September 1994, the monthly billings for the store’s main account dropped approximately 90%, with a low bill of $32, a high bill of $46 and an average of $38 a month through May 1999. A billing history was submitted.
It should be noted, the Company contends, that Mr. Sorbel operates two other convenience store operations and it would not be unreasonable to assume that those monthly bills of $400-$800 could have been compared to the Moscow operation’s monthly bills that average $38.
Avista requests that the complaint be dismissed and that Mr. Sorbel be directed to pay the rebilled amount of $13,190.82 with credit arrangements at the customer’s request.
In its reply, Mountain Mart contends that Avista has presented no physical proof that an incorrect multiplier was applied. There may be other explanations, Mountain Mart states, for the small bill—maybe it didn’t use the electricity because lights were shut off. Furthermore, Mountain Mart contends that it is unreasonable for the Company to expect that Mountain Mart should have noticed a drastic reduction in its bill—“three new meters were installed at this time and the total bill for all the meters increased dramatically. It is not unreasonable that someone with seven meter bills to pay does not keep track of the individual meters but the total bill.” Mountain Mart requests that the back billing by Avista be dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No. AVU-E-99-7, together with the applicable statutes (Idaho Code § 61-315) and rules (IDAPA 31.21.01.204). Based on our analysis of the information presented, we find that the Company’s rebilling of Mountain Mart Exxon comports with authorized practice and is in compliance with the Commission’s Utility Relation Rule 204. We decline to involve ourselves further in what is otherwise a collection matter. The relief requested by Mountain Mart Exxon is preferential treatment prohibited by Idaho Code § 61-315. Having so determined, we find it reasonable to dismiss the formal complaint of Mountain Mart Exxon in Case AVU-E-99-7.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction over Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities—Washington Water Power Division, an electric utility, and the issues presented in this case pursuant to the power and authority granted under Idaho Code Title 61, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq. and the Commission’s Utility Customer Relation Rules, IDAPA 31.21.01.000 et seq.
O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint of Mountain Mart Exxon against Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities — Washington Water Power Division in Case No. AVU-E-99-7 is dismissed.
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
day of November 1999.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

bls/O:avue997_sw

ORDER NO. 28212 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 17, 1999