991102_sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
TONYA CLARK
RON LAW
MARGE MAXWELL
WORKING FILE

FROM:

DATE: November 2, 1999

RE: CASE NO. AVU-E-99-7 (Avista)
COMPLAINT (Mountain Mart v. Avista)

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). (Attached) A summons was issued by the Commission on September 15, 1999. On October 7, 1999, Avista filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss. (Attached) On October 19, Mountain Mart filed a Reply. (Attached)
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 Commission Utility Customer Relations 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 for whom it is impossible to rebill past customers to recover increased and late discovered utility expense. Nor is it possible with competition to increase its present prices to recover the amount from current customers. The Company, Mountain Mart contends, 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. Mountain Mart in its complaint states:
The judicial system has provided that any government employee who has used his position to cause monetary damage or for their willful negligence, can be held personally responsible in civil court. This is not a threat, I believe this case warrants a complete investigation from an independent agency and the people involved be held accountable for their incompetent actions. Does the general public know how incompetent their public servants at Avista are? What would the news media do with this information?

Mountain Mart in closing 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), (02) and (3). (Attached) 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 be owing 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.
The Company contends that billing errors in Mountain Mart’s account began to occur on bills rendered beginning October 1994 following a meter change at Mountain Mart’s Exxon 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 is submitted.
It should be noted, the Company contends, that Mr. Sorbel operates two other convenience store operations where it would not be unreasonable to assume that their 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 that the rebilled amount of $13,190.82, going back the three year period allowed by Commission rule must be remitted to Avista (with credit arrangements).
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, as to 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 realized 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 Decision
As between the parties, this matter remains disputed. Mountain Mart contends that the Company’s contentions are not proof and that a factual record needs to be made. Should the matter be set for hearing? If not, what is the Commission’s preference?

vld/M:AVU-E-99-7_sw

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3