29082.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF RALPH STUART’S COMPLAINT REGARDING IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S REBILLING OF HIS RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE BILLS. )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-02-5

ORDER NO. 29082

On April 17, 2002, the Commission received a formal complaint from Ralph Stuart against Idaho Power Company. Stuart’s Complaint raises issues regarding recalculated billings Idaho Power made and issued to him for his residential electric service. On May 10, 2002, the Commission issued a Summons and Complaint to Idaho Power requiring the Company to file a written answer or motion in response to the allegations raised in Stuart’s Complaint within 21 days. Idaho Power filed its answer and exhibits on May 31, 2002. Mr. Stuart filed a reply on June 5, 2002.
BACKGROUND
This case results from a malfunctioning Idaho Power owned meter located on Mr. Stuart’s property.
On February 25, 2002, Idaho Power contends that its meter specialist read the meter at Stuart’s residence and noted that a low amount of electricity had been consumed. Because of this low consumption the specialist reported the meter appeared to be malfunctioning to Idaho Power’s billing department. On March 1, 2002, the Company had a service and repair technician inspect the meter. He observed that the meter’s dial continued to rotate. Accordingly, it was not replaced and a work order was noted that the meter was advancing.
According to Idaho Power, Stuart had been billed $85.47 and $13.49 respectively for electric service in January and February 2002. However, because the meter at the Stuart residence may have malfunctioned the Company researched the historical consumption of energy at this location for January and February and discovered that the 2002 billings for these months were significantly lower than those for 2001. Idaho Power records showed that the Stuart residence consumed 5,405-kilowatt hours (“kWh”) in January 2001 and 7,194 kWh in February 2001 for an average of 6,299 kWh per month. Based on this past usage Idaho Power cancelled the January and February 2002 billings and recalculated them based on historical usage. Idaho Power contends that it sent Mr. Stuart notice of this change in billing and the reason for it. The Company also claims that it sent Mr. Stuart new bills and charged him for the use of 6,500 kWh at a cost of $501.10 for January 2002 and 6,000 kWh at a cost of $456.95 for February 2002. The average 6,250 kWh per month is similar to the 6,299 kWh per month averaged over the same months in the prior year. On or around March 10, 2002, Idaho Power contends that Mr. Stuart was advised about the cancellation and recalculation of his bills. At this time an Idaho Power customer service representative also told Stuart incorrectly that the meter at his residence had been replaced. Idaho Power also contends Mr. Stuart requested copies of his usage for the months of January and February 2001. The Company claims that it mailed this to him on March 13, 2002.
On April 3, 2002, Mr. Stuart sent an e-mail to Idaho Power alleging that he was being billed arbitrarily for electric service because the meter on his property was not functioning properly. Stuart requested that he be billed only for those amounts actually recorded by the meter. Stuart also stated that the malfunctioning meter on his property was not replaced as the Company originally advised him. This information was also sent to the Commission.
On April 4, 2002, Brent Lulloff, a delivery services leader at the Idaho Power Customer Service Center, responded to Mr. Stuart by e-mail and described the process used by the Company to determine electrical usage in circumstances in which an electrical meter malfunctioned. He also advised Stuart that the electrical meter at his residence should have been replaced on March 1, when in fact it was not. Mr. Lulloff told Stuart that he had placed a new order to replace the malfunctioning meter. On behalf of Idaho Power, Mr. Lulloff also offered to resolve this matter by charging Mr. Stuart for: 1) the historical usage of power for the months of January and February 2002 as noted in the reissued billings; 2) an estimated usage of 2,000 kWh for the month of March when his actual usage for the year 2001 was 5,277 kWh hours; and 3) an amount for April based upon the usage reflected by the malfunctioning meter and the usage shown by the new meter following installation. Idaho Power represented that the amounts billed for the last two months would benefit Stuart because they would be lower than the historical usage for March and April and also adjust his bill for any potential over-estimates in the months of January and February. In this communication Lulloff also included a summary of Stuart’s kWh usage for the previous 18 months. The Company contends that based upon historical usage, Lulloff’s proposal represented an 18% reduction over the previous year’s consumption for the same period of time. The Company replaced Mr. Stuart’s meter on April 4, 2002.
On April 5, 2002, Stuart responded to Idaho Power and agreed with its proposal for the billings for March and April but rejected the Company’s proposal for the billing amounts for January and February. Alternatively, Stuart proposed that he be billed 2,000 kWh each for January and February 2002. On April 8, 2002, Mr. Stuart rescinded his proposal of April 5, 2002 and stated that he should only have to pay for the actual kilowatt hours shown as consumed by the meter at his residence. Stuart stated that he would pay Idaho Power $13.49 for the energy consumed in February and $8.63 for energy consumed in the month of March. He also requested a credit of $434.83 based upon amounts he previously paid to Idaho Power due to the rebillings for January. Stuart also complained that Idaho Power had inappropriately contacted his wife regarding this matter who is not on his account with Idaho Power. Stuart contends that this action by the Company violated “account confidentiality”.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
On April 17, 2002, Stuart filed his formal complaint with the Commission raising the following issues: 1) after his first inquiry about the unexplained February rebilling, why did the Company fail to offer an explanation for it; 2) after not contacting him, why did the Company contact his wife who was not listed on his account with Idaho Power; 3) why did the Company fail to notify him that the meter on his property was replaced; 4) why did the Company not inform him of his rights under Commission Utility Customer Relations Rule 204 that he had the option to repay the Company over an extended period of time; and 5) that Utility Customer Relations Rule 204 is ambiguous and open to liberal interpretation regarding the right to rebill customers for electrical service.
As relief Stuart requests that the Commission order Idaho Power to only bill him for the actual amounts of power consumed as shown by the meter in place on his property during January, February, March and the first days of April 2002.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY ANSWER
In general, except as specifically admitted by the Company, Idaho Power denies all the material allegations in Mr. Stuart’s formal complaint and his April 3, 2002 filing to the Commission.
The Company denies that on March 11, 2002, its customer service representative failed to offer Mr. Stuart an explanation why he was being rebilled for electrical services in the months of January and February 2002. The Company further denies that it failed to timely respond to Mr. Stuart’s Complaint. However, the Company admits that its personnel incorrectly advised Mr. Stuart that the electric meter serving his residence had been replaced on March 1, 2002.
The Company also denies that it violated any confidence by contacting Mr. Stuart’s wife regarding the allegations raised by his Complaint.
Idaho Power states that because it owns and maintains the meter at Mr. Stuart’s residence the Company is not required to notify him that the meter was replaced.
In regard to the Commission’s Customer Relations Rule 204.03, the Company argues that Mr. Stuart did not indicate that he was unable to pay for the underbilled services in full. Rather he objected to the payment of any bill that included energy costs beyond those shown on his malfunctioning meter. However, the Company states that it has no objection to permitting Mr. Stuart a reasonable amount of additional time to make payments on the recalculated bills for electrical services for the months of January and February 2002. The Company is also agreeable to making similar arrangements for the months of March and April 2002.
Based on the foregoing, Idaho Power requests that Mr. Stuart’s Complaint be dismissed and that pursuant to Customer Service Rule 204 he be ordered to pay the Company for the following amounts of electrical service received:
January 2002 6,500 kWh
February 2002 6,000 kWh
March 2002 2,000 kWh
April 2002 Readings as shown by former meter for March 28 – April 4 and from April 5 to April 24 by the new meter.

STUART’S REPLY
Mr. Stuart argues that he should not pay for electrical service based on the recalculated bills. Stuart contends that because Idaho Power failed to timely replace the malfunctioning meter it waived the right to rebill and he should only pay based on the amounts that it recorded. Stuart also contends that he did not receive notice advising him that the bills he received for January and February had been cancelled and rebilled. Stuart also denies that he discussed the February billings with an Idaho Power customer service representative. Stuart again complains that Idaho Power should not have contacted his wife regarding this matter. Finally, Stuart also states that the Customer Relations Rules state that customers shall be given the opportunity to repay underbilled amounts over a period of time.
COMMISSION STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
After investigating Mr. Stuart’s Complaint, Staff offered its analysis and recommendations. First, as a preliminary matter Staff recommended that the Commission rule on this Complaint without the aid of an evidentiary hearing. Staff noted that no party has requested a hearing and believed that the record was sufficient, based on the written submissions made by the participants, for the Commission to rule on this matter at this time.
Staff recommended that based on the record the Commission should adopt Idaho Power’s proposal for rebilling Mr. Stuart as it complied with the Commission’s Rules and was the most reasonable solution to this matter. Staff further recommended that the Commission dismiss Mr. Stuart’s Complaint with prejudice.
COMMISSION DECISION
In this case no party has requested an evidentiary hearing to provide additional evidence to either support or contradict the allegations contained in Stuart’s Complaint. Taking this fact into consideration the Commission has reviewed the written submissions of the parties in this case and finds that a hearing is unnecessary to resolve this matter as the material facts are not in dispute and our rules concerning rebilling clearly apply to this case. A hearing is also not needed because many of Stuart’s allegations are not actionable in this forum as our rules and relevant statutes do not bar the actions the Company took.
1. Company Responsiveness.
The Commission finds that based on the record in this case the Company attempted to respond in a timely manner to Mr. Stuart’s inquiries. Through both phone calls and e-mails to Mr. Stuart the Company attempted to resolve this dispute and correct the problems that its malfunctioning meter caused in a manner consistent with Commission rules. In particular, Brent Lulloff’s communication with Mr. Stuart contained a Company apology for not replacing the meter quickly and made a proposal for settlement recognizing this problem. Based on these facts the Commission finds that although the Company was slow to replace the meter, it was reasonably responsive to Mr. Stuart’s inquiries.
Account Confidentiality.
The Commission finds that the Company should exercise discretion and caution when contacting individuals other than a named account holder about that person’s service. However, the Commission has no rules or requirements barring the communication Idaho Power had with Mr. Stuart’s spouse. It is also most likely his spouse is legally obligated for the account even if her name does not appear on the bill. Therefore, we find that this allegation is without merit in this forum.
3. Notification of Meter Replacement.
The Commission has no rules or requirements that customers be notified of Company owned meters being replaced. Accordingly, the Commission finds that this allegation is without merit.
4. Recalculated Billings.
Rule 204.01, “Errors in Preparation – Malfunctions – Failure to Bill” provides in pertinent part:
Whenever the billing for utility service was not accurately determined because a meter malfunctioned or failed, bills were estimated, or bills were inaccurately prepared, the utility shall prepare a corrected bill.

IDAPA 31.21.01.204.01 (emphasis added).
The parties in this case agree that the meter at Mr. Stuart’s residence malfunctioned during the months of January, February, March and the first few days of April. Thus, the Company was obligated to prepare a corrected bill. Section 204.02 “Corrections” of this Rule provides in pertinent part:
If the time when the malfunction or error or failure to bill . . . can be reasonably determined, the corrected billings shall go back to that time, but not to exceed the time provided by Section 61-642, Idaho Code, (three years).

IDAPA 31.21.01.204.02.

The period of time during which the meter on Mr. Stuart’s property malfunctioned is reasonably known to be January, February, March and the first days of April 2002 based on comparison of electrical service consumption between 2001 and 2002.
Based on the Commission’s rules Idaho Power created new billings for Mr. Stuart based on his historical usage from 2001. Idaho Power proposes to charge Mr. Stuart for the use of 6,500 kWh for January 2002, 6,000 kWh for February 2002, 2,000 kWh for March and a prorated amount for April. The Commission finds that the total of the recalculated usage is reasonable. Idaho Power took the best information available to reach the proposed rebilled amounts. Furthermore, Idaho Power’s proposal represents approximately an 18% discount from Mr. Stuart’s usage during the same months of 2001. Finally, the Commission finds that this reduction adjusts Mr. Stuart’s billing for Idaho Power’s failure to timely replace the malfunctioning meter and the possibility that the power consumption at his residence during 2002 was reduced from 2001. Based on the facts of this case and the Commission rules the Commission finds that Idaho Power is required to rebill Mr. Stuart and that its total rebilled amount is reasonable.
5. Notification of Consumer Rights.
Pursuant to Utility Customer Relations Rule 204.03 the Commission finds that Idaho Power is required to give Mr. Stuart additional time to pay the rebilled amounts. The Commission shall require Idaho Power to provide Mr. Stuart a period of at least three (3) months within which to pay the Company for the rebilled amounts for 2002.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ralph Stuart’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power shall bill Mr. Stuart for the following amounts of electric service consumption: 6,500 kWh for January 2002; 6,000 kWh for February 2002; 2,000 kWh for March 2002; and an amount for April 2002 based on readings as shown by the malfunctioning meter for March 28 – April 4 and by the new meter from April 5 to April 24.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.  Any person interested in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-02-5 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case.  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 July 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE00205_jh

ORDER NO. 29082 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 25, 2002