29106.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.  29106
On August 5, 2002, Ralph Stuart filed a Petition for Reconsideration with the Commission. Idaho Power has not filed a response to Stuart’s Petition. After reviewing the record the Commission denies Mr. Stuart’s Petition for Reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2002, the Commission received a formal complaint from Ralph Stuart against Idaho Power Company. Stuart’s Complaint disputed recalculated billings Idaho Power made and issued to him for his residential electric service because the Company-owned meter located on his property malfunctioned. 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. Idaho Power filed its answer and exhibits on May 31, 2002. Mr. Stuart filed a reply on June 5, 2002.
On July 25, 2002, the Commission issued Order No. 29082 that dismissed Stuart’s Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The Commission first found that because no party requested a hearing and that the record was sufficient, it would render a decision based on the written record. The Commission also made the following findings on the substantive allegations of Stuart’s Complaint. The Commission found that Idaho Power responded in a timely manner to Mr. Stuart’s inquiries regarding the malfunctioning meter on his property. Further, the Commission also found that its responses to Stuart were consistent with Commission Rules. The Commission also found that it had no rules or requirements barring the communication Idaho Power had with Mr. Stuart’s spouse. The Commission also found that it had no rules or requirements that customers be notified of Company-owned meters being replaced. The Commission also found that its Utility Customer Relations Rules required Idaho Power to create new billings for Mr. Stuart because of the malfunctioning meter. Thus, the Commission found that Idaho Power’s rebilling based on historical usage from 2001 was reasonable. Finally, the Commission found that Utility Customer Relations Rule 204.03 required Idaho Power to give Mr. Stuart additional time to pay the rebilled amounts for electrical service.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In general Stuart alleges that his “testimony” was not considered and that several findings made in Commission Order No. 29082 must be reconsidered due to what he argues were Idaho Power’s “unfair and/or unethical business practices.” Petition for Reconsideration. More specifically, Stuart raises five grounds for reconsideration of Order No. 29082. These grounds are almost identical to the arguments raised in his Complaint. First, Stuart disagrees with the Commission’s finding that Idaho Power was responsive to his inquiries. Rather, Stuart contends that Idaho Power’s failure to adequately address his inquiries should require the Company to only bill him for amounts registered on the malfunctioning meter. Next, Stuart contends that it was unethical for Idaho Power to interview his wife regarding his Complaint because she was not listed on his account with the Company. Stuart also argues that despite the fact that no rule requires Idaho Power to notify him that the meter was replaced, good business practices dictate that he should have been notified. Stuart also argues that in regard to his recalculated billings, Utility Customer Relations Rule 204 is vague and can be applied arbitrarily. Stuart also contends that his assertions related to this argument were not considered. Finally, Stuart alleges that he was not notified of his consumer rights regarding rebilled amounts as required by Rule 204.
Based on these arguments Stuart requests a formal hearing and states that he is prepared to pursue all legal avenues in order to have his case heard and a full and impartial decision rendered.
COMMISSION DECISION
Stuart’s Petition for Reconsideration raises the same arguments that were considered in his Complaint. In addition, Stuart also states that he disagrees with the Commission’s findings in Order No. 29082 and believes that despite there being no rule requiring the Company to notify him that the meter on his property was replaced, “good business practices” dictate that Idaho Power should have informed him of this fact.
Pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 331 Petitions for Reconsideration must:
set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioners contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.

After our review of this matter we find that Stuart’s Petition for Reconsideration must be denied. The Commission already considered and denied these same arguments when it ruled on his Complaint. See Order No. 29082. Furthermore, on reconsideration Stuart has not provided a compelling argument nor additional evidence in support of these same arguments to demonstrate that our findings in Order No. 29082 were unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Based on these facts, Stuart’s Petition does not satisfy the requirements of Commission procedural Rule 331.01 and shall be denied. Furthermore, even under the most liberal interpretation of this Rule, Stuart’s Petition does not provide a sufficient basis upon which reconsideration could be granted. The Commission also finds that because Stuart’s Petition has failed to bring forth sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration his request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. Finally, the Commission reiterates that Idaho Power shall provide Stuart additional time to pay the rebilled amounts he owes the Company.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission denies Stuart’s Petition for Reconsideration.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ralph Stuart’s Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power shall provide Stuart a period of at least three (3) months to pay the rebilled amounts, based on historical usage, that he owes the Company for utility service
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.  Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-02-5 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules.  See Idaho Code § 61-627.

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this day of September 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE00205_jh

ORDER NO. 29106 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 3, 2002