20031022Decision Memo.pdf

/:J.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMl\1ISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMl\1ISSIONER SMITH
COMl\1ISSIONER HANSEN
COMl\1ISSION SECRETARY
COMl\1ISSTION STAFF
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:DANIEL KLEIN
DATE:OCTOBER 9, 2003
IPe
-('-
(J 3-ILj
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF LORI LEE
On September 24, 2003 , the Commission received a formal complaint (attached) from Ms.
Lori Lee against Idaho Power. Ms. Lee is requesting that seven years of charges for an alleged
unauthorized dusk-to-dawn customer lighting service be refunded in full. Idaho Power has
refunded the charges for the charges for the most recent three years, back to June 2000. Her
formal complaint seeks a refund for the remaining four years (1996 to 2000).
BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2003, Lori Lee contacted Idaho Power to inquire about her Budget Plan
service. Ms. Lee had previously received a letter from Idaho Power notifying her that her Budget
Plan would be decreased to $62 a month. When Ms. Lee received her first bill after the letter, she
noticed that the Budget Plan amount was $72. In response to her inquiry, Idaho Power informed
Ms. Lee that the $10 difference was payment for a 100w sodium vapor light in her yard.
Ms. Lee maintains that she never noticed the charge on her bill. While on the telephone
with Idaho Power, she went out into her backyard to look at the light and pole. She had never
noticed the pole on her property. Ms. Lee found the pole near the property line behind some lilac
bushes. She did recall noticing an amber light shining down in her backyard when they first
moved in May 28, 1996. Ms. Lee claims she was never informed, either in writing or verbally, of
the light when service was established in her name. Ms. Lee also claims that the light has not
been working for several years. She thought this was some type of old streetlight that had been
there since her development was built, and Idaho Power decided to shut it off.
DECISION MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 9, 2003
Idaho Power maintains its standard practice is to disclose the existence of a light located
on a customer s property and the associated monthly billing amount during the initial sign up, and
believes this was done in Ms. Lee s case. The monthly usage charge for the sodium vapor light is
$9.17 per Schedule IS (Dusk to Dawn Customer Lighting). As indicated on Ms. Lee s attached
bill, the charge for the area light is itemized on each monthly billing statement. To settle this
dispute, the Company issued a three-year credit, but declines to provide credit for the other four
years. Without an order for disconnection or initial objection to the light, the Company had no
reason to believe that Ms. Lee objected to being billed for the lighting service.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Commission Staff has been in contact with both Ms. Lee and Idaho Power. Idaho Power
does itemize the charge for area lighting on each billing statement. The Company issued a three-
year credit in the amount of$322.34 to resolve the complaint and Ms. Lee has received the check.
Ms. Lee has not cashed the check due to her desire for full restitution back to the start of her
service. In reviewing the complaint record, Staff could not find any justification for requiring
Idaho Power to honor Ms. Lee s request.
The Commission s Utility Customer Relations Rules deals with billing under
inappropriate tariff schedule and inaccurately billed service. Rule 203.02 indicates utilities shall
not be required to adjust billings when it has acted in good faith based upon available information.
Rules 203.03 and 204.02 limits rebilling and corrections to three years. Copies of the complete
text of these rules are attached.
The parties have attempted to reach an agreement informally and have been unable to do so.
COMl\1ISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept M. Lee s request to file a formal complaint?
Does the Commission have a sufficient record to rule on this issue ifit declines to accept
the formal complaint? Or, should a summons be issued?
Attachments
i:udmemos/dec mem lee
DECISION MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 9, 2003
-I~(,;()
j);..., "
September 22, 2003
RECEIVED FiLED 0
Zfm1SEP 24 in3~'tJ:4
IDAHO PU8liC
UTILITiES COMM1SSWN
Commission Secretary
PO Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
...---...----.-...-----..--'..
Attn: Jean Jewell
I received a letter from Idaho Power a few months ago regarding a drop in
electrical rates. The letter stated that my budget pay would be $62.00 on my
next bill. I had been paying $72.00. When I received my next month's bill it
was still showing $72.00. I mailed off that amount, and later remembered the
letter regarding the drop down to $62.00. I called customer service to inquire
why it had not yet been decreased. I was told (by Jill) that my bill did reflect
the decrease, however the $10.00 difference was due to an additional charge
for a 100 watt amp vapor ~ $8.92 each.
I had never noticed that charge on my monthly statement before. There are
several fees/charges on my monthly billing statement that I don t understand
and therefore thoqght this was just another standard fee/charge. The
customer service representative explained that this was for alight (explained
as a streetlight on a light post) in my backyard.
I went out to look in my backyard while I had her on the line. I did fmd it
next to the fence on our property (right next to the property line) behind
some lilac bushes. I had never noticed it there before. However, I did recall
an amber light shining down in my backyard when we fIrst moved in (Mayth 1996). The light has not been working for several years. I thought this
was some type of old streetlight that was here since this development was
built, and Idaho Power decided to shut it off.
When I explained this to the rep, she informed me that I should know, as
this has been appearing on my statement each month for the last seven years.
I explained to her that I never noticed before because it doesn t show in
layman s terms . It is just like trying to read a medical statement. She
would lmow what a 100-watt amp vapor ~$8.92 each is, because she works
for the power company!
I had never been informed of this light when I hooked up service. As I stated
earlier, I (we) never even knew this light was on our property. I did find out
that the previous homeowners requested this light be installed & they agreed
to pay this monthly charge.
.- ...... -.. .
When we purchased OUT home and set up service with Idaho Power, nobody
ever discussed (written or verbally) anything about this light. After speaking
with Mary Jo at Idaho Power, and Daniel at the PUC, they decided that they.
would go back three years for restitution. They explained this is all they are
required to go back per State laws. I did receive a check for $322.34 and
have not cashed it, because I feel full restitution is going back to the first day
I was charged for this. How can Idaho Power charge someone for something
withoutgetting written agreem~nt7_.~~f.Q.l!:91y, how_can ~..Q.~~gy;~hically
or morally charge for a service that has been broken and has not been using
any energy, and lastly, if the charge is $8., how can you "round up" to
$10.00?
Idaho Power is admitting guilt by sending me a check for the last three
years. They should be required to reimburse for the entire seven years. This
is not their money to keep, and should be rightfully given back to me.
If they are not made to go back to the date of original hook up (5-28-1996),
then we will continue on to the next step to get full restitution.
----'-." --..-'"'-. -
Sincerely,
Lori Lee
203. Bfi,LING UNDER INAPPROPRIATE TARIFF SCHEDULE (Rule 203).
01. Rebilling Required. If a customer was billed under an inappropriate tariff
schedule, the utility shall recalculate the customer s past billings and correctly calculate
future billings based on the appropriate tariff schedule. A customer has been billed under
an inappropriate tariff schedule if: (7-93)
a. The customer was billed under a tariff schedule for which the customer was not
eligible, or (7-93)
b. The customer, who is eligible for billing under more than one tariff schedule
was billed under a schedule contrary to the customer s election, or the election was based
on erroneous information provided by the utility. (7-93)
02. Exceptions. The utility shall not be required to adjust billings when it has
acted in good faith based upon available information or when the customer was given
written notice of options under the tariff schedules and did not make a timely election to
exercise available options. (7-93)
03. Rebilling. The period for which rebilling under this rule is allowed shall be
that provided by Section 61-642, Idaho Code, (three years). (7-93)
04. Refunds and Additional Payments. The utility shall prepare a corrected billing
indicating the refund due the customer or the amount due the utility. A customer who has
been underbilled shall be given the opportunity to make payment arrangements under
Rule 313 on the amount due. At the customer s option, the term of the payment
arrangement may extend for the length of time that the underbilling accrued. The utility
shall promptly refund amounts overpaid by the customer unless the customer consents to
a credit against future bills, except overbillings not exceeding $15 may be credited to
future bills. (7-93)
(Adopted as Rule 8., D.N. 17744; amended and recodified, G.O. 177.
Statutory Reference: I.C. S 61-642.
Cross-Reference: Rules 005, 200, 204.
204. INACCURATELY BILLED SERVICE UNDER CORRECT TARIFF
SCHEDULE--FAILURE TO BILL FOR SERVICE (Rule 204).
01. Errors in Preparation-Malfunctions--Failure to Bill. 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 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. (7-93)
02. Corrections. lithe time when the malfunction or error began or the time when
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 months before the discovery of the malfunction or error or failure to bill. If the
time when the malfunction or error or failure to bill began 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). (7-93)
03. Refunds and Additional Payments. The utility shall prepare a corrected billing
indicating the refund due to the customer or the amount due the utility. A customer who
has been underbilled or who has not been billed shall be given the opportunity to make
payment arrangements under Rule 313 on the amount due. At the customer s option, the