20031203Final Order No 29389.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 3, 2003
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
YOLANDA BENNETT,
CASE NO. IPC-O3-
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ORDER NO. 29389
Respondent.
In August 2003 , Yolanda Bennett made an informal complaint against Idaho Power
Company alleging that the Company had over-billed her for electric service at her Hailey
residence. Attempts to resolve the informal complaint to her satisfaction were unsuccessful.
Having exhausted her informal complaint remedy, Ms. Bennett filed a "formal" complaint on
October 10, 2003, pursuant to the Commission s procedural Rules 24 and 54. IDAPA
31.01.01.024 and .054. In her formal complaint, Ms. Bennett asserts that she was over-billed by
approximately $150 for service during the months of May, June and July 2003. After reviewing
the merits ofthe complaint, the Commission issues this Order.
THE COMPLAINT
Ms. Bennett left her home on March 26, 2003 for an extended stay. Before leaving,
she maintains that she turned-off all of her electric appliances except for her refrigerator and
water heater. When she received her forwarded electric bills, she noticed that her bills were
higher than expected. She then contacted Idaho Power and voiced her concerns about the high
monthly bills.
In response to Ms. Bennett's concerns, Idaho Power verified that her meter readings
for at least two months (May and July) were reported correctly. After speaking to an Idaho
Power customer service representative on July 8 , 2003 , Ms. Bennett states that she asked a
neighbor to go into the house to make sure "everything" but the refrigerator was turned-off at the
circuit breaker box. Ms. Bennett returned home on July 23 2003.
ORDER NO. 29389 1 .
On July 25, an Idaho Power customer service representative met her at home to check
for problems inside the residence. At that time, the electric meter was showing very little usage.
The Company service representative reported that the residence is an all-electric, two-bedroom
townhouse with baseboard heating and no air conditioning. The service representative then set
up a watts-per-hour meter on the refrigerator to determine its electrical consumption. No
abnormalities were noted.
Ms. Bennett's electrical usage during the period in question is considerably higher
than her consumption the previous year.The table below shows her monthly electric
consumption.
Year March April May June July ust
2002 1409 856 590 270 129 329
2003 1253 730 1399 1589 670 230
THE COMPANY RESPONSE
When Ms. Bennett called to inquire about her high monthly bills, the Company did
verify the electric meter readings. Because she was out of town, the Company was unable to
examine the inside of her residence until her return.Following her return, the Company
removed the meter so that its accuracy could be tested. The Company reports that her old meter
tested at 99.55% accuracy. The Company also ruled out any malfunction to her refrigerator
based upon the testing of the refrigerator s electrical consumption. The Company suspects that
her baseboard-heating units must have been left "" during her absence. The Company
maintains that comparing the degree-day data for the three months in 2002 and 2003 lends
support to this theory.
DISCUSSION
The Commission has reviewed the formal complaint and the Company s response to
that complaint. We find that the complaint and the response sets out sufficient facts for us to
issue a decision in this matter.
Based upon the record before us, the exact cause of the differences in consumption
for the months May, June and July 2002 versus 2003 months has not been determined. The
Company did verify the accuracy of the meter readings for May and July 2003. In addition, the
Company removed the residential meter and tested the accuracy of the meter itself.The
ORDER NO. 29389
Company reported that the meter tested at 99.55% accuracy. Because of Ms. Bennett's absence
from her residence, she was not able to verify whether her appliances and baseboard-heating
units were turned "off.
Based upon the Company s testing of its meter, we find that the meter has accurately
recorded the electric usage at her residence. We find that the Company has issued monthly bills
for her residence based upon the recorded electric consumption. We further find that Ms.
Bennett has not demonstrated that Idaho Power over-billed her for the months of May, June and
July 2003. Because there does not appear to be any meter malfunction or failure, there is no
need to issue a "corrected" bill pursuant to our Rule 204, IDAP A 31.21.01.204.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of Yolanda Bennett against Idaho
Power Company as more particularly described above is dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-03-
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 No. IPC-03-17.Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-
626.
ORDER NO. 29389
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ~J\J
day of December 2003.
ATTEST:
~jf~
Commission Secretary
vldJO:IPC-O3-17 - dh
ORDER NO. 29389
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER