20091021final_order_no_30930.pdf

Office of the Secreta
Service Date
October 21, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EVERETT JAMESON,
COMPLAINANT,
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-09-23
)
)
)
) ORDER NO. 30930
)
)
)
v.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
On August 8, 2009, the Commission issued a Summons to Idaho Power Company
requiring the utilty to answer a complaint fied by Everett Jameson. In his "formal" complaint,
Mr. Jameson asserted that Idaho Power did not follow the Commission's service termination
rules when his electric service was disconnected by Idaho Power on March 10, 2009. In
paricular, Mr. Jameson asserts that the meter specialist did not knock on his door prior to
disconnection and a notice was not left at his residence prior to and/or upon disconnection,
pursuant to the Commission's Utilty Customer Relations Rules 311.04 and 311.05, IDAPA
31.21.01.311.04 and 311.05. Mr. Jameson was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal
settlement procedures and subsequently fied his "formal" complaint. After reviewing the
complaint, Idaho Power's answer and Mr. Jameson's reply, the Commission issues this Order.
THE COMPLAINT
On January 5, 2009, Mr. Jameson called Idaho Power to make payment arangements
which would allow him to pay $30 a month for Januar, Februar and March 2009. He desired
to make these payments so he could use the remaining portion of his monthly income to replace
a failed water heater at a cost of $850. Complaint at 1. He is on a fixed income. Id However,
Mr. Jameson's offer of $30 per month was insufficient to qualify him for the Company's Winter
Payment Plan which would protect him from disconnection through April 1, 2009. Eligibiliy for
the Winter Payment Plan would have required Mr. Jameson to make monthly payments of
approximately $56.1
i The Winter Payment Plan allows customers to pay half of their monthly level pay amount for the months of
November through March. Utilty Customer Relations Rule 306.04, IDAPA 31.21.01.06.04. Mr. Jameson's level
ORDER NO. 30930 1
Rather than being enrolled in the "Winter Payment Plan," the Company asserted that
it notified Mr. Jameson that he was being placed in the "winter moratorium program" due to his
age and poor health. Utilty Customer Relations Rule 306.01. Under the winter moratorium
program, elderly or infirm residential customers are not required to make any monthly payments
and termination is prohibited during the months of December, Januar, and February. Id 2 The
Company allegedly notified him that he would need to make arrangements to pay his past-due
bil prior to March 1, 2009, for the remaining past-due balance or his service would be
disconnected. Rule 306.05.a.
Mr. Jameson asserted and the Company does not dispute that he made $30 payments
on Januar 7, Januar 30, and March 1,2009. The Company said it sent out a payment reminder
notice on January 29, 2009, and an initial disconnection notice on February 24, 2009. The
Company insisted that it sent a final disconnection notice on February 29, 2009, advising Mr.
Jameson that he would be disconnected as of March 9, 2009, if he failed to pay the past-due
amount of $482.26 or failed to make payment arangements prior to the disconnection date.
Answer at 3. Idaho Power also alleged that it made an automated call to his home on Februry
27, 2009, at 1 :43 p.m. The Company further stated that its telecommunications system detected
a voice-message device and a message was left with Mr. Jameson. He, however, stated that he
did not receive any message or written notice of the pending or actual disconnection. Complaint
at 1.
He awoke in the afternoon to find his power off, while the outside temperature was
below'freezing. Id 3 Mr. Jameson called the Company, discovered his service was disconnected,
made a parial payment over the telephone to restore service and the Company did restore his
service the same day. He incured a $20 reconnection charge. As indicated above, he asserts
that the meter specialist did not knock on his door prior to disconnection and a notice was not left
at his residence after disconnection as required by Rule 311.04 and 311.05. Consequently, he
pay would have been approximately $113. Consequently, his monthly payment for the Winter Payment Plan would
have been approximately $56.
2 Although the moratorium program restricts an energy utilty's abilty to terminate service, the Commission's rule
does not relieve the customer from the obligation of paying an undisputed bil. Rule 308.05.
3 Mr. Jameson stated his service was disconnected or terminated by the Company on Friday, March 6, 2009.
Complaint at 1. However, Rule 31 1.01 .a. prohibits disconnection on Fridays. Idaho Power maintained service was
disconnected and reconnected on the same day - Tuesday, March 10,2009. What appear undisputed is that service
was restored on the same day of his disconnection. Answer at 3.
ORDER NO. 30930 2
maintains that he was not given a final opportunity to pay prior to disconnection. He asserts that
the disconnection added stress and worr of possible cold weather damage to his house following
disconnection. He wants ''to make sure it doesn't happen again" to himself or other customers.
Id. at 2.4
IDAHO POWER ANSWER
Idaho Power filed its answer on September 1, 2009. The Company states that it
notified "Mr. Jameson on four separate occasions after (his) Januar 5 phone call that he needed
to make payment arangements. As with all customers with a past-due balance or subject to the
winter moratorium, Idaho Power sent Mr. Jameson a payment reminder notice on Januar 29,
2009." Answer at 2. The Company fuher stated that it sent Mr. Jameson an initial disconnect
notice on Februry 24, 2009, advising him that his service would be disconnected on March 9,
2009, "unless the account was brought curent or payment arangements were made." Id. at 3.
The Company further stated that it sent him a final disconnection notice on February 29, 2009
(scheduling disconnection for March 9), but Mr. Jameson did not contact the Company in
response to any ofthefour prior notices. Id.
Because Mr. Jameson had not entered into payment arangements with the Company,
a meter specialist disconnected his power on March 10, 2009, at 3:23 p.m. He subsequently
made a parial payment over the telephone and power was restored the same day. Id
1. Knocking on the Door. The Company asserted that its meter specialist followed
procedures and knocked on the front door of the residence in a final attempt to contact Mr.
Jameson, collect the past-due amount, and avoid disconnection. "If the customer does not
answer the door, the Meter Specialist leaves the door hanger explaining the times and grounds
for disconnection of service, the steps the customer can take to secure reconnection, and the
telephone number to call to have reconnection authorized." Id at 4. Although the meter
specialist does not specifically recall his knocking on Mr. Jameson's door when he disconnected
the service, the Company is "adamant" that he knocked on Mr. Jameson's front door. The
Company indicated that the meter specialist completed 359 collections and 289
connection/disconnections in the greater McCall area during the 4 months between March 2009
and June 2009. The Company reiterated that the purpose of the specialist's "visit was to collect
4 Mr. Jameson's complaint also mentions a September 2007 claim for damage to his television caused by the
utilty's installation of a faulty transformer. Idaho Power sent Mr. Jameson a check for the entire amount of the
claim in Februar 2008. Consequently, we do not address this issue.
ORDER NO. 30930 3
the past-due amount and to disconnect service only if the past-due balance could not be
collected." Answer at 4 (emphasis original).
2. The Door Hanger. The Company stated that during the week of Mr. Jameson's
disconnection, it implemented its new "Mobile Work Force Management System" in the McCall
area. The system is a computer-aided dispatching and data communication system which allows
the meter specialist to print out credit and collection orders prior to leaving the office. The
second page of the collection order contains the specific account and reconnection information
required by Commission Rules 305 and 311 to be left with the customer. Under the new system,
the employees attempting to make the final collection and/or disconnection "were instructed to
fill out a new door hanger form with customer-specific account information." Id. at 5.
The Company acknowledged that the meter specialist did not have the new door
hanger forms "for a short period of time coinciding with the first week of the system's roll out.
Therefore, it is possible that a door hanger was not left on Mr. Jameson's door." Id When the
specialist realized he did not have the abilty to print out the door hanger, he contacted the
McCall field office. The offce immediately sent him a supply of door hanger forms and
instrcted him to conduct only collection activities (not disconnections) until he received the new
forms.
Once made aware of Mr. Jameson's complaint, the Company scheduled a meeting
with its field leadership "to review and reinforce compliance" with the practices required by the
Commission's Utilty Customer Relations Rules for terminating service. "All field employees
wil have completed this review by the end of September 2009. In addition, the same
requirements will be reinforced in the Company's refresher course regarding collections,
disconnections, and reconnections each year in October and Februar." Id at 6.
JAMESON REPLY
On September 16, 2009, Mr. Jameson submitted a reply to Idaho Power's answer.
Mr. Jameson contests that the initial Company service representative adequately explained the
Winter Payment Plan to him. He indicates that he would have been able to make the $56
required for the Winter Payment Plan. Reply at 1 (only $26 more per month). He also contests
that Idaho Power did not send him any notices other than his monthly statement. He specifically
asserts that the Company "did not send a final 'disconnect' notice or place a call to me about
imminent disconnection." Id
ORDER NO. 30930 4
He also disputes that he received any knock at the door or any door hanger on the
date of his disconnection. He indicates that he has two adult German Shepherds in the house and
had they been outside he would have been wared by their barking of a visitor. The same would
be tre if the dogs were indoors and somebody knocked on his door. Id
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
After reviewing the record, the Commission finds there is sufficient (although
conflcting) evidence in the record for us to decide this matter. The Commission has jurisdiction
to hear this dispute pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 61-503 and 61-612, and the Commission's Utilty
Customer Relations Rules, IDAPA 31.21.01.
The Commission has established detailed procedures which utilties must follow
before disconnecting or terminating service to a customer. Rules 301-311, IDAPA
31.21.01.301-.311. In paricular, Rule 304.02 requires that the utilty mail a final written notice
to the customer at least three days before the proposed date of disconnection. Rule 305 sets out
the specific information that must be included in the initial and final disconnection notice sent to
customers. In paricular, the notices must state the reasons for disconnection (by citing the
Commission's rules) and "the proposed date of (service) termination." Rule 305.01.a.
In addition, the Commission also requires that the utilty attempt to make contact with
the customer "immediately preceding termination of service" so that the customer may have one
last opportity to make a full or parial payment and avoid termination. Rule 311.04. Finally,
Rule 311.05 requires the utilty to "leave in a conspicuous location at the affected service
address, a notice showing the time of and grounds for termination, steps to be taken to secure
reconnection, and the telephone numbers of utility personnel or other authorized representatives
who are available to authorize reconnection." IDAPA 31.21.01.311.05. In this case, this
reconnection notice is referred to as "door hanger."
Mr. Jameson asserts that Idaho Power did not send him an initial and final
termination notice (Rule 304.01 and 304.02); the Company failed to make a final attempt to
contact him before the utilty disconnected his power (Rule 311.04); and the Company failed to
leave the "door hanger" notice (Rule 311.05).
After reviewing both the undisputed and disputed facts, the Commission finds at the
outset that the genesis of this complaint began with a misunderstanding between the paries.
From Mr. Jameson's perspective, he thought he had made "payment arangements" so that he
ORDER NO. 30930 5
could use available fuds to replace a failed water heater at a cost of $850. Rather than being
enrolled in the "Winter Payment Plan" which would have required Mr. Jameson to make
monthly payments of approximately $56, he was placed in the "winter moratorium program"
which prohibits the Company from disconnecting certain residential customers for the winter
months of December, Januar, and Februar.
Under the moratorium program unpaid balances that accrued during the three months
would be due March 1 or the customer must make new payment arangements. Had he been
enrolled in the Winter Payment Plan, he would have had to pay the outstanding balance or make
a new payment arangement on or after April 1, 2009. Rule 306.05.b.
In any event, it is undisputed that Mr. Jameson made his $30 payments on Januar 7,
Januar 30, and March 1, 2009. Even though Mr. Jameson made these parial payments on his
electric bil, there is also no dispute that his account was in arears by more than $500 by March
1, 2009. To avoid such a misunderstanding in the future, the service representative should
clearly distinguish between the two programs.
With this background, the Commission turns first to the issue of the final
disconnection notice required by Rule 304.02. Despite the confusion about the payment
arangements, the Company insists it mailed a final disconnection notice stating that his service
"was scheduled (for disconnection) for March 9,2009, unless the account was brought curent or
payment arrangements were made." Answer at 3. Mr. Jameson asserts he never received any of
the mailed notices or calls from the Company. Idaho Power says it followed its procedures and
provided a facsimile of the final disconnection notice it sent to Mr. Jameson.
Although there is disputed evidence, we are persuaded that the Company did mail the
termination notices and make the telephonic notice on Februar 27. The Final Termination
Notice states in bold letters "Final Termination Notice - Please pay past due amount to avoid
termination of service." The final notice advised Mr. Jameson of the past-due amount and states
he must "pay the total past due amount before 8 A.M. on 03/09/2009 to avoid termination of
electricity service." The notice is addressed to Mr. Jameson's home address and we presume
the U.S. Postal Service delivered the notice.
We next tum to Mr. Jameson's assertion that the meter specialist neither knocked on
his door nor placed a door hanger notice on his front door. The Company acknowledges that the
meter specialist did not have the new door hanger form during the short period of time when Mr.
ORDER NO. 30930 6
Jameson's service was disconnected. The Company concedes that "it is possible that a door
hanger was not left on Mr. Jameson's door." Answer at 5. Based upon this information and Mr.
Jameson's insistence that no door hanger was left, we find that the Company did not adequately
demonstrate that the door hanger was placed on his front door as required by Rule 311.05.5
As indicated above, Mr. Jameson pursued his complaint to make sure that the
Company follows its disconnection procedures. In response, the Company indicated that its
disconnection practices and the requirements of the Commission's Rules will be reviewed by all
field employees no later than the end of September 2009. The Company also intends to reinforce
the appropriate disconnection practices in the Company's refresher courses in October and
Februar of each year. We fuher direct the Company to review its final termination notices to
ensure they clearly indicate the proposed disconnection dates.
In summar, we find that the Company did mail the final termination notice to Mr.
Jameson. However, the Commission was not persuaded that the required door hanger was left in
this case. Consequently, we find it appropriate for the Company to credit Mr. Jameson the $20
reconnection charge plus interest. The Company shall re-emphasize the appropriate service
disconnection procedures with its field representatives and review its written notices to ensure
compliance with the Commission's Utilty Customer Relations Rules. Additionally, to avoid
misunderstandings in the future, service representatives should clearly distinguish between the
Winter Payment Plan and the winter moratorium program.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of Everett Jameson against Idaho
Power is granted in part and dismissed in par.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company credit Mr. Jameson's account for his
reconnection charge - $20 plus interest.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company ensure that its customer service and
field representatives are complying with the Commission's termination procedures set out in
Utility Customer Relations Rules.
5 Having found that the door hanger was not left at the residence, we need not decide whether the specialist knocked
on the door. Our Rule 311.04 states in par that: "Immediately preceding termination of service, the employee. . .
shall identify himself or herself to the customer. . . and shall anounce the purpose of the employee's presence. ...
The employee shall be authorized to accept full payment, or, at the discretion of the utilty, parial payment, and in
such case shall not terminate service."
ORDER NO. 30930 7
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. 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 ~/ st
day of October 2009.~d~Z:· ~KEMPTrSIDENT
~.. ¡jSw
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~-iJfíA
Je D. Jewell
Co mission Secretar
bls/O:lPC-E-09-23 _dh
ORDER NO. 30930 8