20100122final_order_no_30988.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 22 2010
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Respondent.
CASE NO. IPC-09-
BRUNOBUILT, INc.,
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ORDER NO. 30988
On September 3, 2009, BrunoBuilt, Inc. filed a formal complaint with the
Commission against Idaho Power Company disputing a $50 return trip charge. The Commission
issued a Summons to Idaho Power on November 20 2009, allowing the Company 21 days to file
a written answer to the complaint. Idaho Power filed an answer on December 2009.
BrunoBuilt filed a response to Idaho Power s answer on December 28 , 2009. Based upon the
record we issue this Order.
THE COMPLAINT
BrunoBuilt, Inc. is a contractor in the business of constructing homes. BrunoBuilt
asserts that Idaho Power refused to install service to one of its new homes because the service
drop conduit was not perfectly vertical, was not close enough to the siding, and was not clamped
to the siding. Idaho Power returned at a later date to install service and assessed BrunoBuilt a
$50 charge for the return trip pursuant to the utility s Rule H tariff (6.
j).
1 BrunoBuilt contends
that its building practices have never been questioned by Idaho Power in the past. The contractor
maintains that the utility has never previously denied it a connection or assessed a return trip
charge. BrunoBuilt argues that Idaho Power is not consistent regarding the application of its
rules and guidelines for contractors and should not be able to arbitrarily assess a fee.
BrunoBuilt requests that the $50 return trip charge and any interest or penalties that
have been assessed be reversed.
1 The Underground Service Return Trip Charge was increased from $50 to $68 on December 1, 2009. Order No.
30955.
ORDER NO. 30988
IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER
Idaho Power asserts that when it responded to a request by BrunoBuilt to install cable
and a meter at an unfinished residence the conduit at the residence had not been installed in
compliance with the standards specified in the utility s Reduced Charge Option brochure.2 Idaho
Power notified BrunoBuilt that it could not pull the service cable or install a meter until the
problems were fixed. At a later date, after the problems had been corrected, Idaho Power
returned to the residence and installed the cable and meter. However, consistent with its Rule H
tariff, Idaho Power assessed BrunoBuilt a return trip charge of $50 because the utility had to
make an additional trip to the residence to complete the installation.
Idaho Power points out that BrunoBuilt does not argue that its conduit was in
compliance with the utility s standards nor does the contractor claim ignorance of the standard-
instead BrunoBuilt maintains that Idaho Power arbitrarily enforces its standards and that
BrunoBuilt was treated unfairly when it was charged for a return trip. Idaho Power states that
compliance with underground line extension standards is important for both safety and
maintenance reasons. Answer at 4.
Idaho Power denies that it enforces its standards arbitrarily. The utility asserts that it
trains its line installation crews with the intent that the crews uniformly enforce the standards.
The standards for underground line installations have not materially changed since 1993. Idaho
Power alleges that BrunoBuilt has been in the homebuilding business in Idaho Power s service
territory for several years and uses experienced subcontractors who are well aware of the
standards applicable to underground service installations. Answer at 6.
Idaho Power contends that it has fully complied with its Rule H tariff and
evenhandedly enforced the standards for underground line installations. The utility also asserts
that it has undertaken reasonable efforts and established reasonable processes for providing
notice of its standards to the public and affected contractors. Finally, Idaho Power contends that
it made a good-faith effort to address Mr. Bruno s concerns prior to the formal complaint being
filed in this case.
2 The Reduced Charge Option allows new customers who install their own conduit to receive Idaho Power s cable
and meter at a reduced charge.
ORDER NO. 30988
BRUNOBUIL T'S RESPONSE
BrunoBuilt denies that it has received brochures or pamphlets from Idaho Power in
the last five years explaining the current standards for construction. Moreover, the contractor
claims that, based on past practices with Idaho Power, its conduit was "sufficiently vertical" to
the side of the house to allow the utility to install the cable and meter. BrunoBuilt alleges that
Idaho Power s inconsistent enforcement of its standards and specifications causes confusion
inaccuracies, and improperly installed services on the job sites.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to Idaho Code 99 61-501 and 61-612 the Commission has jurisdiction to
resolve the complaint brought against Idaho Power by BrunoBuilt, Inc. The Commission finds
that a hearing is not required to consider the issues presented in BrunoBuilt's complaint.
Therefore, the Commission issues its decision based on the written record submitted including
the materials submitted prior to this matter becoming a formal complaint.See IDAPA
31.01.01.201.
After a thorough review of the record and positions of the parties, the Commission
finds that each party bears some responsibility for the $50 return trip charge. Idaho Power
cannot be expected to keep every contractor and/or developer in its service territory personally
apprised of its fees and charges. It is reasonable for the utility to utilize membership lists from
the various local building contractors' associations for its mailings and to satisfy notice
requirements. However, in this particular case, Idaho Power s argument regarding notice to
BrunoBuilt is diminished by the utility s apparent inability to even serve its answer to the proper
address, specifically the correct zip code. BrunoBuilt's address is at the bottom of each page of
its stationery and was included by Mr. Bruno in some of the initial exchanges (prior to the filing
of the formal complaint) between the utility and the contractor. Moreover, Idaho Power recently
added a step to its cost estimating and quotation process in order to better ensure that contractors
are put on notice regarding the utility s installation standards. While we commend Idaho Power
for making adjustments to its process, the utility s unyielding position with regard to
BrunoBuilt's complaint is somewhat inconsistent with its review and recent modification of its
process for notice to contractors.
However, BrunoBuilt is not without responsibility for the $50 return trip charge. By
its own admission, BrunoBuilt has been "in the home building business in Idaho Power
ORDER NO. 30988
Company s service area for the past 25 years.BrunoBuilt Response at 2. The standards for
service line installations have not materially changed since 1993. Idaho Power Answer at 6.
Regardless of whether deviations were overlooked in the past, it is unreasonable to think that an
experienced contractor such as BrunoBuilt had no knowledge of such standards and
requirements. BrunoBuilt's frustration at having to pay for Idaho Power s return trip does not
negate the fact that the utility did indeed require a second visit to the job site in order to complete
the line installation because published installation standards were not met on the initial trip.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission grants BrunoBuilt's request in part. The
Commission finds that BrunoBuilt and Idaho Power should share equal responsibility for the
return trip.Therefore, BrunoBuilt shall remit the amount of $25 to Idaho Power as full
settlement of the utility s return trip charge to this particular job site for proper line installation.
We find that this is a reasonable and equitable resolution of this complaint.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that BrunoBuilt, Inc.s complaint against Idaho Power
Company be granted in part and denied in part. BrunoBuilt shall remit the amount of $25 to
Idaho Power as full settlement of its return trip charge in this case.
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 9 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30988
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this c2;J.;uK.
day of January 2010.
~/J~L
PTO , PRES ENT
----
Ot~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
~-3l A...~
MACK A. REDFORD, COMMISSI E
ATTEST:
~fJ
. D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
O:IPC-09-27 ks
ORDER NO. 30988