20120406final_order_no_32506.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 6,2012
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )
STAFF,)CASE NO.PAC-E-12-O1
)
COMPLAINANT,)
)
vs.)
)
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN )
POWER,)ORDER NO.32506
)
RESPONDENT.)
On January 11,2012,Commission Staff filed a formal complaint,after informal
negotiations failed,against PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (RMP).Staff alleges RIVIP
violated Customer Relations Rule 201.03.c in April 2010 by inappropriately billing Idaho
Travertine Corp.under Schedule 6 (General Service-Large Power)instead of Schedule 23
(General Service).Staff asserts that RMP has now switched Travertine to the desired Schedule
23.However,RMP refuses to refund Travertine the inappropriately billed amount,$15,952.31.
RMP filed its “Answer,Affirmative Defenses,and Motion to Dismiss”(“Answer”)
on January 31,2012,which denied that RMP inappropriately billed Travertine.RMP also argues
that it need not adjust the bills because it acted in good faith and gave Travertine written notice
of scheduling options under Customer Relations Rule 203.02.Accordingly,RMP asks the
Commission to dismiss the complaint.
Staff and RMP subsequently filed supplementary pleadings further explaining their
positions.See Commission Staff reply dated February 7,2012,and PacifiCorp’s Response to
Commission Staff Reply dated February 16,2012.The Commission,having reviewed the
parties’filings and all matters of record,enters the following Order.
THE COMPLAINT
Staff alleges RIVIP violated Customer Relations Rule 203.01.c,which states:
203.BILLING UNDER INAPPROPRIATE TARIFF SCHEDULE
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:
ORDER NO.32506 1
c.The customer,who is eligible for billing under more than one (1)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.
IDAPA 31.21.01.203.01.c.
All parties agree Travertine was eligible for billing under both Schedule 6 and
Schedule 23.Staff claims,however,that RMP arbitrarily assigned Travertine to Schedule 6
when RMP knew or should have known to assign Travertine to Schedule 23 because Travertine
had previously filed a similar improper billing complaint against RMP.Specifically,Staff
maintains that when Travertine signed up for service in 2010,RMP knew or should have known
that Travertine was a returning customer that had complained in March 1997 that RMP was
improperly billing under Schedule 6 instead of Schedule 23.Further,RMP resolved Travertine’s
prior complaint by agreeing to switch Travertine to Schedule 23.Based on these prior events,
RMP knew or should have known to place Travertine on Schedule 23 when Travertine re
established service in 2010.’
Staff also notes that RMP would have automatically placed Travertine on Schedule
23 in 2010 but for the fact that RMP violated the 1997 agreement by not placing Travertine on
Schedule 23 in 1997.No documentary evidence shows whether RMP switched Travertine from
Schedule 6 to Schedule 23 in 1997.However,Staff notes that RMP’s records back to December
1997 show that RMP continuously billed Travertine under the less favorable,Schedule 6 from
December 1997 until Travertine sold its business in 2008.2 Staff notes that RMP then billed the
business’s new owner under Schedule 6 from 2008 until Travertine repurchased the business in
2010.Staff also notes that,regardless of whether documentary evidence exists,Travertine says
it has never elected to be placed on Schedule 6.In light of the 1997 agreement,Travertine
assumed RMP would place it on Schedule 23 when it re-established service in 2010.
According to Staff,when Travertine learned RMP was still billing it under Schedule 6
and not Schedule 23,it visited RMP’s local office where it was told to call RMP’s 800 number
RMP,on the other hand,argues that Travertine’s similar 1997 complaint is evidence that Travertine “clearly
knew”in 2010 13 years later —that Schedule 23 remained a service option offered by RMP.RMP argues that
despite this putative knowledge,Travertine did not elect Schedule 23.Answer at 3,Response at 7.
2 RMP argues this fact alone does not mean that RMP did not switch Travertine to Schedule 23 in March 2007,as
agreed.RMP argues that it could have placed Travertine on Schedule 23 as agreed in March and then switched
Travertine back to Schedule 6 sometime before December 2007 per Travertine’s request.Answer at 7.
ORDER NO.32506 2
for more information.Travertine did not call that number,however,but informally complained
to the Commission in November 2011.RMP then switched Travertine to Schedule 23.See
Complaint at
RMP would not,however,refund Travertine the $15,952.31 difference between what
Travertine paid under the Schedule 6 and the lesser amount that Travertine would have paid
under Schedule 23.Accordingly,Staff filed its formal complaint.Staff summarizes its position
as follows:
Rocky Mountain Power’s tariff includes two general service rate schedules
for commercial customers:Schedule 6 (Large Power)and Schedule 23
(General Service).Neither schedule has specific eligibility criteria related to
demand or energy usage.According to RMP,at the time of initial connection
of a new business building,the Company,in consultation with the customer,
determines the appropriate schedule.
After initial assignment of a rate schedule to a service location,existing and
subsequent customers stay on the same rate schedule until the customer
contacts the Company to change service requirements or question rates.
Customers do not have sufficient expertise or resources to compare
schedules.It may be difficult for customers who are eligible for more than
one rate schedule to conduct a comprehensive billing analysis in order to
determine the least cost rate option.Since Schedules 6 and 23 have no
specific eligibility criteria,there is no way to determine the appropriateness
of a rate schedule assignment without doing such an analysis.
In Mr.Orchard’s case,4 he assumed at the time he signed up for service again
in 2010 that he would be assigned by RMP to the most favorable schedule.
The Company never asked about Idaho Travertine’s planned usage or any
other information that would have allowed for a reasoned selection between
rate schedules.The customer service representative’s passive statement that
“optional rate schedules”were available did not prompt Mr.Orchard to ask
for a rate schedule comparison.
Rocky Mountain Power arbitrarily assigned Mr.Orchard to a rate schedule
without any inquiry into customer usage or assessment of appropriate criteria
to assist the customer in choosing a schedule.Consequently,Staff maintains
that this customer is entitled to a refund of $15,952.31.
RMP deemed Travertine’s informal complaint to be a written request for a schedule change under RMP’s
applicable tariff provisions,which state in pertinent part:“Where optional electric service schedules are available,
the Company,upon request,will assist the Customer in the selection of the .schedule most favorable to him...
A Customer...may elect to be billed on any other applicable ..service ..by notif’ing the Company in writing.”
See Answer at 3-4,
Mr.Orchard owns Travertine.See Complaint at I,Answer at 2.
ORDER NO.32506 3
Commission Staff Reply at 5-6.
RMP’S DEFENSE
RMP defends by arguing that Staff cannot show RMP inappropriately billed
Travertine as described in Rule 203.01.c.RMP also argues that adjusting Travertine’s bills is not
appropriate because RMP falls under Rule 203.02’s “good faith”and “notice”exceptions.
As an initial matter,RMP denies it inappropriately billed Travertine under Rule
203.01.c.See Response at 2.RMP says while Travertine may have assumed RMP would assign
Travertine to “the most favorable rate,”there is no evidence that Travertine actually told RMP
that it expected RMP to assign it to Schedule 23 in 2010.See Answer at 6-7.In fact,RMP states
that “Travertine elected Schedule 6.”Response at 2;Answer at 7.According to RMP,when
Travertine called in April 2010 to transfer service from the existing account holder,RMP
determined that the account was billed under Schedule 6 but that it also could qualify for
Schedule 23.RMP claims that,per a script,its customer service representative told Travertine
that “the default Schedule for this service is based on how much power you use regardless of
when usage occurs,”but that the “service is eligible for optional rate billing based on the time of
day you use your power as well as how much power you use.”RMP says its customer service
representative then asked Travertine:“Would you like more information regarding optional rates
or would you prefer our default billing?”and that Travertine declined to receive the additional
information.See Response at 345 RMP thus disagrees with Staff’s contention that RMP
arbitrarily assigned Travertine to Schedule 6.Rather,Travertine “was assigned to [Schedule 6]
consistent with the customer’s request to ‘transfer’service from a prior account and with its
confirmation of the ‘Default Rate.”Id at 46 RMP says it rationally decided to assign Travertine
RMP does not ask new commercial customers who sign up for existing service locations about specific usage
characteristics before assigning a tariff schedule.Rather,the Company defaults to the prior customer’s schedule.If
RMP observes that the new customer is eligible for both Schedules 6 and 23,RMP recommends that the customer
call back if the customer wants additional scheduling information.However,RMP offers no unsolicited advice
about which schedule would be better for the customer.Staff argues that RMP should be required to provide more
meaningful information to new customers because RMP possesses information that the new customer needs to know
to make an informed choice;namely,the prior customers’usage and billing history.Reply at 4-5.
6 RMP also disagrees with Staff’s contention that “but for an omission by Rocky Mountain Power in failing to
switch Idaho Travertine to the appropriate schedule [in 1997],the succeeding customer ...would have
automatically been assigned to Schedule 23.”RMP notes that Staff has no evidence that the succeeding customer
would have been assigned to Schedule 23,or that the succeeding customer (which,like Travertine would have been
eligible for multiple schedules)did not consciously elect Schedule 6.Id
ORDER NO.32506 4
to Schedule 6 based on the fact that RMP’s set-up process required Travertine to qualify for a
particular schedule and to consent to the “default rate”or the “optional rate.”Id.
RMP also argues that even if it inappropriately billed Travertine within the meaning
of Rule 203,0l.c,the Rule 203.02 “exceptions”to a billing adjustment apply.Rule 203.02
states:
Exceptions.The utility shall not be required to adjust billings [1]when it has
acted in goodfaith based upon available information or [2]when the customer
was given written notice of options under the tariff schedules and did not
make a timely election to exercise available options.[emphasis and bracketed
numbers added].
RMP says the “good faith”exception applies because RMP acted in good faith based upon
Travertine’s verbal assent to be billed on the “Default Rate”when the account in question was
established in April 2010.
RMP says the “written notice”exception applies because RMP gave Travertine at
least three written notices of available schedule options in the seven months after Travertine
established its April 2010 account:(1)on Travertine’s first bill in May 2010;(2)in the new
customer welcome letter sent in May 2010;and (3)on the annual Consumer Information
disclosure mailed in December 2010.Id.(citing Confidential Attachment A,and Attachments B
and C).RMP says that despite these notices,Travertine did not make a “timely”election to
change to an optional account;rather,Travertine delayed 18 months and then informally
complained to the Commission that it should have been placed on Schedule 23.Id.at 4-5.RMP
says its tariff Electric Service Regulation No.3,demonstrates the timeframe for a “timely”
election.The tariff states:
Original Sheet No.3R.1.Electric Service Regulation No.3.
Selection and Changes of Electric Service Schedule:Where optional electric
service schedules are available,the Company,upon request will assist the
Customer in the selection of the electric service schedule most favorable to
him.The recommendation to the Customer will be based on his statement of
the class of service required,the amount and manner of use and other
pertinent information.The Company 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 his\her\its
options.A Customer being billed under one of two or more optional electric
service schedules applicable to his class of service may elect to be billed on
any other applicable electric service schedule by notifying the Company in
ORDER NO.32506 5
writing.The Company will bill the Customer under such elected Schedule
from and after the date of the next meter reading.
Answer at 4.RMP argues that the tariffs statement that “[tjhe Company will bill the Customer
under such elected Schedule from and afier the date of the next meter reading”demonstrates that
a reasonable time for a customer to select a different schedule is one billing period,not the 18
months taken by Travertine.Response at 5.
Lastly,as a “compromise in settlement of the complaint,”RMP offers to add tools on
its website to facilitate any customer making a comparison between Schedule 6 and Schedule 23
based on past use.Id.at 7.The Company would also be willing to include an annual bill
message for customers billed on Schedule 6 to notify them of this tool and remind them the
Company will perform a rate comparison of historical use upon request.However,no
recommended changes would occur until the customer complies with Electric Service Schedule
No.3 by submitting a written request to change and the Company would then implement the new
schedule as of the next billing period.Id.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Idaho Code §61-501 empowers the Commission to supervise and regulate every
utility,including RMP,and to do “all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of’the
Public Utilities Law.Further,under Idaho Code §61-612 the Commission has jurisdiction to
resolve Staffs complaint against RMP.The Commission finds that the parties adequately
presented their positions through written submissions and that a hearing is not required to
consider the issues presented in Staffs complaint.Therefore,the Commission issues its decision
based on the written record,including the materials submitted prior to this matter becoming a
formal complaint.See IDAPA 3 1.01.01.201.
This unfortunate case stems from miscommunication.Nevertheless,based on the
totality of the circumstances,the Commission finds that Travertine reasonably expected that
RMP would place it on Schedule 23,and RMP should have assigned Travertine to Schedule 23,
when Travertine called to reschedule service in 2010.RMP instead assigned Travertine to
Schedule 6,and then billed Travertine an extra $15,952.31 from April 2010 to November 2011
in violation of Customer Relations Rule 203.01.c.We are not persuaded that the Rule 203.02
exceptions apply.Therefore,equity requires that RMP promptly adjust Travertine’s bills and
refund $15,952.31 to Travertine.
ORDER NO.32506 6
Finally,RMP appears to acknowledge that “there may be room for improvements to
the rate schedules and eligibility criteria,”and both Staff and RMP recognize that RMP can
implement changes that will improve its customer communications about rate schedule options.
See Staff’s Reply at 4-5;RMP’s Response at 7 (stating that RMP could (1)augment its website
with tools to facilitate customer rate schedule comparisons based on past use;and (2)notify
customers through annual billing inserts about the new website tools and that RMP will perform
a rate comparison upon request).We believe RMP’s suggestions are good ones,and we hope the
Company has already implemented them.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that RMP shall refund $15,952.31 to Travertine within
thirty (30)days of the date of this Order.
THIS IS A FLNAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by 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 and 62-6 19.
ORDER NO.32506 7
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of April 2012.
ATTEST:
__
MACK A.REDFORD,IONER
jIIJ
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
&—I
Jean D Jewell
Commission Secretary
0:PAC-E-12-0 lkk
ORDER NO.32506 8