20120207Reply.pdf

KRISTINE A. SASSER
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
BAR NO. 6618
RECEIVED
2912 FEB - 7 PH 3: 52
10 HJ 'ì I); n:;¡ ¡r'" rU'i C 1'" ~'~__ i,::/.~~ , -/ .__. _ ',r":
lJTILITIES COMMiSSivN
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )STAFF ) CASE NO. PAC-E-12-01Complainant, )
) COMMISSION STAFF REPLYvs. )
)
PACIFICORP dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER )Respondent. )
COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission, by and through
its Attorney of record, Kristine A. Sasser, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to Rocky
Mountain Power's (RMP) Answer to the Commission Staffs Complaint submitted on
January 31, 2012, in Case No. PAC-E-12-01, submits the following reply.
BACKGROUND
On November 2,2011, Staff spoke with Ted Orchard, owner of Idaho Travertine in Idaho
Falls. Mr. Orchard said he was fairly certain that Rocky Mountain Power (RMP; Company) had
assigned him to the wrong rate schedule - Schedule 6 (General Service - Large Power) - when
he had "taken back" his business on April 14, 2010.1 Sometime after he resumed ownership,
i Mr. Orchard sold his business in March 2008 but resumed ownership in 20 i O. During the period when the
business was owned and operated by another part, electric service was provided to a customer narned Rocky
Mountain Travertine.
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 1 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Mr. Orchard visited RMP's local office, where he was told that no one there could help him
and that he needed to call the Company's 800 number to discuss the rate assignment issue.
Mr. Orchard did not call because at that point contact was initiated with the Commission.
Mr. Orchard indicated to Staff that he did not elect to be on Schedule 6 in April 2010, nor has he
ever opted to be on Schedule 6 as evidenced by an informal complaint he had fied with the
Commission several years ago.
Prior Informal Complaint
In 1997, Mr. Orchard fied an informal complaint with the Commission regarding his rate
schedule assignment. At that time, he was receiving service under Schedule 6. Following
Staffs investigation, it was determined that Schedule 23 (General Service) would provide a more
favorable rate for Idaho Travertine. The Company agreed to switch him to Schedule 23. At that
time, the Commission Staff did not recommend that RMP provide a refund to the customer for
the difference between Schedule 23 and Schedule 6 rates.
Rocky Mountain Power now indicates that its records show that both Idaho Travertine
and Rocky Mountain Travertine were biled under Schedule 6 for as far back as RMP's account
records go (December 1997). Neither the customer nor the Company can provide documentation
to prove whether Idaho Travertine's account was actually changed to Schedule 23 in March of
1997 pursuant to RMP's agreement to resolve the original 1997 complaint. However, Staffhas
determined that as of December 1997, Idaho Travertine was biled under Schedule 6, despite the
fact that it had been determined earlier that year that Schedule 6 was an inappropriate rate
schedule.
Curent Complaint
To resolve the current informal complaint, Staff requested that in accordance with
Customer Relations Rule 203.01(c), Idaho Travertine be moved to Schedule 23 and provided a
refund from the time when service was reestablished in the name of Idaho Travertine (April
2010) to the point at which service was switched to Schedule 23 from Schedule 6 (November
2011), i.e., 18 months. Staffs position is that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the
customer was assigned to an inappropriate rate schedule when he came back on service in 2010.
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 2 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
RMP agreed to move the customer to Schedule 23 but declined to provide the customer
with a refund. According to the Company, RMP's responsibilty is to provide rate information to
its customers and to respond to customer requests for review of rate schedule assignment. RMP
does not monitor customer accounts to determine whether a customer could be assigned to a
different, less expensive rate schedule.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff maintains that Rule 203 of the Utility Customer Relations Rules applies directly to
Idaho Travertine's situation. Rule 203 refers to "biling under an inappropriate tariff schedule".
203. BILLING UNDER INAPPROPRIATE TARIFF SCHEDULE
01. Rebiling Required. If a customer was biled under an inappropriate tariff
schedule, the utility shall recalculate the customer's past bilings and correctly
calculate future bilings based on the appropriate tariff schedule. A customer has
been biled under an inappropriate tariff schedule if:
c. The customer, who is eligible for biling under more than one (l) tariff
schedule, was biled under a schedule contrary to the customer's election, or the
election was based on erroneous information provided by the utilty.
IDAPA 31.21.01.203.01. Staff maintains that this customer is entitled to a refud of
$15,952.31 because Rocky Mountain Power arbitrarily assigned the customer to a rate
schedule on April 14, 2010.
Idaho Travertine is eligible to receive service under two different rate schedules:
Schedules 6 and 23. RMP's Electric Regulation NO.3 states that, "Where optional electric
service schedules are available, the Company, upon request wil assist the Customer in the
selection of the electric service schedule most favorable to him...." Schedules 6 and 23 have no
specific eligibilty requirements. The lack of specific eligibility requirements, such as minimum
and/or maximum energy usage or demand characteristics (as used by other regulated utilities)
means that customers are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to selecting an appropriate
rate schedule. If the customer doesn't know enough about the consequences and is unaware of
what to ask, RMP retains the same rate schedule as the prior customer.
At the time this customer signed up for service in April of 20 1 0, RMP continued Idaho
Travertine on the same schedule (6) as the previous customer at the same service location. A
few simple questions by the Company regarding Idaho Travertine's usage would have led to the
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 3 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
conclusion that Schedule 23 was the appropriate schedule. RMP does not ask new commercial
customers signing up for existing service locations about specific usage characteristics before
assigning a tariff schedule. The Company defaults to the same schedule as that of the prior
customer. If a new customer is eligible for both Schedules 6 and 23, RMP customer service
representatives recommend calling back if more information is wanted regarding rate schedules.
RMP offers no unsolicited advice regarding which schedule would be more appropriate.
Idaho Travertine had previously fied an informal complaint with the Commission in
1997 regarding schedule assignment. At the time that complaint was fied, the customer was
receiving service under Schedule 6. To resolve the complaint, the Company agreed to provide
service prospectively to the customer under Schedule 23. Unfortunately, RMP cannot provide
evidence that Idaho Travertine was actually switched to Schedule 23, despite its stated intention
to do so pursuant to resolution of the customer's complaint.
But for an omission by RMP in failing to switch Idaho Travertine to the appropriate
schedule, the succeeding customer (Rocky Mountain Travertine) would have automatically been
assigned to Schedule 23. There is no reason to assume that Rocky Mountain Travertine would
have proactively elected to be biled under a different, less favorable, schedule. Consequently,
when Mr. Orchard resumed ownership of the business and requested service, he should have
been automatically assigned to Schedule 23. Rocky Mountain Power does not present any
evidence as to why this account would have been biled under any schedule except Schedule 23
from March of 1997 up until the present.
Contrar to representations made by RMP in its Answer, Staff does not expect old
customer records and old informal complaints to be fully researched when the Company is
setting up a new account. However, when a new commercial customer calls to sign up for
electric service, the Company is the party in the best position to analyze what schedule would be
most appropriate for the new customer. The new customer does not have past history for service
to previous customers, nor would the Company provide a prior customer's biling history, due to
privacy concerns. It is Staffs belief that the Company has a greater responsibility to provide
meaningful information to new customers beyond merely telling the new customer there are
optional rates and to call back if more information is wanted. The customer is entitled to helpful
guidance from the Company regarding the selection of an appropriate rate schedule. The
Company has the tools that no one else has, i.e., historical usage and biling history. Ifhistorical
usage had been reviewed by the Company when Mr. Orchard contacted RMP to sign up for
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 4 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
service in April of201O, it would have been obvious to the Company that Schedule 6 was not the
most advantageous rate schedule.
Customers should be provided with the necessar information, up front, to make an
informed decision on a rate selection. RMP should utilze specific criteria when setting up a new
customer account that assesses usage characteristics to assist the customer in determining an
appropriate tariff. Moreover, Staff objects to RMP's analogy that this situation is similar to
choosing a cell phone plan. There is a considerable amount of competition between wireless
telephone companies and the competition keeps rates in check. A customer who is unappy with
his cell phone company can easily find another. RMP customers have no choice for electric
service.
Because of the variability between Schedules 6 and 23 and the severe consequences of
customer ignorance and utility apathy, Staff believes that all RMP customers assigned to
Schedule 6 and Schedule 23 ought to be reviewed annually to verify those customers are
assigned to the appropriate schedule. In 2008, Staff was lead to believe an annual review was
performed by RMP on commercial and industrial customers. In Production Request No. 10 in
Case No. PAC-E-08-07, Staff asked RMP how customer usage was monitored to ensure that the
assigned schedule continued to be appropriate. In response to that production request, RMP
stated:
PacifiCorp evaluates a customer's rate schedule when a change in service
requirements is requested or when other customer-initiated inquiries are
reviewed. In addition, the Company's customer account managers perform
annual reviews of commercial and industrial customers and work with them to
assure they are on the appropriate rate schedule.
Staff asked RMP to provide the results of Idaho Travertine's anual review to see why it
remained on an inappropriate rate schedule after its annual review. RMP admitted that the
Company did not perform an annual review of Idaho Travertine because account managers are
assigned only to certain commercial and industrial customers.
SUMMARY
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 eligibilty criteria related to demand or energy usage. According to RMP,
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 5 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
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 biling analysis in order to determine the least cost rate
option. Since Schedules 6 and 23 have no specific eligibilty criteria, there is no way to
determine the appropriateness of a rate schedule assignment without doing such an analysis.
In Mr. Orchard's case, 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 planed 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.
1-rflRespectfully submitted this - day of February 2012.
cl,;,~jl. ~/AKils me A. Sasser ---
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff: Marilyn Parker
i:umisc:commentslpace 12.1 ksmp reply comments to complaint
COMMISSION STAFF REPLY 6 FEBRUARY 7, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012,
SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMISSION STAFF REPLY, IN CASE NO.
PAC-E-12-01, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
TED WESTON
ID REGULATORY AFFAIRS MGR
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
E-MAIL: ted.weston~pacificorp.com
DANIEL E SOLANDER
BARBARA ISHIMATSU
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S MAIN ST STE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
E-MAIL: daniel.solander~pacificorp.com
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
E-MAIL ONLY:
datareguest~pacificorp.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE