20020715_192.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:CO MMISSI 0 NER KJELLAND ER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
BILL EASTLAKE
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
TONY A CLARK
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
TERRI CARLOCK
CAROL COOPER
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:JOHN R. HAMMOND
DATE:JULY 11, 2002
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF RALPH STUART. CASE NO. IPC-02-
On April 17, 2002, the Commission received a formal complaint from Ralph Stuart
against Idaho Power Company. Stuart's complaint raised issues regarding recalculated billings Idaho
Power made and issued to him for his residential electric service. On May 10, 2002, the
Commission issued a Summons and Complaint to Idaho Power requiring the Company to file a
written answer or motion in response to the allegations raised in Stuart's Complaint within 21 days.
Idaho Power filed its answer and exhibits on May 31 2002. Mr. Stuart filed a reply on June 5, 2002.
BACKGROUND
This case results from a malfunctioning Idaho Power owned meter located on Mr. Stuart'
property.
On February 25, 2002, Idaho Power contends that one of its meter specialists took a
reading of the meter at Stuart's residence and noted that a low amount of electricity had been
consumed. Because of this low consumption the specialist reported the meter appeared to be
malfunctioning to Idaho Power s billing department. On March 1 , 2002, the Company had a service
DECISION MEMORANDUM
and repair technician inspect the meter. He observed that the meter s dial continued to rotate.
Accordingly, it was not replaced and a work order was noted that the meter was advancing.
According to Idaho Power, based on meter readings, Stuart had been billed $85.47 and
$13.49 respectively for electric service in January and February 2002. However, upon notification
that there might be a malfunctioning meter at the Stuart residence the Company researched the
historical consumption of energy at this location for January and February and discovered that the
2002 billings for these months were significantly lower than those for 2001. Idaho Power records
showed that the Stuart residence consumed 5 405-kilowatt hours ("kWh") in January 2001 and 7 194
kWh in February 2001 for an average of 6 299 kWh per month. Based on this past usage Idaho
Power cancelled the January and February 2002 billings and recalculated them based on historical
usage. Idaho Power contends that it sent Mr. Stuart notice ofthis change in billings and the reason
for it. The Company also claims that it sent Mr. Stuart new bills and charged him for the use of
500 kWh at a cost of$501.10 for January 2002 and 6 000 kWh at a cost of$456.95 for February
2002. This total averaged 6 250 kWh per month, similar to the 6 299 kWh per month averaged over
the same months in the prior year. On or around March 10, 2002, Idaho Power contends that Mr.
Stuart called the Company and was advised about the cancellation and recalculation of his bills. At
this time an Idaho Power customer service representative also told Stuart incorrectly that the meter
his residence had been replaced. Idaho Power also contends that at this time Mr. Stuart requested
copies of his usage for the months of January and February 2001. The Company claims that it
mailed this to him on March 13 2002.
On April 3 , 2002, Mr. Stuart sent an e-mail to Idaho Power alleging that he was being
billed arbitrarily for electric service because the meter on his property was not functioning properly.
Stuart requested that he be billed only for those amounts actually recorded by the meter. Stuart also
stated that the malfunctioning meter on his property was not replaced as he was originally advised
the Company. This information was also sent to the Commission.
On April 4, 2002, Brent Lulloff, a delivery services leader at the Idaho Power Customer
Service Center, responded to Mr. Stuart bye-mail and described the process used by the Company to
determine electrical usage in circumstances in which an electrical meter malfunctioned. He also
advised Stuart that the electrical meter at his residence should have been replaced on March 1, when
in fact it was not. Mr. Lulloff told Stuart that he had placed a new order to replace the
DECISION MEMORANDUM
malfunctioning meter. On behalf ofIdaho Power, Mr. Lulloff also offered to resolve this matter by
charging Mr. Stuart for: 1) the historical usage of power for the months of January and February
2002 as noted in the reissued billings; 2) an estimated usage of2 000 kWh for the month of March
when his actual usage for the year 2001 was 5 277 kWh hours; and 3) an amount for April based
upon the usage reflected by the malfunctioning meter and the usage shown by the new meter
following installation. Idaho Power represented that the amounts billed for the last two months
would benefit Stuart because they essentially would be lower than the historical usage for those
months and insulate him from any potential over-estimates in the months of January and February.
In this communication Lullof also included a summary of Stuart's kWh usage for the previous 18
months. The Company contends that based upon historical usage, Lulloff s proposal represented an
18% reduction over the previous year s consumption for the same period of time. The Company
replaced Mr. Stuart's meter on April 4, 2002.
On April 5 , 2002, Stuart responded to Idaho Power and agreed with its proposal for the
billings for March and April but rej ected the Company s proposal for the billing amounts for January
and February. Alternatively, Stuart proposed that he only be billed 2 000 kWh each for January and
February 2002. On April 8, 2002, Mr. Stuart rescinded his proposal of April 5 , 2002 and stated that
he should only be responsible for paying the actual kWh hours shown as consumed by the meter at
his residence. Stuart stated that he would pay Idaho Power $13.49 for the energy consumed in
February and $8.63 for energy consumed in the month of March. He also requested a credit of
$434.83 based upon amounts he previously paid to Idaho Power due to the rebillings. Stuart also
complained in an e-mail to the Commission that Idaho Power had inappropriately contacted his wife
regarding this matter who is not on his account with Idaho Power. Stuart contends that this action by
the Company violated "account confidentiality"
FORMAL COMPLAINT
On April 17, 2002, Stuart filed his formal complaint with the Commission raising the
following issues: 1) after his first inquiry about the unexplained February rebilling, why did the
Company fail to offer an explanation for it; 2) after not contacting him, why did the Company
contact his wife who was not listed on his account with Idaho Power; 3) why did the Company not
notify him that the meter on his property was replaced; 4) why did the Company not inform him of
his rights under Commission Utility Customer Relations Rule 204 that he had the option to repay the
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Company over an extended period of time; and 5) that Utility Customer Relations Rule 204 is
ambiguous and open to liberal interpretation regarding the right to rebill.
As relief Stuart requests that the Commission order Idaho Power to only bill him for the
actual amounts of power consumed as shown by the meter in place on his property during January,
February and March.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY ANSWER
In general, except as specifically admitted by the Company, Idaho Power denies all the
material allegations in Mr. Stuart's formal complaint and his April 3 , 2002 filing to the Commission.
The Company denies that on March 11 , 2002, its customer service representative failed to
offer Mr. Stuart an explanation why he was being rebilled for electrical services in the months of
January and February 2002. The Company further denies that it did not timely respond to Mr.
Stuart's complaint. However, the Company admits that its personnel incorrectly advised Mr. Stuart
that the electric meter serving his residence had been replaced on March 1 , 2002.
The Company also denies that it violated any confidence by contacting Mr. Stuart's wife
regarding the allegations raised by his complaint.
Idaho Power states that because it owns and maintains the meter at Mr. Stuart's residence
the Company is not required to notify him that the meter was replaced.
In regard to the Commission s Customer Relations Rule 204., the Company argues that
Mr. Stuart did not indicate that he was unable to pay for the underbilled services in full. Rather he
objected to the payment of any bill that included energy costs beyond those shown on his
malfunctioning meter. However, the Company states that it has no objection to permitting Mr. Stuart
a reasonable amount of additional time to make payments on the recalculated bills for electrical
services for the months of January and February 2002. The Company is also agreeable to making
similar arrangements for the months of March and April 2002.
Based on the foregoing, Idaho Power requests that Mr. Stuart's complaint be dismissed
and that pursuant to Customer Service Rule 204 he be ordered to pay the Company for the following
amounts of electrical service received:
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
500 kWh
000 kWh
000 kWh
DECISION MEMORANDUM
April 2002 Readings as shown by former meter for March 28 -
April 4 and from April 5 to April 24 by the new
meter.
STUART'S REPLY
Mr. Stuart argues that he should not pay for electrical service based on the recalculated
bills. Rather he contends that because Idaho Power failed to replace the meter it waived the right to
rebill and he should only pay based on the amounts the malfunctioning meter recorded. Stuart also
contends that he did not receive notice advising him that the bills he received for January and
February had been cancelled and rebilled. Stuart also denies that he discussed the February billings
with an Idaho Power customer service representative. Stuart again complains that Idaho Power
should not have contacted his wife regarding his complaint. Finally, Stuart also states that the
Customer Relations Rules state that customers shall be given the opportunity to repay underbilled
amounts over a period of time.
COMMISSION STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
After investigating Mr. Stuart's complaint Staff offers its analysis and recommendations.
1. Company Responsiveness.
The Staff believes that Idaho Power responded in a timely fashion to Mr. Stuart'
inquiries and allegations. Although Mr. Stuart argues that Idaho Power did not advise him of certain
issues it is equally clear that the Company attempted to respond accurately and quickly to his
inquiries. Finally, although the Company failed to replace the malfunctioning meter on his property
in a timely fashion it did take steps to correct the problem as demonstrated by Brent Lulloffs
communication with Mr. Stuart. The Company apologized for not replacing the meter quickly and
made a proposal for settlement recognizing this problem. Accordingly, Staff believes that Mr.
Stuart's allegations regarding the Company s responsiveness to his inquiries are unfounded.
2. Account Confidentiality.
Stuart alleges that Idaho Power violated "account confidentiality" because it discussed his
complaint with his spouse even though she is not on his account. Although Staff believes that the
Company should exercise discretion and caution when contacting individuals other than an account
holder about that person s service, Mr. Stuart's allegation in this matter is not actionable. The
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Commission has no rules or requirements barring the communication Idaho Power had with Mr.
Stuart's spouse. Therefore, Staff believes this allegation is without merit in this forum.
3. Notification of Meter Replacement.
The Commission has no rules or requirements that customers be notified of Company
owned meters being replaced. In Staff's experience the Company does not typically notify customers
of meter replacements. Accordingly, Staff believes this allegation is without merit.
4. Recalculated Billings.
Staffhas reviewed and considered the record regarding this issue together with applicable
legal authorities.! Based on the record in this case, Staff believes that Idaho Power s recalculation
and rebilling of Mr. Stuart's energy usage comports with standard Company practice and is in
compliance with the Commission s Customer Relations Rule 204.
Rule 204.
, "
Errors in Preparation - Malfunctions - Failure to Bill" provides in
pertinent part:
Whenever the billing for utility service was not accurately determined because a
meter malfunctioned or failed, bills were estimated, or bills were inaccurately
prepared, the utility shall prepare a corrected bill.
IDAPA 31.21.01.204.01 (emphasis added).
The parties in this case agree that the meter at Mr. Stuart's residence malfunctioned
during the months of January, February, March and the first few days of April. Thus, the Company
was obligated to prepare a corrected bill. Section 204.02 "Corrections" of this Rule provides in
pertinent part:
If the time when the malfunction or error or failure to bill . . . can be reasonably
determined, the corrected billings shall go back to that time, but not to exceed the
time provided by Section 61-642, Idaho Code, (three years).
IDAPA 31.21.01.204.02.
In this case the period time during which the meter malfunctioned is reasonably known to
be January, February, March and the first days of April 2002 based on comparison of electrical
service consumption between 2001 and 2002. Although Stuart's energy usage may have decreased
due to changes in the amount of individuals residing at his residence in 2002 it is clear to Staffthat
Idaho Code ~ 61-642 and Utility Customer Relations Rules 204 and 313.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
this could not have accounted entirely for the large difference in energy usage between the months in
question in 2002 and 2001.
Based on the Company s right to rebill the customer in this situation Idaho Power created
new billings for Mr. Stuart based on his historical usage from 2001. Idaho Power proposes to charge
Stuart for the use of 6 500 kWh for January 2002, 6 000 kWh for February 2002 000 kWh for
March and a prorated amount for April. Staff believes that recalculating Mr. Stuart's bills in this
fashion is reasonable as it took the best possible information in the Company s hands to reach the
proposed rebilled amounts. In Staff s knowledge this is consistent with past Company practices in
similar cases. Furthermore, Idaho Power s proposal represents approximately an 18% discount from
his usage during the same months of2001. Staff believes this reduction adequately compensates
Stuart for Idaho Power s failure to timely replace the malfunctioning meter and the possibility that
the power consumption at his residence during 2002 was reduced due to changes in family living
arrangements. Accordingly, Staff believes that Idaho Power s proposal represents a reasonable
resolution of this issue.
5. Notification of Consumer Rights.
Utility Customer Relations Rule 204.03 provides that customers who have been
underbilled shall be given the opportunity to make payment arrangements over the telephone, by
mail, or in person under Rule 313 on the amount due. At the customer s option, the term of the
payment arrangement may extend for the length of time (roughly three to four months) that the
customer was underbilled. IDAP A 31.21.01.204.03. Mr. Stuart contends that the Company did not
offer him this option to repay rebilled amounts.
Staff believes that should the Commission require Mr. Stuart to pay for electric usage
based on the proposal made by Idaho Power he should be given additional time to pay these
corrected billings if he needs it. Finally, Idaho Power has no objections to permitting Mr. Stuart a
reasonable amount of additional time in which to make payments for rebilled amounts for electrical
services for the months of January through April 2002.
6. Conclusion
In this case no party has requested a hearing and Staff believes the record is sufficient
based on the written submissions made by the participants for the Commission to rule on this matter
DECISION MEMORANDUM
at this time. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission should rule on this complaint
based on the record currently before it.
Based on the record in this case Staff makes the following recommendations:
1. Dismiss Mr. Stuart's complaint with prejudice.
2. Accept Idaho Power s proposal to rebill Stuart for electrical service based on
the amounts it presented in its answer.
3. Allow Mr. Stuart a period of at least four months to repay Idaho Power for
rebilled/underbilled amounts.
CO MMISSI 0 N D ECISI 0 N
Does the Commission wish to resolve this complaint without a hearing and based on the
written record currently before it? If not, by what procedure does the Commission wish use to
resolve this case?
Does the Commission wish to adopt Staffs remaining recommendations for resolving
this case? Ifnot, how does the Commission wish to resolve this case?
bt~
John R. Hammond
Staff: Carol Cooper
M:IPCEO205jh
DECISION MEMORANDUM