20061031reconsideration_order_no_30162.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 31 , 2006
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JANE ROBINSON,
CASE NO. INT-06-
COMPLAINANT,
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY,ORDER NO. 30162
RESPONDENT.
On September 21 , 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 30130 dismissing a
formal complaint filed by Jane Robinson against Intermountain Gas Company. Ms. Robinson
disputed the metered amount of natural gas consumed at her Boise residence during the 2005-
2006 winter heating season. On October 12, 2006, Ms. Robinson filed a Petition for
Reconsideration and requested that the Commission withdraw its Order No. 30120. After
reviewing the Petition and the evidentiary record, the Commission issues this Order.
BACKGROUND
A. The Complaint
Last winter Ms. Robinson decided to heat her home with firewood to avoid large
heating bills from Intermountain Gas Company. She purchased four cords of wood for $565 and
burned wood to heat her home everyday from November 15 , 2005 through the first week of
March 2006. Order No. 30130 at 1. She stated that she burned her wood in an efficient
freestanding fireplace and only used her natural gas furnace approximately 40 minutes each
mornIng. Petition at 7. She also has a natural gas-fired water heater.
After receiving her January 2006 gas bill, she disputed the metered amount of
consumed gas shown on that bill and on previous months' bills. She claimed she could not have
consumed the reported amount of natural gas while she was heating her home with wood. Order
No. 30130 at 2. She subsequently alleged in her formal complaint that Intermountain Gas had
routinely over-billed her for natural gas since 2000. Id. at 3.
On March 8, 2006, Intermountain Gas technicians removed her gas meter and
replaced it with a new meter. A Company technician also performed a "diagnostic inspection
on her furnace and water heater and determined they were in "good working condition.Id.
ORDER NO. 30162
Intermountain Gas subsequently tested the old meter and it was found to be accurate. The new
meter was also tested before it was installed and it too was shown to be accurate. Answer at 1;
Order No. 30130 at 2.
B. The Commission s Prior Order
In Order No. 30130 the Commission dismissed the complaint for three reasons.
First, the Commission found that there was substantial and competent evidence that the old meter
accurately reported the amounts of natural gas consumed at Ms. Robinson s Boise residence.
The Commission noted that its Gas Rule 154 provides that all natural gas meters shall be no
more than two (2) percent slow and not more than one (1) percent fast" IDAPA
31.31.01.154.01. Intermountain Gas reported and the Company found that the old meter tested
accurately to within 0.6%. Order No. 30130 at 4; IGC Exhibit 4. Second, the Commission also
found that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the new meter was inaccurate. Id.
at 4-5. Almost half ofthe alleged arrearage arose after March 8. Answer at 2.
Finally, the Commission was not persuaded by Ms. Robinson s claims that
Intermountain Gas had engaged in a pattern of over-billing from 2000 to 2006. She pointed to
several examples of "excessive billings" by comparing the amounts of natural gas consumed
during a particular month over several years, e., the month of November for the years 2000 to
2006. Order No. 30130 at 5. However, the Commission found that the amounts of monthly
usage corresponded to higher consumption during colder months. Id. at 5-6. Although the
Commission found that Ms. Robinson had purchased the firewood and was able to lower her
consumption of natural gas this past winter, she did not adequately demonstrate that either the
old or new meters were inaccurate. Order No. 30130 at 6; IGC Exhibit 3. Consequently, the
Commission found that no billing adjustment was warranted and the complaint should be
dismissed. Id. at 6.
THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ms. Robinson urges the Commission to reconsider and withdraw its Order No. 30130
for two reasons. First, she claims that the Commission "ignored" her plain proof that she burned
four cords of firewood to heat her home last winter. Petition at 2. She asserts that using her
furnace "at most 42 minutes" per day and her water heater would not equate to the monthly
consumption readings reported by Intermountain Gas. Id. at 7. Second, she claims that the gas
Company has charged her for replacing her gas meter. Id. at 4. She concludes that the
ORDER NO. 30162
Commission should order Intermountain Gas to give her "credit for heating with wood, not gas.
Id.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a party to bring to the Commission
attention any issue previously determined and provides the Commission with an opportunity to
rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Company v. Kootenai Environmental
Alliance 99 Idaho 875 , 591 P.2d 122 (1979). In those instances where an aggrieved party asks
the Commission to reconsider its decision based upon the record, the Commission may simply
do so. In this instance, Ms. Robinson has not introduced any additional evidence but has
requested the Commission to reconsider its decision based upon the record. IDAP A
31.01.01.331.
We turn first to Ms. Robinson s allegation that the Commission ignored the evidence
that she purchased four cords of firewood. To the contrary, the Commission did not disregard
the fact that she had purchased and burned four cords of wood. The Commission specifically
found that she was able to lower her consumption of natural gas by burning firewood. Order No.
30130 at 6; IGC Exhibit 3. More to the point, Ms. Robinson asks the Commission to conclude
that because she burned four cords of wood, her consumption of natural gas must have been
substantially less than the amount billed by the Company.Conversely, Intermountain Gas
argues that while her gas consumption was reduced (even with last winter being colder than the
three prior winters), the old and new meters accurately measured her gas consumption.
As the finder of fact, the Commission need not weigh and balance the evidence
presented to it, but it is free to accept certain evidence and decline other evidence. Hulet
Idaho PUC 138 Idaho 476, 479, 65 P.3d 498, 501 (2003); Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
v. Idaho PUC 134 Idaho 285, 293, 1 P.3d 786, 794 (2000). Here we decline to draw the
inference urged by Ms. Robinson and find the meter evidence more convincing. The
Commission affirms our prior finding in Order No. 30130 that there was substantial and
competent evidence that the old meter accurately reflected Ms. Robinson s gas consumption.
We also affirm our finding that Ms. Robinson presented no evidence showing that
the monthly readings of the new meter were inaccurate. Her formal complaint only states that
she burned wood up to "the first week of March, 2006" and acknowledged using gas every day.
Complaint at 4; Order No. 30130 at 1. Intermountain Gas stated it tested the new meter before it
ORDER NO. 30162
was installed and it too was accurate. Answer at 1; Order No. 30130 at 6. We conclude that Ms.
Robinson failed to carry the burden of demonstrating that the new meter was inaccurate or that
she did not consume the amount of gas billed after the new meter was installed.
Ms. Robinson next contends that she was charged for the replacement of her old
meter. She did not provide any specific evidence to support her contention or point to such
evidence in the record. When the Commission previously examined this assertion, the
Commission stated that "(w)e see no evidence of such a charge in the billing materials submitted
by either party.Order No. 30130 at 4 n. 2. Moreover, our examination of the Company
tariffs does not reveal that we have authorized any charge for removing or replacing a meter.
Idaho Code ~ 61-313 prohibits any public utility from assessing a charge for any service other
than the rate specified in its tariffs on file and approved by the Commission. Because there is no
tariffed rate for removing a meter, Intermountain Gas may not assess a customer for replacing a
meter.
Based upon our review of the Petition for Reconsideration and the record, we affirm
the findings contained in our prior Order No. 30130.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION.Any party
aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.
INT -06-2 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and
the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code ~ 61-627.
ORDER NO. 30162
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 1-1 sf'
day of October 2006.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~tD
D. Jew~ll
Commission Secretary
bls/O:INT-06-02 dh3
ORDER NO. 30162