The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070521Complaint.pdfFtECE.\ ,i' . - '~ " 2: i1LliJJ !\Pj'\ \ b t~ n April 13 , 2007 ,UTjL ~\~~ ~\:~jix;~~S iO:. Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Street Boise, rd. 83702 =:LN(- &- 07- 01 RE: Fonnal Complaint against Intermountain Gas Company Dear Commissioners Upon receipt of the February 2007 payment statement, my mother called Intermountain Gas Company to inquire about the current charge of $157. 78, which was much higherthan it had been iTom the previous month. She was told that there was an outstatlding bill in the amount of$496.76 (which was not listed on the February billing) and-ihata letter would be sent explaining the reason and charges. Heindicatedthattheywouldestimate the monthly charges to compensate for a malfunctioning meter. In mid January someone iTom Intennountain Gas Company came and rePlaced the gas meter statirigthatit was malfunctioning. We received the letter approrimately February 1ih to 14th (see enclosed copies). February 14th I contacted the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and Tammie Estberg called me back. I wanted to know if Intermountain Gas Company could actually retroactively bill for a malfunctioning meter. Tammie Estberg told me she would investigate and get back to me. When Tammie Estberg called back she indicated that the Company is allowed to correct billing errors. However, everything should be done in a timely period. Their failure to react quickly irresponsible and unacceptable. Its incomprehensive to allow anyone 12 months, notonly to discover a malfunction, but then to be able to estimate and bill for it. How is itpossible for them to know if the home was occupied every single day of every month andhow much they used the furnace during that entire 12 month period. Instead they used t1;1e same Therm calculations iTom the previous year and heating degree data :(seeclosed copies)- To further complicate the whole issue, now it seems that Intermountain Gas Company did not have a malfunctioning meter but .instead it was broken wrigglers when the CT metering software was installed on the meters (see enclosed copies)- Therefore, I submit that the CT metering software company should absorb the cost since they provided faulty equipment and Intermountain Gas Company should collect the disputed bill from them. The responsibility needs to be assumed by the above two parties and not the consumer who can only trust that they are being billed with accurateequipment and timely maintenance. Sincerely, I;i A- L.L' /. TessaLese ;~"""'-- For Ralph W. Leseberg Wanda H. Leseberg 111 E. 2nd North St. Anthony, Id 83445