20160517final_order_no_33524.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 17,2016
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ERIC CONRAD,)
)CASE NO.INT-G-16-O1
COMPLAINANT,)
)
v.)
)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY,)ORDER NO.33524
)
RESPONDENT.)
In December 2015,Eric Conrad filed a “formal”complaint with the Commission
against Intermountain Gas Company (IGC).During the process of building a new home near
Idaho Falls,IGC required Mr.Conrad to install a meter protection structure at his own expense
before the utility would “set”the meter and provide natural gas service to his new residence.
The initial structure built by Mr.Conrad was unsatisfactory to IGC and he had to install another
protection structure.
On February 1,2016,the Commission issued a Summons to Intermountain Gas
requiring the utility to file a response to the complaint.The Summons also directed
Intermountain Gas to address specific areas of inquiry (set out below).On February 19,2016,
the Company filed its Answer.On February 25,Commission Staff filed a Motion requesting
permission to file comments in response to IGC’s answer and to adopt a new schedule to process
this case.The Commission granted the Motion at its Decision Meeting.In accordance with the
schedule,Staff filed comments on March 7,and the Company filed a response to Staff’s
comments on March 21,2016.Mr.Conrad did not file a reply.As set out in greater detail
below,the Commission grants in part and denies in part the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
A.The Underlying Complaint
In November 2015,Mr.Conrad was in the process of building a new home.His
contractor had installed gas lines in the home and predetermined a location for the gas meter to
be installed on the exterior of the residence.When IGC came to install a gas meter and connect
service,the Company allegedly determined that the roof eaves were too narrow to adequately
protect the gas meter from snow loads and additional protection would be required prior to
ORDER NO.33524 1
installing the meter.Mr.Conrad then built a freestanding wooden structure that was intended to
cover and enclose the meter.According to his complaint,TGC stated that the wooden structure
was inadequate because it was not permanently affixed to the residence and was not approved to
meet snow load criteria by an engineer.
Mr.Conrad maintained that when he subsequently contacted IGC to obtain technical
specifications for building an acceptable protective device to accommodate the snow load,the
Company provided him with photographs of protective measures and an April 2012 form letter
that purportedly had been sent to builders and architects at that time.Mr.Conrad claimed that
none of the materials provided by IGC had any technical specifications about what constitutes an
adequate structure to protect a gas meter from snow load.
On November 13,2015,Mr.Conrad filed an informal complaint with Commission
Staff.Mr.Conrad complained to Staff that he had surveyed the area around Rexburg and noted a
number of homes built in 2015 that did not have meter protection structures in place.He
requested that the Commission review IGC’s inconsistent practices of requiring roofs or other
structures to protect gas meters and the Company’s failure to provide any publicly available
information to owners and builders about acceptable meter protection structures.He also sought
reimbursement for expenses.In particular,he wanted to be reimbursed:(1)$220 for the
protective structure and $150 in labor to install the protective structure;and (2)$1,010.82 in
construction loan interest for the delay in completing the interior parts of his house because it
was unheated.
Staff assisted Mr.Conrad in obtaining information about meter protection structures
but took no position on his reimbursement request.Mr.Conrad was unsatisfied with the
outcome of the Staffs efforts to informally resolve his complaint against IGC and he
subsequently pursued his remedy to file a formal”complaint.Rules 23 and 24,IDAPA
3 1.01.01.023 and .024.
THE THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY
In the Summons,the Commission directed that the Company answer three specific
areas of inquiry:
1.Address what written material is available and distributed to customers
regarding meter protection structures in areas of heavy or deep snow.
ORDER NO.33524 2
2.Describe how Intermountain Gas disseminates information about meter
protection requirements to employees,customers,builders,contractors,
and others.
3.Explain what the text from the IGC Procedures Manual (Riser and Meter
Set Locations)91 6(f))means when it states “IGC will provide protection
for meter sets when required.”
Summons (Feb.1,2016).’
In its Answer,Intermountain Gas generally stated that it is committed to safety and
specifically “the need to keep snow and ice from compromising gas meters.”Answer at 2.In its
comments,Staff shared IGC’s concerns about the protection and safety of gas meters and risers.
Staff Comments at 2.However,Staff recommended that the Company make its safety-related
materials more detailed about specifications,improve the distribution of the revised materials,
and ensure that Company representatives are aware of the improved safety materials.The
Company and Staff comments regarding the three areas of inquiry are set out in greater detail
below.
A.Written Materials Regarding Meter Locations and Protection Structures
1.IGC Answer.The Company stated that it gives new customers a two-sided bill
stuffer when “the customer relationship is established with the Company”about the need to
protect meters from ice and snow.Answer at 2.This mailer is also distributed once per year in
the January billing cycle to all customers.The Company also provides a “meter protection”
letter to builders in its service area.The letter advises builders to place meters under the gable
roof/eaves to protect the meter from rain or snow accumulations.The letter states that the
Company will not place a meter in an unsafe or unprotected location.The builders’letter does
say that meters cannot be placed “under roof valleys or eaves where run-off from rain or snow
may affect the meter.”
2.Staff Comments.After reviewing IGC’s written materials,Staff determined that
the materials lack specific criteria that can be used to objectively determine when meter
protection is necessary,and do not contain sufficient technical specifications for meter protection
structures.Staff Comments at 2.Staff believed that such criteria and technical specifications do
exist and provided examples from Puget Sound Energy,Wisconsin Public Service,and Enbridge
In the Summons,the Commission directed the Company to address four areas of inquiry.In this Order the
Commission has consolidated the four areas into three inquiries.
ORDER NO.33524 3
Gas Distribution.Id.at 3.Staff noted the technical specifications provided by these three
entities is publicly available on their websites and describes each company’s requirements and
specifications for placing and protecting meters in areas with snow load.Id.
Staff also commented that the codes referenced by IGC (the International Fuel Gas
Code (IFGC)and 49 C.F.R.Part 192)do not “provide any substantive information pertaining to
the technical specifications for protecting a meter from weather-related events.”Comments at 3.
For example,C.F.R.Section 192.353(a)simply provides that “Each meter and service regulator,
whether inside or outside a building,must be installed in a readily accessible location and be
protected from corrosion and other damage,including,if installed outside a building,vehicular
damage that may be anticipated.”In addition,Section 401 .1 of the IFGC simply states that
“Pressure regulators shall be protected from physical damage.”Id.
Staff also maintained that the information provided by the Company to customers,
contractors,and builders is inadequate.The letter sent to Mr.Conrad consisted of “an outdated
generic form letter that was not personalized,did not address any potential hazards specific to his
property,and did not provide technical specifications regarding acceptable meter protection
devices.”Staff Comments at 3-4.
3.IGC Reply.In its response to Staff’s comments,Intermountain Gas agreed to
implement Staff’s recommendations to draft more specific criteria for locating meters and
technical specifications for meter protection structures and meter covers.Response at 2.The
Company agreed to place this information on its web site to be available to the public,as well as
in printed materials to be distributed to customers,builders,contractors,and others.Id.at 2.
Commission Findings:The Commission is an agency of limited jurisdiction and
may only exercise that authority delegated to it by the Legislature.Washington Water Power v.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,591 P.2d 122 (1979).Once the Commission’s
jurisdiction is clear,then it may exercise all power necessary to effectuate its purpose.Id.The
Commission also has authority to require utilities to comply with safety standards.Idaho Code §
61-515.At the outset,we find that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear and decide parts of
this complaint pursuant to Idaho Code §61-503,61-507,61-515,and 61-612.We further find
that the record has been sufficiently developed for us to resolve this complaint.
Given the agreement among the parties,it is reasonable to direct Intermountain Gas to
work with Staff to draft more specific criteria regarding the placement and protection of meters
ORDER NO.33524 4
and other facilities.Developing specific safety criteria and publishing information will protect
customers,utility employees,and the public.We find that the Company did not have sufficient
meter protection criteria and other information readily available on its web site.We also expect
the Company to revise the builders’letter to cross-reference the new information to be made
available on the Company’s web site and in other written materials.
B.Disseminating the Information and Employee Training
1.IGC Answer.IGC stated it utilizes individual communications to address the
requirements for meter protection with customers and/or builders.Answer at 4.The Company
indicated there is not a “one size fits all”safety solution.The Company’s customer
representatives provide personalized communication to customers on the proper placement of
meters.If “the customer or builder insists on locating the meter in an unprotected location,IGC
then advises the customer or builder to provide an engineered snow shield over the meter
location as noted in the IGC Procedures Manual 4017 subparagraph D,item 2 (‘an engineered
structure that allows adequate ventilation and is designed to meet the potential snow load can be
used to protect the meter’).”Answer at 5.The protection structure must be in place prior to
service being activated.Id.
IGC concluded that builders working in high snow load areas should be aware of the
requirements for meter protection,while “[bjuilders and owners who don’t often build in areas of
snow should take the necessary steps to identify the unique building standards for these areas.”
Id.at 4-5.The Company does send out an annual letter to contractors who have built homes in
the previous year.The Company noted that Mr.Conrad’s builder (J.B.Kay Construction)“was
not a builder of record for IGC....“Id.at 6.Consequently,J.B.Kay did not receive IGC’s
annual builders’letter.IGC said that it also employs advertising to communicate the importance
of protecting natural gas meters.Id.at 5.
The Company also maintained that its consumer sales representatives,operation
assistants and engineering associates are all trained on the topic of meter protection and location
requirements during their initial employment with the Company.Answer at 6.The Company
also agreed to review its training procedures to remove any inconsistency between its training
materials and the Procedures Manual.
2.Staff Comments.Staff commented that the Company’s reliance on sending
builders seasonal letters is insufficient because it does not account for builders who have low
ORDER NO.33524 5
construction volume,did not build in the prior year,or do not build structures requiring natural
gas service.Comments at 4.Staff recommended that the Company reach out each year to
builders and contractors within its service territory and dispense the safety protection criteria.
Staff also indicated that IGC’s reliance upon its Procedures Manual is misplaced
because the manual is an in-house document and not currently available to the general public.
Staff identified several utilities (Duke Energy,PG&E,Madison Gas &Electric,Puget Sound
Energy)that publish their service requirements and safety guidelines on their web site in a PDF
format.Id.Staff recommended that after the Company establishes its criteria and technical
specifications,such information be placed on the Company’s web site in addition to producing
brochures,flyers,booklets,etc.for distribution to customers,builders and others upon request.
Id.
Staff also opined that the employee training was not consistent with IGC’s Procedures
Manual.Staff recommended the Company reconcile the inconsistencies between its Procedures
Manual and its employee training.Staff Comments at 5.
Commission Findings:As noted above,the Company and Staff have agreed to work
together to devise the necessary information and to make sure that the information is readily
available to the public,customers,and builders.In particular,the information shall be placed on
the Company’s web site and the Company shall advise all of its service representatives on the
location of this new information in order to improve customer service.
C.Explain when IGC Provides Meter Protection
In the Summons,Intermountain Gas was directed to explain the language in its
Procedures Manual that states “IGC will provide protection for meter sets when required.”The
Company asserted this language is used as “a guideline when determining the safe location of a
service line,meter set,riser or routes for service lines.This [text]should be viewed as a whole
and ...not selectively quoted and taken out of context.”Answer at 6.Intermountain Gas
further explained that the language “when required”
is contextual,not literal.IGC will provide,on its own behalf and at its own
cost,meter protection to older existing services when the risk for damage to
the meter by non-weather related actions becomes a concern,or if such non
weather related damage has already taken place.By way of example,IGC can
provide protection from vehicle intrusions or provide fencing when a meter
needs isolation from pedestrian traffic.
ORDER NO.33524 6
Answer at 7 (emphasis added).Intermountain Gas did agree with Mr.Conrad that this language
can be revised to more delineate the conditions under which meter protection and meter covers
will be provided by the Company without charge.Id.at 3.Finally,the Company agreed to
review and if necessary take steps to ensure consistent application of the Company’s meter
protection criteria across its service territory.Id.
Staff recommended the Company revise its Procedures Manual to clarify the
conditions under which meter protection will be provided by the Company without charge.Staff
Comments at 4-5.
Commission Findings:Based upon our review of the language contained in the
Company’s Procedures Manual,we agree with Staff and Mr.Conrad that this language is
ambiguous.As is the case with the standards and criteria for meter placement and protection,we
direct the Company to revise this language to more clearly indicate the circumstances of when
the Company will provide meter protection to existing meters.
REIMBURSEMENT
Turning to the issue of reimbursement,JGC agreed to reimburse Mr.Conrad for the
cost of his meter protection ($220)and the labor to install the structure ($150),provided Mr.
Conrad provides IGC with invoices for these two amounts.Answer at 9.The Company
recognized the unique factors involved in this case and is willing to accommodate Mr.Conrad’s
request so long as it does not set a precedent that builders who set meters in unprotected areas
will be reimbursed at the Company’s expense.However,the Company declined to reimburse
Mr.Conrad $1,010.82 for construction interest.The Company declined because of the tenuous
relationship between the interest amount and:(1)IGC’s legitimate safety concerns;(2)the yet
unquantified “delay period”;(3)other construction activities that may have taken place during
this delay period;and (4)Mr.Conrad’s actions which may have contributed to the delay.Id.
Staff comments did not address providing compensation to Mr.Conrad.Mr.Conrad
offered no reply to IGC’s refusal to reimburse him $1,010.82 in construction loan interest.
Commission Findings:Given the agreement between Mr.Conrad and Intermountain
Gas,we find the reimbursement for his costs of installing the protective structures for his new
meter reasonable.However,we cannot grant his request for reimbursement for the construction
loan interest.Although the Commission is often described as a quasi-judicial agency,the
Commission is not a court.The Commission is not authorized to award “damages”to customers
ORDER NO.33524 7
under the Public Utilities Laws.Order No.31009 at 4;30615 at 8.Idaho Code §61-702
provides that any person injured by the conduct of a public utility may file “an action to recover
such loss,damage or injury ...in any court of competent jurisdiction....“(Emphasis added.)
Consequently,persons injured by public utilities have recourse through Idaho courts.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr.Conrad’s requested relief is granted in part and
denied in part.Intermountain Gas Company is ordered to work with Commission Staff to
develop written materials regarding the proper placement and design of structures to protect
meters and other facilities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once the materials are developed,the Company
make such materials publicly available on its web site and otherwise disseminate the information
to developers,builders,and contractors.The Company shall also advise all of its customer
service representatives of the new information.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,upon Mr.Conrad providing proof of his costs in
constructing the meter protection devices,the Company reimburse him for his labor and
materials.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr.Conrad’s request for reimbursement for his
construction loan interest is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order)or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.INT-G-16-0l
may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case.Within seven (7)days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-626.
ORDER NO.33524 8
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this /I
day of May2016.
PAUL KJELLANDEI,SIDENT
KRIS1NE RAPER,COM ISSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
JLell
ommission Secretary
bls/O:INT-G-16-01 don
ORDER NO.33524 9