20170630final_order_no_33805.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 30,2017
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
VIRGINIA ROTHENBERGER,)
)CASE NO.INT-G-17-02
COMPLAINANT,)
v.)
INTERMOUNTAINGAS COMPANY,)ORDERNO.33805
RESPONDENT.)
On March 22,2017,Commission Staff filed a formal complaint on behalf of
Complainant,Virginia Rothenberger,against IntermountainGas Company ("Intermountain"or
"Company").Ms.Rothenberger had informally complained to Staff on January 23,2017,about
the Company's billingand payment processes.She ultimatelywas unsatisfied withthe outcome
of Staff's efforts to resolve her concerns,however,and thus decided to file a formal complaint (the
"Complaint").Due to Ms.Rothenberger'sphysical limitations,Staffprepared and filed a Decision
Memorandum outlining Ms.Rothenberger's concerns,and asked the Commission to treat the
Decision Memorandum as Ms.Rothenberger's complaint.'On March 28,2017,the Commission
issued a Summons to the Company that attached Ms.Rothenberger's complaint and notified the
Company that it must file a written answer within21 days.The Company timely answered.The
Commission now resolves the complaint as follows.
BACKGROUND
Ms.Rothenberger has been a customer of Intermountainin Twin Falls,Idaho since
February 2009.Answer at 2.She is 85 years old and has macular degeneration,which prevents
her from seeing well enough to write checks.Complaint at 1.Ms.Rothenberger regularlypaid
her monthlygas billsthrough the mail or at the Company's authorized walk-in locations.Answer
at 2.In May 2016,she signed up for Intermountain'sAutoPay option,through which her gas
payment would automatically be withdrawn from her bank account "a set number of days
followingthe generation ofher monthlybill."Id.;Complaint at 1.Ms.Rothenberger asked if her
payments could be withdrawn"after the third of each month to ensure that she has [available]
I AlthoughStaffworked with Ms.Rothenberger to prepare her complaint,and filed that complaint on her behalf,Staff
was not a party to this case.
ORDERNO.33805 1
funds ...[which]she receives around the first of each month."Complaint at 1.However,the
Company stated it advised her that,throughAutoPay,"the automatic withdrawalfrom her account
would occur around the 28th of each month,"or 10-11 days after her bill issues.Answer at 2-4.
Ms.Rothenbergeralso asked the Company about its "Level Pay"plan,"such that she
is billedthe same amount each month based on average usage,rather than having her monthlybill
fluctuate."Complaint at 2.The Company advised her that,under Level Pay,her requiredpayment
wouldbe $36.00 per month.Answer at 2.Ms.Rothenbergersigned up for Level Pay.
COMPLAINT
According to the complaint,Ms.Rothenberger's billing statements showed that her
bills were due on the third of each monthor later.Complaint at 1.The complaint also indicated
that,per Company records,"for most months"Ms.Rothenberger's automatic payment "occurred
before the third of the month[,]and always prior to the due date."Id.Further,"[o]n at least one
occasion,[Ms.Rothenberger's]account was low on funds"when her payment was withdrawn,
and her bank "covered the payment and then charged [her]a $30.00 overdraft fee."Id at 1-2.Ms.
Rothenberger ultimatelywas able to reverse the overdraft fee.Id.at 2.
Ms.Rothenbergeragain requested that her payments not be withdrawnbefore the third
of each month,and was again advised this was not possible throughthe AutoPay option.Id.;
Answer at 2-3.Ms.Rothenbergerasked to cancel AutoPay;the Company agreed and advised her
of other payment options,including local payment locations and using the Company's website.
Answer at 3;Complaint at 2.Ms.Rothenberger stated that payment through the Company's
website was "not an option due to the issues withher eyesight."Answer at 3.
Ms.Rothenbergerthen contacted Staff,which recommended to the Company "that Ms.
Rothenberger's billing due date be adjusted in accordance withRule 202.02,"id.,which provides
for a "hardship exemption"that wouldextend a customer's ordinary due date "up to an additional
fifteen (15)days."Complaint at 2;IDAPA 31.21.01.202.02.The Company agreed to extend Ms.
Rothenberger's bill due date to 25 days after the date when her bill issues.Complaint at 2;Answer
at 4.However,this did not resolve Ms.Rothenberger's concern,because the Company's AutoPay
option is configured to withdraw a set number of days after the bill issue date,rather than on the
bill due date or a set number of days before the bill due date.Answer at 4;Complaint at 3.
Under AutoPay,a customer's required payment is withdrawn11 days after the bill issue
date,which "is about one week prior to the bill's actual due date."Complaint at 3.For Ms.
ORDER NO.33805 2
Rothenberger,AutoPay withdrewher bill payment 11 days after her bill issue date,without regard
for her bill due date,and -critically -before she received monthlyfunds needed to pay her bill.
According to Intermountain,its "billingsoftware is not configured to accommodate"a request for
a specific withdrawaldate,as Ms.Rothenberger proposed to resolve her concern.Answer at 4.
Intermountainnoted that AutoPay is an optional program,and "there are other payment channels
available that allow a customer to pay later,"closer to the customer's bill due date.Id.Ms.
Rothenberger asked that the Commission require the Company to modify its AutoPay option to
better meet customer needs by permitting "flexibility to adjust the date that funds are withdrawn
from their financialinstitutions."Complaint at 3.
Regarding the Company's other payment options,Ms.Rothenberger noted that she
would have to pay a convenience fee of $1.99 to pay her bill with a debit or credit card.Ms.
Rothenbergerasked that the Commission require the Company to accept customer payments using
a debit card withouta convenience fee.Id.
ANSWER
Intermountainstated that its goal "has always been to provide safe reliable service at
the lowest cost,"and that it is "continually pursuing new payment options or improvements to
existing options."Answer at 6.Intermountainnoted that,when it initiated AutoPay as a payment
option several years ago,it "could take several days"to process payments,depending on the
customer's bank.Id at 4.Thus,AutoPay was configured to "ensure that customers electing
recurring payments were not inadvertentlypast due as a result of delays in ...processing."Id
According to the Company,it has "explored alternatives to programing the customer information
system with a withdrawaldate that aligns withthe due date."Id
To resolve Ms.Rothenberger's concerns,Intermountainproposed to change the date
when AutoPay customers'payments are deducted from their accounts to the due date listed on the
customers'bills,rather than 11 days from their bill issue date.Id.at 6-7.Under this proposal,if
Ms.Rothenberger elected to again use AutoPay,her payments would be deducted "no earlier than
the third of the month based on her current billing cycle."Id.at 7.
As to Ms.Rothenberger's concern about the $1.99 convenience fee for using her debit
card,Intermountainnoted that the fee is charged by a third-partyvendor,and passed throughto
that vendor,"with no transaction proceeds received by the Company."Id.at 5-6.Intermountain
ORDER NO.33805 3
stated that it has worked withthe vendor to keep such fees low,and the fee was recently lowered
to $1.99 from $2.75.Id.at 6.
The Company noted that eliminating fees associated with credit and debit card
payments and payments made at pay stations was raised by Staff in Intermountain'songoing rate
case,Case No.INT-G-16-02,for whichthe Commission recently granted the Company's petition
for reconsideration.The Company noted that it expects the Commission will dispose of this issue
in its rate case.Id.at 7-8.
COMMISSIONFINDINGSAND DISCUSSION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this case under Idaho Code §61-503.We have
reviewed the record,including Ms.Rothenberger's complaint and Intermountain'sanswer.We
find that Ms.Rothenberger's requests for assistance from Intermountaindue to hardship are
emblematic of customer service inquiries that utilities throughoutIdaho encounter and address
routinely.We encourage Intermountain,as withall utilities,to take initiative in creating workable
solutions to resolve customer concerns.
On Ms.Rothenberger's AutoPay concern,we find the Company's proposal to be a
reasonable and appropriate solution.We therefore direct the Company to implement its proposal
to reconfigure AutoPay to deduct participating customers'payments from their banks on the date
their bills are due.
We recentlyaddressed Ms.Rothenberger's concern about convenience fees charged
for paying bills with debit or credit cards.In Order No.33757,the Commission declined to
eliminate the fees "at this time,"but encouraged the Company "to explore the possibility of
removing these fees in the future to keep pace with what appears to be an emerging industry
standard."Order No.33757 at 38 and 39.This issue is not up for reconsideration in Case No.
INT-G-16-02.Consequently,the Company is directed to meet with Staffwithin60 days after this
Order issues,to develop a proposed action plan that more closely aligns withthe industry standard.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBYORDERED that the Company shall implement its proposal regarding
payment under the AutoPay option.
IT IS FURTHERORDERED that the Company meet with Staff to discuss alternatives
to convenience fees.
ORDER NO.33805 4
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order.Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public UtilitiesCommission at Boise,Idaho this 30
day of June 2017.
PAUL K.Ã l PRESIDENT
KRÈÍTNERAPER,SIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
O:INT-G-17-02_djh
ORDER NO.33805 5