20190329Answer to Formal Complaint.pdf

Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 388-l 300
prestoncarter@ givensoursley. com
Attorney for Respondent Intermountain Gas Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RAUL MENDEZ,Case No. INT-G-19-03
Complainant,
/!D
3:trl
.-:5;UN
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INrnnvrouNTAIN G.ls CourANY' s
ANSwTR TO RAUL MnNonz,S FonulI
Cowtplamr
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY,
Respondent.
Intermountain Gas Company ("Intermountain Gas" or the "Company'') files this Answer
in response to the formal Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Mr. Raul Mendez atthe Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission" or "Idaho PUC"), and the Summons issued by the
Commission on March 15,2019.
Flcru.ll, B.q,cxcnouxo
1. Intermountain Gas first began serving Mr. Mendez at8067 W. Galileo St., Boise,
Idaho in May of 2003.
2. On July 6,2017, Mr. Mendez contacted Intermountain Gas to determine why his
bill for JrtJy 2017 was $7.41 when the bill in July 2016 was $5.34.
3. In the spring of 2017, the Commission approved an increase in the Company's
Customer Charge from $2.50 to $5.50 for the months of April through November. See Order No.
INTpRUoUNTAIN GAS CoMplNv's ANSwER
14597033_l.docx ORIGINAL
Page I ofll
33757 at 32 (April28,2Ol7).1
4. Mr. Mendez asserted that he did not use gas during the summer months, and that
his bills during the summer should remain consistent. However, according to Intermountain
Gas's records, summarized in Exhibit 1, Mr. Mendez used between 3 and 1 1 therms of natural
gas between June and September in the years 2006 through 2017. Intermountain Gas billed Mr.
Mendez for his usage according to its approved tariffs.
5. The increased Customer Charge and fluctuations in Mr. Mendez's usage explain
the changes in Mr. Mendez's bills.
6. On April 30,2018, Mr. Mendez contacted Intermountain Gas to discuss
terminating his gas service over the summer months. On May 2,2018, the Company spoke with
Mr. Mendez and indicated that the Company could terminate service during the summer, but a
$14 Account Initiation Charge would be charged to start service in the fall.
7. The Company previously discussed the Account Initiation Charge with Mr.
Mendez in July 2017 . See Complaint at 2 ("On712512017, Mr. Mendez called utility to ask how
to disconnect service over the summer . . . . He was told by Sydney in Customer service that
there would be a 14 dollar reconnect fee to restart service in the winter.").
8. After this discussion, Mr. Mendez arranged to have his natural gas service
terminated on May 4,2018. The Company terminated services, as requested.
9. Mr. Mendez applied to have his service connected on September 14,2018. As
Intermountain Gas had previously explained, a $14 Account Initiation Charge was added to Mr.
Mendez's October 14, 2018 bill.
I More specifically, the Commission approved a change in the Customer Charge struature. Before, the Customer
Charge was $2.50 for April through November and $6.50 for December through March. The tariffs approved in May
2017 provide for a year round customer charge of$5.50.
INteRuouNTArN GAS CovtplNv's ANSwER
14597033 l.docx
Page 2 of ll
10. Mr. Mendez contacted the Company to dispute the charge. He then pursued an
informal complaint and, on January 25,2019, filed the formal Complaint at issue here.
11. The Commission issued a summons on March 15,2019, requesting an answer
within twenty-one days. This Answer responds to the Complaint and is timely filed.
Tur CoupLArNT
12. The Complaint presents three issues: whether the Company's $14 Account
Initiation Charge is valid when applied to a customer that requests termination of service in the
spring and requests service in the fall; whether the Company correctly charged Mr. Mendez for
gas usage in the summer of 2017; and whether a customer can disconnect gas service without
incurring a fee for restarting service. Complaint at l.
13. In the body of the Complaint, Mr. Mendez contends that the Company violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and makes several other allegations,
including that Commission Staff violated his due process rights during the informal complaint
process. Complaint at l.
14. Mr. Mendez requests that the Commission order Intermountain Gas to refund the
$14 Account Initiation Charge, plus interest; that the Commission order Intermountain Gas to
pay $72 incurred by Mr. Mendez in drafting the Complaint; that the Commission issue an order
barring Intermountain Gas from charging fees for voluntarily disconnecting service; that the
Commission issue an order warning Intermountain Gas that they must comply with the
Commission's Rules; that the Commission issue an order warning Intermountain Gas about
"manipulation of fees;" and for more accountability in the Commission's complaint process.
Complaint at 11.
15. The Company respectfully submits that the Account Initiation Charge is valid and
was appropriately applied here.
INTERUOUNTAIN GAS COTT,TPRNY, S ANSWER
14597033_l.docx
Page3ofll
16. The Company also submits that it accurately billed Mr. Mendez; changes in Mr.
Mendez's bills are explained by the Commission-approved changes to the Customer Charge and
by Mr. Mendez's fluctuating gas usage.
17. Finally, the Company did not violate the FDCPA or otherwise engage in
deceptive practices.
18. Intermountain Gas respectfully requests that the Commission deny the relief
sought in the Complaint.
ANswBn
A) The Company correctly applied the Account Initiation Charge.
19. Intermountain Gas's goal is to provide safe, reliable service at a reasonable cost.
When a customer requests to turn on service, Intermountain Gas provides a service technician to
furn on the meter, perform a meter hand test, light all natural gas appliances in the home, and
perform a safety check. This standardized process of turning on gas is in place to ensure the
safety of our customers.
20. To help offset the cost of dispatching a technician to turn on gas, since at least
1987 the Company has imposed an Account Initiation Charge of $14 during regular business
hours and $40 outside of regular business hours. See Order No. 21617 (Nov. 1987) (approving
amendments to the Account Initiation Charge). The Company's current, Commission-approved
tariffs reflect this charge. See Intermountain Gas Company General Service Provisions, Section
A, subsectiong.4 (approved May 19, 201q.2
2 The relevant page of the tariff is attached to the Complaint. The entire tariff is available online at
https://www.puc.idaho.gov/fileroom/tarifflgas/Intermountaingas.pdf. The tariffincorporates the Commission's
Customer Service Rules. Intermountain Gas Company General Service Provisions, Section B, subsection l,
Adoption of Rules of Regulatory Authorities.
INTpRUoUNTAIN GAS CoMpANv's ANSwER
14597033_l.docx
Page4ofll
21. The Company applies the definition of "Applicant" and "Customer" found in the
Commission's rules to determine when the Account Initiation Charge applies. In relevant part,
Rule 5.02, IDAPA 31.21.01.005.02, defines the term "customer" as any person who l) has
applied for services, 2) has been accepted by the utility, and 3) who is either a) receiving service,
or b) has received service within the ten calendar days prior to termination of service by the
utility.
22. Stated another way, aperson remains a "customer" for ten calendar days after
service is terminated. After that, the person is no longer a customer. If that person then requests
service, they are a potential customer and an "applicant" as defined in Rule 5.01. See IDAPA
31.21.01.005.01 (defining "Applicant" as "any potential customer who applies for service from a
utility'').
23. In Mr. Mendez's situation, the Company terminated services on May 4, 2018, as
requested. Mr. Mendez applied for services from the Company on September 14,2018. Since
Mr. Mendezhad not received services for more than ten calendar days before the request for
service, Mr. Mendez was not a customer. He was an applicant. Therefore the $14 Account
Initiation Charge applied.
24. The Account Initiation Charge should not have been a surprise to Mr. Mendez.
On April 30,2018, before Mr. Mendez requested termination of service, the Company informed
Mr. Mendeztbatthe $14 Account Initiation Charge would apply if he terminated service in the
spring and requested service in the fall. Mr. Mendez proceeded nonetheless. ln addition,
Intermountain Gas and Mr. Mendez had extensive correspondence in2017 on the same topic.
See Complaint at 2 (summarizing correspondence n2017 regarding the Account Initiation
Charge).
INrpRuouNTArN GAS CoMp.q.Nv' s ANSwER
14597033 l.docx
Page5ofll
25. Intermountain Gas respectfully submits that the Account Initiation Charge, which
is in its Commission-approved tariff, applies to these circumstances and was appropriately
assessed.
26. Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to issue an Order barring the Company from
charging customers fees for voluntarily disconnecting service. Complaint at 1 1. However, the
Account Initiation Charge is a longstanding, Commission-approved charge that is in the
Company's tariff. The Company is therefore authorized to, and indeed arguably is legally
compelled to, assess this charge.
27. In addition, there are costs associated with turning on natural gas service.3 If these
costs are not paid by the applicant requesting service, the applicant will be cross-subsidized by
remaining customers. This issue becomes greater if customers voluntarily disconnect service for
parts of the year.
28. In addition, the monthly customer charge is meant to recover a portion of the
fixed costs the Company incurs in providing natural gas service. Because the cost to maintain
safe, reliable service is the same whether any gas is being consumed at the location or not, the
customer charge is level throughout the year. If a customer voluntarily disconnects service to
avoid paylng the customer charge, that customer's portion of the costs of maintaining the system
are shifted to other customers. If more customers disconnect seasonally, they would put upward
pressure on rates for the rest of customers, again resulting in cross-subsidization by other
customers.
29. Mr. Mendez argues that the Account Initiation Charge is a "deposit," and that in
imposing the charge, Intermountain Gas did not comply with the Commission's rules regarding
deposits. Complaint at 8.
3 The Account Initiation Charge has not been updated since approximately 1987. The true costs likely exceed $14.
INTrRUoUNTAIN GAS Cotrlpewy's ANSwER Page 6 of I I
14597033 1.docx
30. However, the Commission's rules define "deposit" as "any payment held as
security for future payment or performance that is reimbursable after the customer establishes
good credit." Rule 100, IDAPA 31.21.01.100. As explained above, the Account Initiation Charge
is a charge applied to new accounts, intended to recuperate costs ofstarting service. It is not an
amount held as security for future payments, and it is not reimbursable after the customer
establishes good credit. Accordingly, the Account Initiation Charge is not a "deposit" and the
Commission's rules regarding deposits do not apply.
B) The Company accurately billed Mr. Mendez.
31. Mr. Mendez claims that he did not use gas during the summer months, but that he
was still charged. Complaint at7,8-9. Mr. Mendez also claims that the Company has
manipulated prices, presumably based on the fact that his total monthly bill changed from month
to month and year to year. Id. at9-10.
32. As Exhibit No. I illustrates, Mr. Mendez did indeed use gas in the months of June
through September in 2006 through 2017. Mr. Mendez's usage fluctuated between 3 to I I
therms. This usage is consistent with a pilot light for natural gas appliances. Intermountain Gas
appropriately charged Mr. Mendez aper therm charge for gas consumed during each of these
months.
33. In addition, in Order No. 33757, the Commission approved a change to the
Company's monthly charges. The monthly charges for summer months increased from $2.50 to
$5.50. This, together with the fluctuating usage, explains the increase in Mr. Mendez's summer
bills in 2017.
34. The Company did not manipulate prices or charges, but instead charged Mr.
Mendez consistent with Mr. Mendez's usage, the Commission's orders, and the Company's
tariffs.
INTERUOUNTAIN GAS COIT,TPRNY, S ANSWER
14597033 l.docx
Page7of1l
C) The Company did not violate the FDCPA.
35. Mr. Mendez alleges that Intermountain Gas violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. Complaint at 10. Mr. Mendez does not specify what actions allegedly violate the
FDCPA, but Mr. Mendez's allegations (liberally construed) seem to be that Intermountain Gas
collected a charge not permitted by law and/or engaged in some misrepresentation associated
with the Account Initiation Charge and other billing.
36. As previously stated, the Account Initiation Charge is included in Intermountain
Gas's tariffs, which were approved by the Commission. Intermountain Gas appropriately
described and applied this charge, and the monthly per therm charges, to Mr. Mendez's account.
The Company has not levied any unlawful charge or engaged in any misrepresentation.
37. In addition, the FDCPA applies to the actions of debt collectors. 15 U.S.C.
$ 1692(e) (noting that the FDCPA's intent to "eliminate abusive debt collection practicesby debt
collectors" (emphasis added)). The term "debt collector" includes persons who collect debts
owed to third parties. Id. at $ 1692a(6) ("The term 'debt collector' means any person . . . who
regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due to asserted to be
owed or due another." (emphasis added)).
38. Intermountain Gas implements best practices that comply with the FDCPA.
However, the Company does not collect debts owed to third parties and, as such, is not a "debt
collector" under the FDCPA. In addition, here Mr. Mendez takes issue with the imposition of the
Account Initiation Charge and certain per therm charges, not with any actions regarding
collection of those charges. Accordingly, the FDCPA does not apply to these circumstances (and
was not violated in any event).
INrpRuouNTArN GAS CovrplNv's ANSwER
14597033 l.docx
Page8ofll
INtrRuouNrerN Ges Coup.q,Nv' s ANswpR
14597033_l.docx
Page9ofll
D) Other issues
39. Mr. Mendez asks the Commission to issue an Order warning the Company about
manipulation of fees to the detriment of Idaho customers. As discussed above, Intermountain
Gas appropriately billed Mr. Mendez.The Company has not manipulated any fees or prices.
40. Mr. Mendez requests that the Commission issue an Order warning Intermountain
Gas that they must comply with the IPUC rules. Intermountain Gas believes it has accurately
implemented the Commission Rules, including the Utility Customer Relations Rules set forth in
IDAPA 31.21.01 and the Intermountain Gas Company Tariffs and General Service Provisions
approved by the Commission.
41. Finally, the Complainant accused the Company of being uffesponsive to his
correspondence. However, the records in the case show that the Company responded to Mr.
Mendez's inquiries in a timely manner. Intermountain Gas understands and values the
importance of keeping sensitive customer account information private. Therefore, its protocol is
to speak in generalities anytime an email or inquiry from the "Contact Us" form on the Company
site is received and requests specific account information. Intermountain Gas asked Mr. Mendez
to call the Customer Service Center so it could be verified that the Company was releasing
sensitive information to the customer of record. The Company also recommended that Mr.
Mendez contact the Customer Service Center to have a conversation when his inquiries required
significant detail or were repetitive. These actions are appropriate, and the Company listened and
responded to Mr. Mendez's complaints.
CoNcr,usroN
42. Intermountain Gas believes it has followed the applicable rules and approved
tariffs in this situation. Intermountain Gas also believes both the Company and Staff have
represented the rules and approved tariffs in a clear and consistent manner to Mr. Mendez.
43. However, the Company also understands and is sensitive to the hardships of Mr.
Mendez's personal circumstances. Where possible within the current rules and approved tariffs,
Intermountain Gas has worked to improve Mr. Mendez's situation. The Company clearly
notified Mr. Mendez of the $14 Account Initiation Charge that would be assessed should he
voluntarily disconnect, giving him ample opportunity to decide against disconnecting service.
Intermountain Gas has also recently worked with Mr. Mendez to adjust his bill due date so that it
better aligns with the date he receives funds for the month. The Company will continue to work
with all customers to provide assistance where possible in difficult circumstances.
44. Intermountain Gas is committed to providing safe, reliable service to all
customers at the lowest possible rates. In order to ensure the lowest possible rates, the Company
believes that, as a general principle, individual customers should bear the cost of any special
services they request. This helps to keep other customers from subsidizing the additional costs
caused by individual customer requests, which in turn keeps costs lower for everyone.
45. Intermountain Gas respectfully requests that the Commission deny the relief
sought by Mr. Mendez in order to maintain fair and consistent application of the Commission
Rules and approved Company Tariffs to all Intermountain Gas customers.
Dated: March 29,2019.
Respectfully submitted,
V ---;- --rPreston N. Carter
Givens Pursley, LLP
Attorney for Intermountain Gas Company
INrpRrraouNTAIN GAS COvIPI.NY, S ANSWER
14597033_l.docx
Page 10 of 1 1
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I certify that on this March 29, 2079,1 caused to be served a true and correct copy of
INreRrraouNTAIN GAS Covp.q,xy's ANSwER To RAUL MrNoEz's FoRuel CouprelNr upon the
following individuals in the manner indicated below:
Hand Deliverv: (original & 7 copies)
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W . Washington Street
Boise, lD 83702
Raul Mendez
Complainant
2712N. Goldeneye Way
Meridian, ID 83646
a'
/ =)--2
Preston N. Carter
INrERrraouNTArN GAS Covtp.tNv' s ANSwER
14597033_l.docx
Page 11 of11
Mail Delivery:
EXHIBIT 1
CASE NO. INT-G.19.03
Historical Usage & Charges at
8067 W. Galileo Street, Boise, Idaho
(4 PAGES)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Exhibit No. I
Case No. INT-G-19-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 1 of4
Intermountain Gas Company
Historical Usage & Charges at 8067 W Galileo Street, Boise, Idaho
Bill date
U2512006
2t2312006
3t2312006
4t2512006
5t1012006
1011112006
11120/2006
1211212006
111t 12007
211212007
311212007
4ilU2007
511012007
1011012007
111212007
12t1212007
1/1112008
2t1212008
3t12t2008
411012008
511212008
r 0/l 0/2008
1111012008
1211012008
111412009
21t112009
31fi12009
411012009
5t1212009
Therms
92
r08
81
57
9
9
45
83
ll5
ll5
78
48
49
l8
65
r0l
150
147
r05
97
53
9
55
t1
130
r05
8l
77
30
Charses
$ r0s.20
$122.3',7
$93.40
$6s.s7
$12.46
$ r 2.38
$50.49
s92.23
s r25.28
s r2s.28
$87.06
$53.69
$s4.76
$24.43
s66.03
$r0r.82
$ r 48.06
s 145.23
$ r 05.59
$97.30
ss4.30
$r r.66
s66.31
$80.99
$ r 38.65
sl13.23
s88.84
$83.36
$34.00
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. INT-G-19-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 2 of 4
Intermountain Gas Company
Historical Usage & Charges at 8067 W Galileo Street, Boise, Idaho
Bill date Charses
1011212009
11110/2009
1211012009
111312010
211012010
311212010
411212010
511212010
1011212010
fifi0t2010
12fi012010
lt21201t
2lt01201t
311412011
4112120n
511112011
1011212011
t1110120t1
t21t212011
11fi12012
2t8t2012
31812012
41912012
51812012
$ rs.43
s36.48
$73.97
s r08.09
s73. r 9
s69.31
$ss.09
$36.48
l3
42
87
131
86
8l
65
42
4
27
99
113
87
74
46
35
4
25
64
87
8l
7t
42
t7
ss.73
s23.99
s8 r .96
$92.63
s72.81
$62.90
$39. r r
s30.3s
ss.6s
$2 r .s3
$s3.08
$69.82
s6s. r 3
$ss.66
s33.00
$ r 4.84
6101912012 s6.83
Therms
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. INT-G-'l9-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 3 of 4
Intermountain Gas Company
Historical Usage & Charges at 8067 W Galileo Street, Boise, Idaho
Bill date
t1l8120l2
12/1012012
11912013
21812013
311112013
41812013
51812013
Therms
35
68
III
148
88
5t
39
Charges
s27.08
s36.0s
$80.73
$ r 05.48
$6s.3s
$38.32
s29.89
101812013
1U812013
1211112013
11012014
2t1112014
3t1212014
41912014
51812014
8
44
88
140
l4
72
57
33
s8.rs
$34.68
$67.8e
sr04.r7
s86.03
ss6.73
$44. r 8
s26.63
101812014
tlJt0t20l4
t2lr12014
v1312015
2t1012015
311112015
4t10120t5
518120t5
5
25
94
r06
93
65
42
23
$6.r9
s2r.5r
s74.8 r
s83.53
s74.09
$s3.74
s34.44
s r 9.99
t0l5l20t5
r11212015
t2l31201s
116t2016
2/312016
31412016
4
t3
92
t3l
95
72
ss.s4
sr 1.76
$68.90
$9s.3s
$70.94
sss.33
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. INT-G-19-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 4 of 4
Intermountain Gas Company
Historical Usage & Charges at 8067 W Galileo Street, Boise, Idaho
Bill date
4/4t2016
51312016
10t412016
lLt1l20t6
121512016
ll51201'7
2t1t2017
31612017
41312017
51312017
Therms
54
l6
5
24
59
148
125
102
49
45
23
56
92
r60
l0l
l19
90
53
0
16
48
57
132
114
238
Charges
s40.93
$ r 3.89
$6.06
$18.22
$43. r 7
s98.47
s84. r 8
s69.89
s36.9s
$32.09
101412017
11112017
121412017
U512018
2t112018
31512018
4t312018
51312018
51712018
101412018
1UU20r8
t2l4l20t8
11412019
2n/2019
3t412019
$20.05
$38.42
$s9.s7
$99.s4
s64.86
s75.45
$s8.39
$36.6s
s0.37
s r4.46
s29.77
$34.3 r
s72.23
s63. r 4
s 125.82