20190404Response to Complaint - Redacted.pdf

EDWARD JEWELL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720.0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 10446
;.-tl-rl,,tFr.)l.LVLt'.;v
,i:;l *'1+ Fii 2r 3l+
Street Address for Express Mail:
472W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5918
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF
RAUL MENDEZ AGAINST INTERMOUNTAIN
GAS COMPANY
CASE NO. INT-G.19.03
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
(REDACTED)
The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission files its Response to Raul Mendez's
Complaint against Intermountain Gas Company.
BACKGROUND
On August 7,2017, Staff received an informal complaint from Mr. Mendez regarding his
summer gas bills.
On August 31,2017, Staff closed Mr. Mendez's first informal complaint.
On May 4,2018, Mr. Mendez requested Intermountain Gas Company ("Intermountain
Gas" or "Company") terminate service at his residence. His account was closed the following
day.
On September 14, 2018, Mr. Mendez applied for service at the same address.
On October 4,2018, a $14.00 Account Initiation Charge was included on Mr. Mendez's
bill from Intermountain Gas in addition to I for gas service.
)
)
)
)
)
)
IRESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
On October 30,2018, a payment of f posted to Mr. Mendez's account, leaving a
$14.00 balance. The account balance was not paid and became past due, at which time an
interest charge of I was assessed.
On November 14, 2018,
The account was
left with a credit balance of I.
On January 25,2019, Mr. Mendezfied a formal complaint with the Commission against
Intermountain Gas alleging the Company wrongly applied the Account Initiation Charge to his
account, the Company violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and
Commission Staff violated his right to due process ("Complaint").
On March 5,2019, Commission Staff presented its February 28,2019, Decision
Memorandum regarding the Complaint to the Commission at the Commission's regularly
scheduled Decision Meeting.
On March 14,2019, the Commission issued Order No. 34273 directing a Summons be
served on Intermountain Gas, and setting response and reply deadlines for the parties. The
Commission also encouraged the parties to meet informally to continue efforts to resolve some
or all of the issues. See IDAPA 31.01.01.054.05.
COMPLAINT
Mr. Mendez questions whether the Account Initiation Charge is "a valid charge on an
already existing account" and whether a customer "can disconnect gas service without incurring
additional fees such as an initiation fee for restarting service." See Complaint at 1. Mr. Mendez
also questions amounts billed by the Company during previous summers when he believes no
gas was consumed at his residence. See Complaint at 1,2,3, 9 and 10.
Mr. Mendez requests the Commission:
(l) Order the Company to refund a $14.00 Account Initiation Charge plus accumulated
interest applied to his account in October 2018;
(2) Order the Company to pay costs of $72.00 that he incurred in the drafting of his
Complaint;
(3) Prohibit the Company from charging fees for voluntarily disconnecting service,
especially if the reason for requesting disconnection is due to financial hardship;
2RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
(4) Warn the Company that it must comply with the Commission's rules; and
(5) Warn the Company "about manipulation of fees to the detriment of Idaho customers."
See Complaint at 10. In addition, Mr. Mendez asks the Commission for "more accountability
and transparency of the IPUC complaint process and to warn staff of not giving the appearance
of bias." Complaint at 1 1.
Mr. Mendez also alleges Commission Staff violated his right to due process during
informal proceedings because, he alleges, Staff insufficiently explained the Commission's rules
and the Company's rates and charges. Complaint at 7 , 9 and 10. Finally, Mr. Mendez's
Complaint refers to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. See Complaint at 9 and 10.
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff reviewed Mr. Mendez's formal complaint and addresses the issues raised by Mr.
Mendez individually below. Staff maintains that Intermountain Gas complied with the
Commission's Utility Customer Relations Rules (IDAPA 31.21.01) (.'UCRR"), and
appropriately applied the rates and charges contained in its Tariff as approved by the
Commission. Mr. Mendez was appropriately assessed the Account Initiation Charge and
accurately billed for his usage. Finally, Staff did not and could not violate Mr. Mendez's due
process rights.
I. Request for Refund of the Account Initiation Charge Plus Accumulated Interest.
When Mr. Mendez contacted Intermountain Gas on July 7,2017, to ask about
disconnecting service, he was told there would be a "14.00 dollar reconnection fee to restart
service in the winter." Complaint at2. Mr. Mendez took issue with being charged a
'oreconnection fee" and requested information about the fee. Upon contacting the Company
again, "[Intermountain Gas] explained to Mr. Mendez that the $14 fee is not a reconnect fee but
an initiation fee for starting new service." Complaint at 2. A reconnection fee applies when a
customer's service is involuntarily disconnected and is subsequently reconnected a short time
later, typically after the customer has paid any past due amount owed. Intermountain Gas did not
charge Mr. Mendez a reconnection fee, nor would such a charge have been applicable under the
circumstances. Though Intermountain Gas used the term "reconnection fee" during the initial
contact with Mr. Mendez, the Company correctly referred to the Account Initiation Charge in
subsequent communication.
JRESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
a. The Account Initiation Charge was coruectly applied to Mr. Mendez's account.
Intermountain Gas is authorized by the Commission to assess an Account Initiation
Charge to'oeach" account "opened." ooAn 'Account Initiation Charge' in the amount of $14.00
during regular business hours and $40.00 outside of regular business hours will be assessed on
each account opened with the Company and will be billed with the first regular bill."
Intermountain Gas Tariff, Section A, Sheet No. 6, Section 9.4. The present dispute therefore
revolves around whether Mr. Mendez's account was "opened" when he restarted service at his
residence.
The UCRR defines the terms "Applicant" and "Customer." An "Applicant" is "any
potential customer who applies for service from a utility." IDAPA 31.21.01.005.01. A
"Customer" is o'any person who has applied for, has been accepted by the utility, and is: (a)
Receiving service from a utility; or (b) Has received service within the past ten (10) calendar
days prior to termination by the utility[.]" IDAPA 31.21.0L005.02. Mr. Mendez ceased being a
customer ten calendar days after his service was terminated in May 2018. Therefore, when he
applied for service on September 74,2018, he was an Applicant. The Company assessed the
approved Account Initiation Charge because Mr. Mendez was no longer a Customer at that point
in time.
Staff notes that Intermountain Gas' Account Initiation Charge is not unique. Other
regulated utilities in Idaho assess a charge when an account is opened, although the name of the
charge, criteria and amount of the charge varies for each utility.
b. The interest Mr. Mendez seeks has already been returned to his account,
In February 2019, Staff became aware that Mr. Mendez's account was charged u I
interest charge. Intermountain Gas is authorized to assess a lYo per month interest charge
whenever an account balance is unpaid at the time the next billing cycle occurs. Intermountain
Gas Tariff, Section A, Sheet No. 3, Section 4.5. Although the Company's Tariff authorizes the
assessment of interest charges, Staff requested the Company remove the interest charge because
Mr. Mendez was disputing the Account Initiation Charge. Intermountain Gas agreed to credit
I to Mr. Mendez's account. This credit subsequently appeared on his March 4, 2018 bill.
4RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2079
II. Request to Bar the Company From Charging Fees for Voluntarily Disconnecting
Service.
Intermountain Gas does not charge a fee when a customer voluntarily requests
disconnection of service, nor does it charge a fee when a customer is involuntarily disconnected.
A fee is charged when an account is either opened by an applicant (Account Initiation Charge) or
when a customer who has been involuntary disconnected from service is reconnected
(Reconnection Charge). The fees are designed to recover costs directly attributable to the
Company's efforts required to connect or reconnect service, such as sending a Company
employee to the residence to safely connect or reconnect service and relight pilot lights. The
Commission has approved these charges as just and reasonable.
m. Request to Warn the Company It Must Comply with Commission's Rules.
Mr. Mendez misidentifies the Account Initiation Charge as a deposit and then argues that
the preconditions to a deposit found in IDAPA 31.21.01.101 do not apply to his case and
therefore the charge/deposit is contrary to Commission Rules. Complaint at 8. 'oDeposit" is
defined as 'oany payment held as security for future payment or performance that is reimbursable
after the customer establishes good credit." IDAPA 31.21.0I.100.02. Mr. Mendez makes no
showing that the Account Initiation Charge is reimbursable, or in any other way functions as a
deposit instead of as a charge. Staff verified that Intermountain Gas did not ask for security on
Mr. Mendez's account and did not charge Mr. Mendez a deposit. In sum, Intermountain Gas did
not violate any Commission Rules.
IV Request to Warn the Company (About Manipulation of Fees to the Detriment of
Idaho Customers."
Mr. Mendez alleges the Company improperly billed him for prior summer months and
states that he did not consume any gas during those months. Complaint at 7,2,3,9 and 10.
Staff reviewed Mr. Mendez's billing history from 2012 to 2017 for the months of June, July,
August, and September, and determined Mr. Mendez used anywhere from 3 to 10 therms a
month. See Staff s Usage Summary, Attachment No. 1. Additionally, rates and charges can vary
from year to year. When Mr. Mendez filed his informal complaint on August 21,2077 ,he
questioned why his monthly bill had increased to I during the summer when in the past, his
bill was I Staff determined that the increase was due to a variation in usage and a rate
5RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
change that became effective in May 2017. Prior to 2017, the customer charge varied by season
(April - November $2.50; December - March $6.50). The Commission approved a year-round
monthly customer charge of $5.50 effective May I ,2017. See Case No. NT-G-16-02. In that
same case, the cost per therm also increased.
The increase in the summer customer charge and the cost of gas, along with a variation in
gas usage during the summer caused Mr. Mendez's 2017 summer bills to be higher than the
previous year. Staff did not find any evidence that the Company "manipulated fees" and
maintains that Mr. Mendez was appropriately charged.
V Request for More Accountability and Transparency of the IPUC Complaint Process
and a Warning to Staff of not Giving the Appearance of Bias.
Mr. Mendez asks the Commission for "more accountability and transparency of the IPUC
process and to warn staff of not giving the appearance of bias." Complaint at 1 1. Commission
Rules "encourage the use of informal proceedings to settle or determine cases." IDAPA
3L01.01 .022. As part of the informal complaint process, Commission Staff mediates disputes
between customers and regulated utilities with the goal of finding a timely and mutually-
satisfactory solution to matters in dispute. Staff routinely provides information about utilities'
policies, practices, and tariffs as well as the Commission's rules and regulations. Staff is not
always successful in its attempts to resolve complaints informally. A complainant may then file
a formal complaint with the Commission, as Mr. Mendez has done in this case. "[A]ny person
participating in an informal proceeding must be given an opportunity for a later formal
administrative proceeding before the Commission[.]" IDAPA 31.01.01.023. The formal process
serves as a backstop to the informal complaint process, and working in tandem, the informal and
formal processes provide the accountability and transparency Mr. Mendez requests.
Staff advised Mr. Mendez that he could file a formal complaint and provided him with
information about how to do so. Staff answered Mr. Mendez's questions about the formal
complaint process. Staff confirmed several times that the charge Mr. Mendez is contesting is
approved by the Commission. Mr. Mendez may not have liked the answers Staff gave him, but
Staff was in no way biased.
6RESPONSE TO COMPLATNT APRIL 4,2019
VI. Due Process and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Staff is not a decision-making entity and does not have the authority to deprive Mr.
Mendez of his liberty or property interests. Commission Staff has investigative and mediation
authority under the IPUC Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01 .021 - .024,but has no
adjudicative authority. Commission Staff, on its own, cannot violate Mr. Mendez's right to due
process.
The case law Mr. Mendez cites does not support his claim. In K.W. v. Armstrong, the
U.S. District Court of Idaho held the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare ("IDHW")
violated the rights of developmentally disabled Medicaid recipients seeking eligibility for in-
home care by defining the term "health and safety" for eligibility purposes solely based on an
unpublished algorithm. 180 F.Supp.3d 703 (D. Idaho 2016). The court found the algorithm-only
definition violated the plaintiffs' due process rights. The court stated, "Due process requires
IDHW to 'establish written standards and regulations."' Id. at715 citing Carey v. Quern,588
F.2d230,232 (7th Cir. 1978).
Besides a clearly ascertainable standard, due process also requires the opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mathews v. Eldridge,424U.S.3l9,
333 (1976). As mentioned in the previous section, Commission Rules encourage the use of
informal proceedings to resolve disagreements. IDAPA 31.01.01 .022. Commission Staff
attempted to resolve Mr. Mendez's Complaint through the informal complaint process before
submitting the dispute to the Commission for adjudication. Commission Rules also explicitly
state that informal proceedings do not exhaust or prejudice administrative remedies. IDAPA
3 1 .01 .01 .024. The informal process that Mr. Mendez complains is violating his right to due
process is in fact an additional layer of process designed to ensure disputes can be efficiently
resolved.
Following the informal complaint process, Mr. Mendez will have full opportunity to
submit his case to the Commission at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mr.
Mendez will then have the right to request reconsideration from the Commission. Idaho Code
5 6l-626. Mr. Mendez will then have the right to appeal the Commission's decision-either on
reconsideration or upon denial of reconsideration-to the Idaho Supreme Court in the normal
course proceedings. Idaho Code $ 6l-627. This is clearly suffrcient process.
Mr. Mendez also refers to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. As an initial matter,
the Commission is not charged with enforcing the FDCPA. Additionally, even if it were, the
7RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2079
FDCPA does not apply to Intermountain Gas Company's actions here (there are no suggestions,
for example, that Intermountain Gas tried to collect a debt that Mr. Mendez owed to a third party,
or used another name to collect a debt owed to it by Mr. Mendez), but recourse to this federal
law is unnecessary and superfluous. If the Commission finds Intermountain Gas improperly
implemented the $14.00 Account Initiation Charge in this case, there are remedies available
under Idaho law. If the Commission finds the $14.00 Account Initiation Charge was proper, then
Intermountain Gas is not collecting an unlawful charge.
CONCLUSION
Staff maintains that Intermountain Gas complied with the Commission's Utility
Customer Relations Rules (IDAPA 31.21.01), and appropriately applied its rates and charges
contained in its Tariff as approved by the Commission. Mr. Mendez was appropriately assessed
the Account Initiation Charge and accurately billed for his usage. Staff notes that Intermountain
Gas has credited Mr. Mendez account for the I interest charge in dispute, so no further
action on this issue is necessary.
Staff recommends the Commission deny Mr. Mendez's request to refund the $14.00
Account Initiation Charge. Additionally, Staff recommends the Commission find: (1) it is
appropriate for Intermountain Gas to assess an Account Initiation Charge when an account is
opened by an applicant; (2) Intermountain Gas complied with Commission Rules; (3)
Intermountain Gas did not manipulate fees; (4) the informal complaint process continues to be
reasonable and just for addressing consumer complaints and continues to be a good preliminary
step before initiating a formal complaint; (5) the Commission's informal and formal complaint
process and judicial review provide ample due process, and Staff s actions did not violate Mr.
Mendez's right to due process; and (6) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is inapplicable in
this case.
8RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
Ll,bRespectfully submitted this
Technical Staff: Beverly Barker
Curtis Thaden
i:umisc/comments/intgl9.3ejbabct response to complaint_ej edits
day of April2019.
Deputy
J
General
9RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT APRIL 4,2019
Thi
St
s Attachment of
affs Response
ains confidential
information
cont
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2019,
SERVED THE FOREGOING RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT (REDACTED), IN CASE
NO. INT-G-19-03, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
LORI BLATTNER
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS CO
PO BOX 7608
BOISE TD 83707
E-MAIL [e-mail]
RAUL MENDEZ
2712N GOLDENEYE WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83646
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
-Lr4H
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE