20021121.pdf

~~~~
;t:; pA;;
~- ~~~
~.:J~~~'l
;:::.
cfJ~~
;;::z:::1;~
~~,
~4~
~~ p~~
4Jr~
ii
! ~It::j
- - - ~- . '
(1' AJi- ~tl""
(?$Y:~- r2/ /Jt~
..LjJ 6370i .
~~~~
/3) eX 41:? qJ $ 't!:r ~ -
~ -
'1:::0
. .
I "' Jit
~-to/
. .~, ~
LJm1
~' .
iJe~~t1"fl'/
:1 '
..
2Z,'
' .. ....~~
!iJe,k
~~f#
aL~
----.".-,,--.,.
, ;1
~ -
1t6.~
- -... -~--
~~l_
tCt
~~ , -
~t:'~~'6'
"=='=--""
(9 c; t/6 !L/~
~~~ ,=~.
=o~-
--~~,~, " , ' ,"';
007, t~/
p;\'
;:1!' n
", ,":'-::=:=::--- '" .;'" j~ ,
Li) OJ /::J \C?~ 19 NG'i :""i fiE
' "
C:Et~-4J.-==-~
2ocY2. 'FILED
---. '---
28HZ NOV 20
p~~
2:S.If v'
tfltc.
~ " " '
7'1 'IV,' t fL~~~
~)
?)3
~()
E;,;:?C;2+S'
=j
16 Hi iJ,s,iUjii jjJ!Uii iJ ii ii iJii"liiu.liiw i:ii,:i.J
~"v\()1/
~)/-
.I f~ RECEIVED ill
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES C6WSSION 0
2002 NOV 21 PM 2: 05
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY
VISTA UTILITIES, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS
AND P ACIFICORP TO IMPLEMENT A TWO-
YEAR PILOT WINTER PROTECTION
PROGRAM THAT ESTABLISHES MINIMUM
MONTHLY PAYMENTS DURING THE
WINTER MORATORIUM, AND A WAIVER OF
WINTER MORATORIUM RULE 306, mAPA
31.21.01.306.
~ UT1d~f~~:J c~~1,~l~SION
)CASE-NO:'GNR~U: O'2::-1'"~c"
AARP'S COMMENTS TO COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF APPLICATION
INTRODUCTION
AARP files these comments pursuant to the Commission s "Notice of Application and
Notice of Modified Procedure" dated October 31 , 2002. We applaud the Commission for
giving interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed two-year pilot for
the Winter Protection Program. As expressed herein, AARP has significant concerns
with the utilities' filed Application in this docket. While AARP agrees with the concept
that customers should pay what they can during the winter moratorium, we urge the
Commission to deny the parties' request for adoption of the proposed changes to the
program under a Modified Procedure. Instead, the Commission should initiate an
evidentiary proceeding to create a record on which it can base a well infonned decision.
The Winter Protection Program provides a valuable safety net for our most vulnerable
citizens and should not undergo the significant changes proposed in the Idaho utilities
Application without a more thorough evaluation.
AARP is the nation s leading organization for people age 50 and older. It serves their
needs and interests through infonnation, education, advocacy, and community services
which are provided by a network of local chapters and experienced volunteers throughout
the country. The association s membership includes workers and retirees. AARP has
over 145 000 members in the state ofIdaho, Rising utility rates are having an
overwhelming impact on Idaho citizens, especially older persons - many of whom are
living on low and fixed incomes.
Although older Americans consume approximately the same amount of energy as do
younger people, they devote a higher percentage of total spending to residential energy.
This may be due to the fact that older Americans spend a greater proportion of income on
home heating costs (even after adjusting for weather and home size). Low-income older
families, in fact, spend an average of 13 percent of their income on residential energy.
However, about one of every four low-income older households spends 19 percent or
more oftheir entire income on home energy bills. Too often, these families are forced to
choose between risking their health and comfort by cutting back on energy expenditures
and reducing spending for other basic necessities.
Proposed Changes to the Winter Protection Program
Changes to the Winter Protection Program could have significant implications for
residential consumers in Idaho, particularly given the fact that the Energy Information
Administration forecasts significantly higher energy prices for the coming winter heating
season. Because of the broad implications of the Rule, AARP strongly believes that any
changes should be done through an evidentiary proceeding, rather than through the
current approach advocated by the utilities. This rule is too important for the residential
consumers of Idaho to leave to informal discussions, The utilities need to put forward
evidence on why the Rule should be changed that can be questioned and debated prior to
any Commission order changing the Rule.
In their proposed Application, the utilities propose significant changes to the current
Winter Protection Program. Most notably, the utilities propose changing the eligibility
criteria for the program and requiring the imposition of a minimum monthly payment in
return for participation. The Application also lists the organizations that participated in a
series of meetings that resulted in the proposals included therein, AARP was not a party
to those discussions. As such, we offer the following responses to the questions to which
the Commission has invited interested parties to comment:
1. Should customers generally pay what they can during the three moratorium
months? For customers who do not pay during the moratorium, are there other
approaches to mitigate the large account balances after the moratorium?
ANSWER: Yes, customers should pay what they can during the moratorium
months. However, the Application does not adequately explain how the 50%
payment of the Level Pay Plan amount was derived, AARP believes that any
review of the current program should include an arrearage forgiveness
program, as a means to effectively mitigate account balances that will likely
remain at the end of the moratorium period. A program that forgives
arrearages over a two-year period, for example, so long as the customer
continues to pay current bills and pays a portion of the arrearage is completely
appropriate. Arrearage forgiveness and other low-income assistance
programs have been shown to save the utilities money on costs such as fewer
disputes and termination notices and proceedings, reduced delinquencies and
the like.
2. Should participation in the pilot program be based solely on income eligibility
(recognizing that medical extensions are still available)? If so, is the LIHEAP
eligibility of 150% of the federal poverty level an appropriate income threshold?
ANSWER: Participation should not be based solely on income eligibility.
While the 150% of the federal poverty level is an adequate threshold, AARP
also supports opening the program to those customers who are also enrolled in
other means-tested benefits such as Medicaid and T ANF, which may have
slightly different eligibility requirements. The purpose of the Winter
Protection Program is to assist those most in need. Thus, customers who have
demonstrated a need by their participation in other means-tested programs
should be allowed to participate in the Winter Protection Program as well.
3. Is the recommended payment amount (50% of levelized payment) reasonable and
adequate?
ANSWER: The Application presents no information upon which a
determination can be made as to whether or not the recommended payment of
50% oflevelized payment is reasonable, In the Application, the utilities offer
an example in which a customer s average monthly payment during the
moratorium could be $90 per month. Conversely, in a letter filed by
Intermountain Gas dated October 28 , 2002, the company claims that the above
example overstates the average monthly payment of its customers, which is
expected to be approximately $34, Given this discrepancy, the Commission
should require the companies to submit more detailed information to clarify
what the actual payment amounts are likely to be for customers of each utility.
4. If a customer is not eligible to participate in the proposed plan, are the existing
level payor special payment options sufficient to address the payment concerns of
residential customers during the winter months?
ANSWER: Again, the Application does not provide any information upon
which an accurate or well-informed answer to this question can be based,
5. Is a two-year pilot program too long or too short?
ANSWER: The answer to this question could best be determined after
workshops and hearings are held to address the questions posed above.
6, Should the pilot project be restricted to only gas or electric or both types of
utilities?
ANSWER: The Winter Protection Program should apply to both gas and
electric utilities.
7, Should implementation of the pilot program be postponed until next (2003/2004)
winter?
ANSWER: The Commission should delay implementation of the proposed
pilot program. Given the concerns expressed herein, we urge the Commission
to wait until adequate information can be gathered upon which a fair and
effective pilot program can be based. That delay could take at least until next
winter.
Conclusion
The Commission should move cautiously in modifying the Winter Protection Program.
We must not put the welfare of thousands of Idaho citizens in jeopardy simply to weed
out a few bad apples. The Commission should rely on evidence supplied by the parties in
a contested case hearing. This evidence should not only review the changes sought by
the utilities, but also examine the implementation of arrearage forgiveness and automatic
enrollment programs for energy assistance plans, We look forward to working with the
Commission to accomplish this task.
Dated: November 21 , 2002 Respectfully submitted
Clyde Dailey
State Director
AARP Idaho
3080 Gentry Way
Suite 100
Meridian, ID 83642-3599
[phone]
Amy Frazier
1697 W. Sego Prairie St.
Kuna, Idaho 83634
[phone]
F AJ( [phone]
Email: amfrazi~msn.com
A Ij. I rn, / 1- . y( fIM-
\\\~\\~
~)r,",\IED
t\l::.. L. t:.
f\LED
ln~lNr.W2 \ ~M \ \ ~
nl',H~ nHQUC
UJ\L t'\ES COMt'USS\OH
November 18, 2002
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, 10 83720-0074
Subject: GNR-02-, Winter Moratorium Program proposed rule change
Dear Public Utilities Commission:
Pursuant to the solicitation for comments I hereby submit the following comments
on the proposal to change the rules governing the "winter moratorium program
The Governor of our state is an advocate for women, children and seniors - this
proposed rule change would endanger the health, safety and well-being of these
populations of the citizenry of this state.
As you are aware, Idaho State Code 61-501 authorizes the Public Utilities
Commission to "supervise and regulate every public utility in the state , The
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is seeking comment on a proposal by
some Idaho utilities to significantly alter commission rules regarding the "winter
moratorium " the three-month period during which utilities are prohibited from
disconnecting customers who fail to make payments,
This proposal would alter PUC Rule number 306, which currently states:
306. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICE-
- WINTER PAYMENT PLAN (Rule 306).
01, Restrictions on Termination of Service to Households with Children.
Elderly. or Infirm.Except as provided in Rule 303, no gas or electric utility
may terminate service or threaten to terminate service during the months
of December through February to any residential customer who declares
that he or she is unable to pay in full for utility service and whose
household includes children, elderly or infirm persons. (7-93)
02. Definitions for This Rule.For purposes of this rule: (7-93)
a. "Children" are defined as persons 18 years of age or younger, but
customers who are emancipated minors are not children under this rule.
(7 -93)
b. "Elderly" are defined as persons 62 years of age or older. (7-93)
c. "Infirm" are defined as persons whose physical health or safety would
be seriously impaired by termination of utility service. (7-93)
03. Opportunity to Participate in Winter Payment Plan.Any residential
customer who declares that he or she is unable to pay in full for utility
service and whose household includes children, elderly or infirm persons
must be offered the opportunity to establish a Winter Payment Plan.
However, no customer may be required to establish such a plan. Except
as provided in Rule 303, no gas or electric utility may terminate service
during the months of November through March to any customer who
establishes a Winter Payment Plan before November 1. A customer may
establish a Winter Payment Plan after November 1 , but the extended
protection from termination of service offered under such a plan will not
begin until the date the plan is established. Failure of a participating
customer to make payments as required will result in cancellation of the
plan and elimination of the extended protection from termination of service
offered under the plan. The customer may use any source of funds to
satisfy the payment requirements of Winter Payment Plan. (7-93)
04. Amount of Pa ments Un er Winter Pa ment Plan, Monthly payments
under a Winter Payment Plan are equal to one-half (1/2) of the Level Pay
Plan amount for that customer, The Level Payment Plan amount must be
calculated according to Rule 313.06, (7-93)
05. Payment Arranaements Followina Winter Payment Plan.If a customer
who received the protection of this rule has an outstanding balance owed
to the utility, the customer must either pay this balance or negotiate a new
payment arrangement: (7-93)
a. On or after March 1 , if the customer has not established a Winter
Payment Plan, or
b, On or after April 1 , if the customer has established a Winter Payment
plan. Failure of a customer to payor make payment arrangements
or after these dates may result in termination of service. (7-93)
06. Successive Participation in Winter Payment Plan.A customer who
participates in a Winter Payment Plan one year must be allowed to
participate in succeeding years if the customer has honored the payment
arrangements and the balance owing as of November 1 does not exceed
$75 or the customer s utility bill for the previous 30 days, whichever is
greater. However, the utility is not required to connect or reconnect the
service of a customer or applicant who does not currently have utility
service and owes an unpaid, undisputed bill to the utility. (7-93)
07. Unoccupied Residences. Etc,Nothing in this rule prevents a gas or
electric utility from terminating service to unoccupied residences or
residences where the occupants have failed or refused to apply for utility
service. Nothing in this rule requires the utility to connect service for a
customer who owes money on an existing account or from a previous
account when that customer moves to a new residence that does not
currently have service. (7-93)
(Adopted, G.O. 177; amended, G.O. 177A; amended, G.O, 208.
Cross-Reference: Rules 005 300 302 303 304 305 307 308 309 310
311 312 313.
The PUC has been granted great power in regards to changes in rules
governing service by public utilities. Caution must be taken in adopting
changes, as consumers have the PUC as the only regulatory entity over
public utilities. Consumers have no choice in selecting utility service - we are
provided with a sinale source for electric, gas and telephone service. The
proposed rule change affecting electric and gas service during the winter
moratorium time frame must not be allowed by the PUC, To do so in this manner
would be nothing less than a clear-cut example of unbridled authority by the
utilities and the Public Utilities Commission.
The PUC rules, authorized by the Public Utilities Law, Chapters 1 through 7
Idaho Code, and the specific legal authority of Sections 61-301 , 61-302, 61-303
61-315 61-503 61-507, and 61-520, Idaho Code, provide
. . ,
a set of fair. just. reasonable. and non-discriminatorv rules to address
recurring areas of disagreement between utilities and customers with
regard to deposits, guarantees, billing, application for service, denial of
service, termination of service, and complaints to utilities. Idaho PUG
Rule 001 (emphasis added)
Idaho Code addresses the determination of rules and regulations:
61-507. DETERMINATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. The
commission shall prescribe rules and regulations for the performance of
any service or the furnishings of any commodity of the character furnished
or supplied by any public utility, and , on proper demand and tender of
rates, such public utility shall furnish such commodity or render such
service within the time and upon the conditions provided in such rules.
(emphasis added)
Idaho Code also address the utility service by a public utility as follows:
61-302. MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SERVICE. Every public utility
shall furnish, provide and maintain such service, instrumentalities
equipment and facilities as shall promote the safety, health , comfort and
convenience of its patrons, employees and the public, and as shall be in
all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable.
61-303. RULES AND REGULATIONS JUST AND REASONABLE. All
rules and regulations made by a public utility affecting or pertaining to its
charges or service to the public shall be just and reasonable.
Changes in rates and service are addressed in Idaho Code as follows:
61-307. SCHEDULES - CHANGE IN RATE AND SERVICE. Unless the
commission otherwise orders, no change shall be made by any public
utility in any rate, fare, toll , rental, charge or classification, or in any rule
regulation or contract relating to or affecting any rate, fare, toll , rental
charge, classification or service, or in any privilege or facility except after
thirty (30) days' notice to the commission and to the public as herein
provided. Such notice shall be given by filing with the commission and
keeping open for public inspection new schedules stating plainly the
change or changes to be made in the schedule or schedules then in force
and the time when the change or changes will go into effect. The
commission, for good cause shown, may allow changes without requiring
the thirty (30) days' notice herein provided for, by an order specifying the
changes so to be made and the time when they shall take effect, and the
manner in which they shall be filed and published. When any change is
proposed in any rate, fare, toll, rental, charge or classification, or in any
form of contract or agreement or in any rule, regulation or contract relating
to or affecting any rate, fare, toll , rental , charge, classification or service
or in any privilege or facility, attention shall be directed to such change on
the schedule filed with the commission by some character to be
designated by the commission, immediately preceding or following the
item,
By a complete accident, I happened to find PUC web page posting of the PUC'
press release of October 31 , 2002 soliciting public comment on the rule change,
The PUC press release follows:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. GNR-02-, Order No. 29145
For Immediate Release October 31 , 2002
Contact: Gene Fadness [phone]
Utilities propose pilot winter moratorium program
BOISE - The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is seeking
comment on a proposal by some Idaho utilities to significantly alter
commission rules regarding the "winter moratorium " the three-month
period during which utilities are prohibited from disconnecting customers
who fail to make payments.
Enacted in 1979, the moratorium does not excuse customers from
paying their bills, but it postpones disconnection for failure to pay bills.
Utilities cannot disconnect customers who declare they are unable to pay
and have 1) children under 18, 2) people over 62 or 3) "infirmed" persons
living in the household. The moratorium begins Dec. 1 and ends Feb. 28.
The utilities filing the application - Avista Utilities, Intermountain
Gas and PacifiCorp - are proposing a two-year pilot program to begin
Dec. 1, The program would require customers who say they are unable to
pay their entire bill to pay at least a minimum amount, such as one-half of
what they would pay under a level-pay plan.
The proposal, which was crafted after several meetings with state
Department of Health and Welfare officials and representatives of
community action agencies also recommends that an eligibility
requirement be required to participate in the moratorium. The utilities
propose that participants must meet the income eligibility requirements for
receiving energy assistance benefits under the low-Income Heating
Energy Assistance Program (lIHEAP). To qualify for lIHEAP , participants
must earn no more than 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines. For
those families with three in a household , the maximum monthly income
would be $1 878, For a family of five, the maximum monthly income would
be $2 648,
Utilities expressed concern that customers who don make any
payments during the three-month moratorium usually face large bills on
March 1 or disconnection of service when the moratorium ends. According
to the utilities' application, the pilot program would aid customers
establishing a pattern of consistent monthly customer payments and allow
participants to avoid disconnection or be required to pay the entire past-
due balance before service is reconnected. Under the proposal, those who
do not pay their bills and refuse to participate in the moratorium could be
disconnected during the moratorium, unless they can prove a serious
illness or medical emergency,
The commission voted 2-1 this week to solicit public comment on
the proposal. The commission also ordered the three participating utilities
to issue press releases informing customers of the proposed changes and
how they can comment to the commission.
Commissioner Dennis Hansen dissented from the majority, saying
the proposed Dec. 1 start date of the moratorium is too soon to allow
sufficient public comment. "In addition, I believe that given the current
economic conditions in Idaho, where many have lost their employment to
layoffs or company closures, now is not the appropriate time to change a
long-established program that is intended to protect the public health and
safety," Hansen said. It would be better to take comment on how to
structure the program through workshops and hearings, he said. "Rushing
to implement this program will cause a lot of people to suffer this winter.
The order issued by the commission does not discount public
hearings if comments or protests persuade the commission that all the
issues cannot be adequately addressed through written comments.
The commission is seeking comment specifically on these issues:
Should customers generally pay what
they can during the moratorium? For those who do not
pay, are there other approaches to mitigate the large
balances after the moratorium ends?
Should participation be based solely on
income eligibility? If so, is the LlHEAP standard of 150
percent of federal poverty level appropriate?
Is the recommended payment amount
(50 percent of level pay) reasonable? For example, a
customer with a monthly level-pay bill of $150 would have
to pay $75.
If a customer is not eligible, are the
existing level-pay or other special payments options
sufficient to address payment concerns during winter
months?
too short?
Is a two-year pilot program too long or
Should the pilot project be restricted to
either gas or electric utilities or should it apply to both?
Should implementation of the pilot
program be postponed until next year instead of the Dec.
start date the utilities propose?
I applaud Chairman Hansen s recognition of the lack of sufficient time for
public comment and of the current economic problems for our state.
I had not heard or read of the proposal in news media coverage. I did not
receive notice by any of my utility suppliers until just this past week, when I found
a notice in my Intermountain Gas statement on November 15. 2002 - just 6
days before the end of the comment period! There is no doubt that the
general public is uninformed of the proposed rule change, much less the fact that
the comment period ends November 21 , 2002. This is hardly an adequate (or
even a legitimate) time frame for comment on a rule change that could be
harmful to many consumers. The utilities have not given sufficient notice!
After my initial discovery of the press release, I submitted a formal request for
information on involvement by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in
this rulemaking process. As you are aware, the preceding press release states:
The proposal, which was crafted after several meetings with state
Department of Health and Welfare officials and representatives of
community action agencies also recommends that an eligibility
requirement be required to participate in the moratorium.
The reply to my request for information is as follows:
Dear Ms. Frazier
Unfortunately, I was not able to find any information that you had
requested. The only information the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare has is a copy of the proposed text. The Department has not set
up any meetings, or had any correspondences or made any reports to this
proposed rule change. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission should have
all this information since they are the agency handling this change, Their
phone number is 334-0300.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to let me know,
Sincerely,
Angela Fink
Administrative Procedures Section
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
The preceding reply leads me to no other conclusion than that the public has
been deceived in this process!
Health and Welfare was not involved, as the press release states! It is a
misrepresentation of the truth!
Upon calling the Ada County Community Action Agency to discuss the energy
assistance program, the proposed rule-making process and the affects to the
currently-protected population, the manager told me that the "representatives of
community action agencies" mentioned in the PUC press release are nothing
more than members of an "association" - these are not people who deal with the
energy assistance program and its implementation on a day to day basis, Once
again, the public has been deceived,
The public had no say in this process - the proposed rule has already been
written! The only chance that consumers have to participate in the
implementation of the rule is almost gone. This is not only immoral and
unethical, but it smacks of malfeasance of office, criminal
conspiracy, and outright fraud!
One has only to look to the case of UNITED STATES v. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745
(1966). For criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.C. 241 (1964 ed.). That
section provides in relevant part:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate
any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same;
They shall be fined not more than $5 000 or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both,
The PUC and the utilities, working together, have come to a foregone conclusion.
This solicitation for comments is nothing but a formality. There is no due
process! This is a case of~. This is an uin-house deal"
where the health, safety and well-being of the public has been ignored.
The rulemaking process in itself is flawed.
LAKEWOOD v. PLAIN DEALER PUBLISHING CO" 486 U.S. 750 (1988)
We hold those portions of the Lakewood ordinance giving the mayor unfettered
discretion to deny a permit application and unbounded authority to condition the
permit on any additional terms he deems "necessary and reasonable " to be
unconstitutional.
Surely the Commission cannot find that this comment period (or the
process of the proposal to change this rule) is reasonable I It is the
Commission s duty to ensure that adequate provisions are available to
protect the public s health, safety and well-being.
This process will result in a violation of basic civil liberties, and liability for
such is not protected by corporate or governmental employment.
PACKARD v. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity
which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government
sufferance or permission, In the latter case the power to exclude altogether
generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of
regulation not admissible in the former. Also See Davis v, Massachusetts 167
S. 43 17 Sup. Ct. 731.
HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)
We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons
within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits
nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983
solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts. (emphasis added)
Our state is in one of its worst economic crises ever. Many of our state
citizens have lost their employment due to layoffs or company closures, many
are "under-employed" - highly skilled and educated workers have been forced to
find jobs that are only part-time or that are lower-paying (try going from a middle
class wage to working for minimum wage!), Unemployment figures in many of
our state s counties are as high as 14%. The unemployment rate in the urban
areas of this state has risen one-half percent since just last year. And last year
was not rosy for this state either. (Figures obtained from Idaho Dept. of Labor on
November 18, 2002).
Utility prices have risen; the price of gasoline, groceries , and other necessities of
life are continuing to rise - and wages are lower. This is not the time to change
the moratorium - the moratorium is designed to protect public health and safety.
It is designed to allow for the necessities of heat and electric power in the coldest
parts of the year - in a time of year when jobs may be scare in the construction
industries (or other businesses that cannot operate at full capacity during harsh
weather).
Our economy is in such a state that people are having a hard time feedina their
families - and we have the holiday season coming along. The stress of financial
difficulties almost always tears at the family. Domestic violence and child abuse
rates rise, marriages crumble and the family unit can become broken.
This is an unprecedented time of corporate fraud, of bonuses paid to corporate
officers and of lower wages, underemployment or unemployment. One has only
to look to such public cases as Enron for examples of this. One has only to
look at Idaho Power's recent bond passage (and public repayment of this
bond) to understand the "bottom line" of utilities.
All of the issues involving this proposal cannot be addressed in written
comments. There is not sufficient time. The public is not aware that the process
is happening. Public hearings should be held - with sufficient notice to the
general public (the utility users and the very population who will be affected) as to
the place and time of the hearings. The utilities should once again send out
notices - giving sufficient notice as to the hearings. I would even suggest that
the notices not be in fine print - perhaps the utilities should be made to make an
ACTUAL EFFORT to inform the public!
Customers generally do and should be uraed to pay what they can during the
moratorium. I understand that during the moratorium the utilities must wait for a
time of up to three months to collect on past due accounts. These utilities
however, are not losing their entire income, as the balances must be paid at the
end of the moratorium, Only those with children, elderly or infirm persons in the
household even qualify for the moratorium s protection.
I find it hard to believe that the 11 000 charged off accounts mentioned in the
Intermountain Gas Company s notice of the proposal that I received are all due to
the moratorium.
Again , there is no option for public utility service for users, There is no
reasonable alternative to the fundamental utility services needed during the
harshest months of the year, In a way, the adoption of the proposed rule will
could be construed as a case of equitable estoppel. One cannot install a wood
stove, generally, without conforming to local standards and ordinances. Will a
local governmental entity allow large amounts of fuel for generators on a
residential premises? Are you thus leaving the only alternative of a potential
violation of local standards and ordinances?
Additionally, if someone is unable to afford their gas bill, are they realistically
going to be able to afford the purchase of a wood stove, alternative fuel heating
source (Le. fuel oil) or electric heaters? Once these are installed, the
consideration of firewood, fuel oil, etc. must also be calculated into the equation
of the up-front costs of an alternative to public utility service.
One also must consider that gas furnaces are basically useless if the
electricity is not on to their household. Electricity must be a protected
moratorium service, as well as gas. Can someone realistically put a generator
outside his or her home to power their furnace blower or electric heater? As
stated, local ordinances and standards can come into play here as well.
It is a sad experience at the time of the year when the moratorium ends. Public
utilities worried about their "bottom line" and become "blood thirsty" for immediate
payment. Yes, responsibility must be advocated for the user, but it must also be
so for the supplier. Yes, large balances occur as a result, but once again no one
aets a free ride - the bill must be paid either way.
One must only look to the recent Idaho Supreme Court case of Orthman, et al v.
Idaho Power Company to understand utility practices - and the reason for the
legislative authorization given to the PUC - authorization to protect consumers
and to regulate utilities. Idaho Power Company, in the circumstances leading to
the injuries of the Plaintiff, was negligent in their collection practices.
Even though Idaho Power could not terminate service during the winter
moratorium, it sent the Orthmans three termination notices during thisperiod. Idaho Power representatives never specifically advised the
Orthmans of the winter moratorium period, relying instead on a "Consumer
Information" sheet sent to all customers in September to fulfill its
notification requirements.
This is a common practice. It's an obvious assumption that the utilities despise
the moratorium , and will do anything to eliminate it. Further, in the Orthman
case
On April 22, Armstrong went to the Orthmans' residence to disconnect the
power. When he arrived, Nancy (Orthman) told him that she had paid
$400 on the account. Armstrong telephoned Hartruff and requested that
she talk with Nancy. Nancy asked Hartfuff if she could make payment
arrangements, insisting that she could pay the bill that day or on the
following day. Hartfuff told Nancy that the bill had to be paid in full at that
time and she did not have the authority to make a payment arrangement.
She did not inform Nancy about the company s standard payment
arrangements. (Emphasis and last name added).
This was an interesting case; the Plaintiff was severely injured trying to reconnect
his service (he lost both of his legs, as well as the use of his arms and hands).
He violated the law by trying to turn his service back on so the case might be
dismissed as irrelevant to this comment, however, Idaho Power was found to be
just as negligent as he was. It is a prime example of failure on the utility s part to
give the consumer all of the information and tools available to make satisfactory
arrangements.
As the Intermountain Gas notice states regarding the 11 000 charge-offs in 2002
only 5% are eligible for energy assistance. Why is this? Because energy
assistance eligibility requirements do not take into account many factors. The
150% poverty level does not take into account those who are struggling to catch
up with their mortgage payment, trying to afford the rising cost of groceries, gas
for their vehicles and other necessities. This is a horrible time for this change
because of the economic situation our nation and state currently face. There is
no warning, there are no reasonable, prudent or customary alternatives for
consumers who are facing hard times, try as they may, New approaches should
indeed be taken to mitigate the large balances after the moratorium ends, but the
pilot program" should not be allowed right now.
One must contemplate the entire idea of a "pilot program . It would seem to be
yet another foregone conclusion that this will become formally accepted as
a permanent change at the end of the trial run suggested - as the utilities
will report back to the PUC of the "success" of the program - meaning the
protection of their "bottom line
Participation in moratorium relief should not be based solely on income eligibility.
Cold weather is cold weather, no matter the income. If this is a requirement
however, the LlHEAP standard of 150 percent of federal poverty level is nowhere
near appropriate. There are several reasons why it is not a sufficient
requirement, including:
. The energy assistance guidelines do not count child support amounts paid
out (although they do credit payments received).
In the case of those who are self-employed, (for the entrepreneurs who
are the heart and soul of this nation), only gross income is counted. No
expenses can be deducted. Therefore, if one has high outgoing expenses
- such as office supplies, equipment expenses, or other normal costs
associated with business practices - with a very small actual monthly
income from a business, that person will be disqualified. Alternatively,
there is the option of using last year's profit and loss tax statements to
figure the monthly income, but this is a terrible economic time for our state
- businesses are failing everywhere,
The recommended payment amount (50 percent of level pay) is perhaps
reasonable to request, however no one should have services disconnected
simply because they cannot afford this. Once again, rising utility costs have hurt
consumers. Bond repayment has hurt consumers. The economy is not rosy by
any standard. Fixed incomes have not risen with utility prices. Unemployment is
rising. Underemployment cannot even be measured on a practical basis.
Who would determine eligibility? The utility? The local Community Action
Agency? How much paperwork is required of a person or persons? Or would a
verbal statement be sufficient? Who would they submit it to and what is the
timeframe for submission to avoid disconnection? Our Community Action
Agencies are overwhelmed right now; how would they cope with increased
paperwork or staff time to accommodate the utilities? In my research, no one
has answered these questions. The consensus is that the public agencies are
already overwhelmed to the point that they cannot fathom the increased need for
assistance. They cannot spare the staff time to do this sort of requirement at this
time. The Community Action Agencies have a lower budget this year -
assistance for those limited few eligible for assistance will not even be adequate
to handle their bills.
If a customer is not eligible, are the existing level-payor other special payments
options sufficient to address payment concerns during winter months? This is
the question posed in the PUC press release, Cold weather is cold weather, If
they are options, fine. But it is clear that the proposed rule is already written
with the "options" being mandatory. Once again, no one gets a free ride.
The customer's bill must be paid in March (in full) anyway. The moratorium
should stay intact, There is no doubt that the proposed "pilot program" will be
instituted as a permanent program. We are in the middle of an economic crisis
and the payment options listed are not sufficient or reasonable to those who are
trying to avoid the reality of moving from a middle class income to a lower
income. There are necessities such as rent (or house payment), food, basic
clothing for the family, gas for vehicles to traverse to and from work, and on and
on.
We also have the question as to who actually pays for charge-off's: ratepayers or
stockholders? Is this a misrepresentation being used by the utilities in their
arguments? A business is a business, and there is inevitable economic risk, In
the case of this rule change, however, it must be made abundantly clear that all
the current moratorium does is to limit termination of service durina the harshest
months of the year: December. January and February - and only for those
consumers with children, elderly or infirm residents livina in the home.The bill
must be paid at the end of the moratorium, one way or another. Again , this is a
time of economic crisis , not only in our nation, but especially for the residents of
our great state. The PUC must take this into account when considering this
change, And the PUC must require that the petitioning utilities provide for
sufficient notice to the affected public - this has not been provided.
To continue on the subject of the charge-off numbers provided by Intermountain
Gas, and the relationship between the moratorium and charge-offs, a good
reading of the FSC's Law Economic Insights, January/February 2002 edition is
recommended. The subject of the newsletter is a study concerning payment
patterns during Iowa s winter moratorium , which is similar to Idaho s winter
moratorium. Fisher Sheehan & Colton, Public Finance and General Economics
(FSC) completed a study examining whether Iowa utility customers protected by
that state s moratorium changed their payment patterns or not during the
moratorium timeframe. The Iowa Moratorium lasts from November 1 to April 1 of
each year. The study, released in February of 2002 , was based on 38 months of
data.
From the inception of the Iowa winter shutoff moratorium, arguments have
been raised that the blanket prohibition on the termination of service
during the winter season would result in customers deciding to stop
making payments toward their home utility bills. In the absence of the
potential use of service termination as a collection tool , the argument
goes, customers will stop paying their bills in order to, in effect, take a
loan" from the utility throughout the moratorium period,
closer examination of the Iowa data, however, reveals that this
conclusion as to increased payment trouble during the winter moratorium
months is in error,
The study s conclusion? That the winter utility shutoff moratorium does not result
in a "substantive change in payment practices." The study also notes that that
state s "moratorium has been implemented without creating nonpayment
problems for Iowa s utilities,
A similar study completed by the Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS) of the
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission found that there is a relationship
between their winter moratorium and amounts of arrears. It's simple: that
although the utilities put forward the argument that they can t control past due
amounts
.. . if the assertion that winter termination restraints invite nonpayment were
correct, then non-heating arrearages should show the same seasonal
pattern of variations as do heating arrearages. That they do not casts
substantial doubt on the assertion that PUC winter termination restraints
Nov 21 02 09: 48a Adu 1 t Protect i on Serv ices 2082335232
j,v'y ~J, r
r/ M~~ urr ~)- ~vV
s-" Vf'(f"tf'J" ()
tA f(~-
F AX TRANSMISSION
p. 1
SICOGI AREA V AGENCY ON AGING
O. Box 6079
P6catello, Idaho 83205-6079
208-233-4032 ext. 40
Fax: 208-23~5332
208-334-3762
Date:
Pages: 1
November 21, 2002To:
Fax #:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
ee:
Pam Loveland-Schmidt
Case Management Supervisor
Lance Ekoy, Intennountain Gas Company
Mike Huntington, Intermountain Gas Company
From:
Subject: Utilities Pilot Winter Moratorium Program
Dear Mr. Gene Fadness:
I wrote to you on 11/07/02 stating my concerns about the removal of the moratorium. I have spoke to Mr.
Lance Elroy, Intennountain Gas-Pocatello and Mr. Mike Huntington, Intennountain Gas-Boise since that
tUne and they have infonned me that the moratorium is not being removed, it is being revised and will not
affect those elderly clients that I was and still concerned about losing their heat in the winter.
Intennountain Gas in the past has worked very well with the Area Agency on Aging to assist the elderly in
Southeast Idaho when they are having difficulty paying their gas bill. Mr. Ekoyand Mr. Huntington have
agreed to have then- staff contact the Area Agency on Aging if they suspect the person not paying their bill
is a person over the age of 60 and having difficulty paying their bill. Mr. Huntington personally assured me
that Intennountain Gas will continue their commitment to assist the elderly.
If the Area Agency on Aging did not have a good working relationship with Intennountain Gas, I would be
very concerned about the revision of the Moratoriwn, but at this time I feel that Intermountain Gas is
committed to the protection of the elderly.
I would like to see the Utilities Commission consider inviting the Area Agency on Aging to be part of the
committee that determines whether the Utilities Pilot Winter Moratorium will continue and to assist with the
feed back once the Pilot Program begins. Thank you for your time, if you have any questions, please feel ftee
to call me.
Sincerely,'l
\ Q.H~j: t).
" ,-~..
-,-G~:-...cJ -
Pam Loveland-Schmidt
Case Management Supervisor
r r.-
~e:/t ""
~~-
II- ~,~..ld'V
liol)ol!o..~le Com /Vli.,siof'l.€iCS' h:~l th4.f aN! Ch4.'!J(: iN
7h e. w : Vt ta M 0'( Ill-/) i "'-111\. "" i 5 Y f!A.(?, 15 'f fJI'
j.
DoesgiV't: the H~I piY!J ~ Itje",+C;e5 TiMe
L J\r1tJ \-tow to
--
lASe the Pi lot
Py~tRM ftS P1D
fD~J by Ce d'o.:\~ Llh \ it 't5. A 150 Peel Th6.+ Whc:J tke
U + i I i+'t~ D..R 0..\ 50 00 11\5 UJ i+~ -I-\"i~ f-rc ~oS ed Pi I 0+
pro jfl.ltVI. ':J o.Jd -
'j
fv\o~e.. WO"R \\ foR the. J1-~-te.
QV\~ \ Dc.~\ ?1A..~1,( Hd ~ A5eV\.hi6.1 ~~
1 h e. ~~~t COLlY $ of' Ad'ion IS No ft(J )()t'\ I eC\.u e..
." i
T'oe. \),S,Y\.-tt.R rv\ORA+oR \LlII't ifJ pltl.t~
5 0'\ L €. rI Y T; /'v\ oH,\,1 ~.5 h u. ~ 2...
~/
1/ ~tPtAf~ Mtti
Fi ~ i-k 1.0 11- h.D
f/J ~3023b
100 III t01t9tCgO~ XVd 6~: 01 IlHl ~0/1~/11
'3 €.o. N Ih':$ e. IfR.e.. pea
Ft.! ijrJeJ
'"1he.i~ Ofpt;5kfitJN10 -Ht~ ,...
fYOf~s.eJ C~~C:5 iN R.e. w;;J!f~ ~~I1IGf(/UIH Af-
The Shelly S et\IOl.L(' ~,fJz.~1J ceAJhR. 1~H.1c TiM ShwX'"h
Open commef1ts letter to IPUC . :N.b~:,
'~.
r2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel that the &\vinter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-O2-, Order No. 29145.
(1# 1u /J1 t ddtu
~4L/
*~ ~ ~:.) .
)L~~p.A.O~"'~'
~~~~
~lPiiJ
'XJ
1:001fj t01t9tt801: l'~ 61:: 01 fiB! 60/16/11
Open comments letter to IPUC 11 !j~c;1mber 2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel thaUhe C'Winter moratorium"
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by' cert3in
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-O2-, Order No. 29145.
.f~ '10/-
~/;,~J
~4"A~
(!.y.. ~~
. M.VYt.
1JL
"rY1 'Cr A,.,u I
~ ~
0e'~
7~1/0~' ~r'
6001lJ
.. '
tO1t9tC80Z XVd IC: 01 llHl ZO/IZ/11
Open comments letter to !PUC 1\1(;11"
j; , .
i 2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel that the "winter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service trom December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by cenain
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-O2-, Order No. 29145.
Pl;..,re.Co
1'h 5~
SOOIfJ tolt9teS06 lTd Ie: 01 ilHl 60/16/11
Open comments letter to IPUC NoV,13.., 2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel that the &Viinter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-O2-, Order No. 29145.
)1 Jk f~ 11t
LOOIfJ toTt9tes06 IV~ Te: OT fiHl 60/T6/TT
Open comments letter to IPUC "NDv.i~
. '
~2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel that the "winter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-U-O2-, Order No. 29145.
~~"'-'
?t~
~~ (.'
/. '.t 4- 4./ ;:c ~7/ h"L~~ 8~~~~'s'J
900~
" .
t01t9tt80~ IVd ot: 01 l1H1 ~0/1~/1T
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feet that the "winter moratorium"
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in IPUC Case No. GNR-O2-, Order No. 29145.
uLJOttO;~
~&~;-y-
t~j;,~
-'l~ .f(~
-(.
/.Cd-'
Open comments lettC\ to IPUC Not) /3:' :' 2002:
SOOIll t01t9tt806 lfd Ot: 01 1181 60/16/11
Open comments letter to IPUC :ND"1143
, ~
2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned Ceel that the "winter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service trom December 1 through February 28 has
served the people well. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in !PUC Case No. GNR-02-, Order No, 29145.
J1;./f-')L1 /r7' 'h
~ ~
I -
~. ~
c., ~ L6J../
/rJ (.,
~/
0~4"
J~
/"-
~o""-
~. ~..-
tOOIiJ t01t9tCg06 IVd OC :01 J1Hl 60/16/11
Open comments letter to IPUC 'I\b V- --I&'
~'
2002:
Honorable commissioners we the undersigned feel that the "winter moratorium
prohibiting the disconnection of service from December 1 through FebIUaI)' 28 has
served the people wel1. We oppose any changes to this program as proposed by certain
utilities in IPUC Case No. -O2-, Order No. 29145.
coo iii tott9tC80Z XYd Of:: ot ilRl ZO/tZ/tt