20150217final_order_no_33229.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
February 17.2015
I3FFORE TIlE II)AII()PUBliC UTIlITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA CORPORATION,)
IDAhO POWER COMPANY,AND )CASE NO.GNR-U-14-O1
PACIIICORP DBA ROCKY MOUN lAIN )
POWFR’S Pt HI ION IOR AN EXEMP1ION 10)
UTILITY CUSTOMER RELA11ONS RULES )ORDER NO.33229
311(4)AND(5).)
On September 30.2014.Avista Corporation.idaho Power Company,and PacifiCorp
dha Rocky Mountain Power (the Utilities)petitioned the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for
an Order exempting them ftom Utility Customer Relations Rule (UCRR)3 11 .04 and .05
(IDAPA 31 .21 .01 .311 .04 and .05).In summary,the sections of UCRR 311 require the Utilities
to try to meet customers at their homes or businesses before disconnecting their service for non
payment to:(1)give the customers a final chance to pay their bill and avoid disconnection;and
(2)tell the customers how they can have service restored if they do not pay at that time and the
Utilities disconnect them.
On October 23.2014.the Commission provided notice of the Petition and invited
interested persons to comment on it through December 10.2014.The Commission also directed
Staff to hold a public informational workshop.See Order No.33157.The Staff held the
workshop on November 21.201 4.Representatives of the Commission Staff,the Utilities,
Community Action Partnership Association of idaho (CAPAI),Snake River Alliance,United
Water Idaho,and lntermountain Gas attended the workshop either in person or telephonically.In
addition,Commission Siaffi CAPAI.and a customer filed comments in the case,and Petitioner
Idaho Power tiled repl\coniinenls.No other comments or reply comments were received.
TIlE PETITION
The Utilities have petitioned the Commission for an exemption to UCRR 311.04 and
.05.These Sections state:
311.TIMES WHEN SERVICE MAY BE TERMINATED —
OPPOR I IJNI I Y 10 AVOID I ERMINA I ION Ot SERVICE (Rule
311).
04.Opportunity to Prevent Termination of Service,immediately
preceding termination of service,the employee designated to terminate service
shall identify himself or herself to the customer or other responsible adult
ORDER NO.33229
upon the premises and shall announce the purpose of the employee’s presence.
This employee shall have in his or her possession the past-due account record
of the customer and shall request any available verification that the
outstanding bills are satisfied or currently in dispute before this Commission.
Upon presentation of evidence that outstanding bills are satisfied or currently
in dispute before this Commission,service shall not be terminated.The
employee shall be authorized to accept full payment,or,at the discretion of
the utility,partial payment,and in such case shall not terminate service.
Nothing in this rule prevents a utility from proceeding with termination of
service if the customer or other responsible adult is not on the premises.
05.Notice of Procedure for Reconnecting Service.The utility
employee designated to terminate service shall give to the customer or leave
in a conspicuous location at the affected service address.a notice showing the
time of and grounds for termination.steps to he taken to secure reconnection,
and the telephone numbers of utility personnel or other authorized
representatives who are available to authorize reconnection.
The Utilities’current disconnection notification practices are summarized below:
Cii rreiit I)isconiiect Notfcfto
Avista Idaho Rocky
Power Mountain
Initial (7-day)Past-Due Notice X X X’
(UCRR 304.01)
Optional H nal (3—day)Past—Due X X X
Notice (t CRR 304.02)
48-hour door hanger X
24-hour in-person or telephone X X
notice (UCRR 304.02)
Knock &hanger at disconnection X X X
(UCRR 311.04 and .05)
The Utilities say that if the Commission grants the Petition and exempts them from
UCRR 311 .04 and .05,their disconnection notification practices will be as follows.Differences
between each utilitvs current and proposed practices appear in bold text:
Rock\Mountains paperless hillini customers receive a past-due notice by e-mail only.The company sends
another e—mail reinuider IS hours before the disconnection date.
If Rocks Mountain kno\s a customer has a life—threatening medical condition,it s ill make another on—site visit
and telephone call before disconnection.
ORDER NO.33229
Proposed Disconnect Notifications
Avista Idaho Rocky
Power Mountain
Monthly bill X X X
Initial 7-day Past-Due Notice Letter X X X3
Final 3-day Past-Due Notice Letter X X X
48-hour door hanger &phone call X
24-hour in person/telephone notice X X X
At Time of Disconnection (if exempted
from UCRR 311.04 and_05)
No knock or hanger (remote X X5 N/A6
disconnect)
Knock &hanger (manual disconnect)X X
Hanger only (manual disconnect)X
In summary,the Utilities want the exemption so they can opt not to:(1)knock on customers’
doors immediately before disconnecting service;and (2)accept payment at the door.
The Utilities note that UCRRs 3 and 9 allow them to seek a rule exemption when
“unusual or unreasonable hardships result from the application of any of these rules.”See
Petition at 5,citing UCRRs 3 and 9,IDAPA 3 1.21.01.003 and .009.The Utilities argue “good
cause exists”for an exemption to UCRR 311 .04 and .05 here because it would let them use
advanced metering,communication,and electronic payment technologies to decrease operating
costs and increase employee safety without sacrificing customer service.Further,the exemption
would not harm customers because the Utilities would still notify customers several times before
disconnecting them.Id.
See fn 1.above.
See fn 2,above.
Idaho Power will knock during the Winter Disconnection Moratorium.See fn 7,below.
6 Rocky Mountain lacks meters with remote disconnect capability.
ORDER NO.33229 3
The Utilities ask for the exemption to take effect after the Winter Disconnection
Moratorium,7 with Avista and Rocky Mountain requesting a March 1,2015 effective date and
Idaho Power requesting a May 1,2015 effective date.8
COMMENTS
Commission Staff,CAPAI,and a customer submitted comments on the Petition,and
one Petitioner—Idaho Power—submitted a reply.The comments and Idaho Power’s reply are
summarized below.
A.Commission Staff
Commission Staff supports exempting the Utilities from UCRR 311.04 and .05,under
certain conditions.Staff’s summary of the proposed exemption,and the conditions upon which
Staff proposes that the Commission grant the exemption,are explained below.
1.Summary of Proposed Exemption
Staff explains that UCRR 311.04 and .05 require the Utilities to:(1)knock on
customers’doors before disconnecting service;and (2)accept payment at the door.If someone
is at the premises,the Utilities presently tell that person that disconnection will occur unless the
customer immediately pays or requests a disconnection delay.The Utilities also tell the person
how to restore service if it is disconnected.If no one is at the premises,the Utilities leave a
written notice containing this information.
Staff notes that the three Utilities’practices would differ under the exemption.Avista
and Idaho Power would still follow UCRR 311.04 and .05 for customers with manual disconnect
meters (“manual meters”).But they would no longer knock and accept on-site payment from
customers with remote disconnect/connect meters (“remote meters”).On the other hand,Rocky
Mountain Power—which only has manual meters—would no longer knock and accept payment
from any customer but would leave an informational door hanger when disconnection occurs.
Staff says benefits of exempting Avista and Idaho Power from the rule and allowing
them to remotely disconnect and connect customers include:
The Winter Disconnection Moratorium generally precludes utilities from terminating service in December through
February for residential customers who declare that they cannot fully pay for utility service and whose household
includes children,elderly,or infirm persons.See UCRR 306.
8 Idaho Power initially asked for a March 1,2015 effective date,but then changed the requested effective date to
May 1,2015,when it filed its reply comments.See Idaho Power Company’s Reply Comments at 14.
ORDER NO.33229 4
•Decreases opportunity for on-site conflicts between customers and utility;
•Increases field employee safety by reducing the risk of physical harm or
robbery;
•Increases certainty on when disconnection and reconnection will occur;
•Encourages customers to communicate with the utility call center to make
payment arrangements,make the utility aware of a medical emergency,
etc.;
•Reduces utilities’operating costs associated with field disconnection visits
and thus reduces upward pressure on rates for all customers;and
•Allows for quicker reconnection of service after the customer pays or
makes payment arrangements.9
Benefits of exempting Rocky Mountain Power from the rule and allowing it to stop
knocking and accepting payment before disconnection include:
•Decreasing the opportunity for on-site conflicts between customers and
utility;
•Increasing field employee safety;and
•Encouraging customers to communicate with the utility call center to
make payment arrangements before disconnection,and to alert the utility
to medical conditions that could harm the customer if disconnection
occurs.
Staff notes that few customers pay at the door to avoid disconnection,with only 20%
of Avista and Idaho Power customers and 14%of Rocky Mountain Power customers paying at
the door during a disconnection visit in 2013.Staff also notes that the Utilities presently assess
these customers a field visit charge,making payment at the door the customers’most expensive
option to avoid disconnection.’°Thus,besides the benefits mentioned above,Staff believes that
exempting the Utilities from having to accept on-site payment would likely prompt customers to
use other,less-expensive means to avoid disconnection.
Avista reports that service typically was restored in less than 15 minutes.
0 Avista assesses a field visit charge of $16 and both Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power charge $20.The
charge is assessed if the customer pays to avoid disconnection during a utility’s disconnection visit.
ORDER NO.33229
2.Staff’s Proposed Conditions for Granting the Exemption
While Staff agrees that the Commission should exempt the Utilities from UCRR
3 11 .04 and .05,Staff believes that the exemption should be conditioned upon the Utilities taking
the following actions.
a.Diligently Attempt to Call Customers Before Disconnecting Them.UCRR 304.02
requires utilities to “diligently attempt to contact the customer”either by phone or in person at
least 24 hours before the scheduled disconnection “to advise the customer of the proposed action
and steps to take to avoid or delay termination.”While the rule does not define “diligently,”
Staff cites Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary as defining “diligent”as “characterized
by steady,earnest and energetic application and effort,”Staff says that diligently attempting to
telephone customers will become increasingly important if the Commission exempts the Utilities
from the knock-at-the-door rule.But in Staff’s view,Avista,which tries to call customers up to
seven times before disconnection,is the only utility that “diligently”attempts to contact the
customer as required by UCRR 304.02.Staff thus recommended the Commission direct Idaho
Power (which calls once)and Rocky Mountain (which also calls once unless a known medical
condition exists,in which case two calls are made)to “diligently”attempt to notify the customers
of impending disconnection by increasing the number of attempted calls to three or more,with at
least one call occurring after 6:00 p.m.
In reply,Idaho Power says its single call to customers sufficiently complies with
UCRR 304.02.Idaho Power agrees,however,to attempt more calls for customers who have
remote meters.Idaho Power Reply at 4.
Commission Findings:UCRR 304.02 requires utilities to “diligently attempt to
contact the customer”by phone or in person at least 24 hours before disconnection.The rule
does not define “diligently.”We find it is reasonable and in the public interest to define
diligently”as suggested by Staff and Webster’s dictionary;i.e.,as being characterized by
steady.earnest and energetic application and effort.”We decline,however,to specify the exact
number of calls a utility must make under UCRR 304.02 before disconnecting a customer.In
this regard,we applaud Avista’s diligence in attempting to call customers multiple times.We
remind Idaho Power and Rocky I\ountain Power that they,too,must “diligently attempt to
contact the customer”by placing more than one call to the customer.Further.we expect the
Utilities to place those calls at times that are reasonably likely to reach the customer.For
ORDER NO.33229 6
example,a utility should not just call a customer during the workday,but should call at different
times to increase the utility’s chances of actually speaking to the customer when he or she is
home,and not just to a voice mail service on the customer’s phone.Lastly.we find that UCRR
304.02 requires the Utilities to try to call “the customer affected”-—i.e..the customer that the
Utility intends to not just customers with remote meters as suggested by Idaho
Power.The rule plainly requires utilities to try to contact all affected customers regardless of
meter type.
b.Educate (‘uslonwrs and Employees About the New Practices.The Utilities plan to
educate customers and employees about the changes in company practices.Staff prefers Rocky
Mountain’s proposed education campaign to those of Idaho Power and Avista.Rocky Mountain
proposes to include a message on hills with past-due account balances.and on the initial past-
due reminder nolices and final disconnection notices.Further,a 3x5 card in English and Spanish
stating that Rocky Mountain no longer accepts payment at the door will be stapled to a door
hanger at the premises 48 hours before the disconnection date.On the day of disconnection,any
customer answering a door knock will be verbally told of the change and handed a 3x5 card.If
customer contact is not made on the day of disconnection.a second card will be stapled to a door
hanger and left at the residence.’2 Call Center representatives will inform customers of the new
process when contacted by customers who have a past-due balance that are asking about
payment arrangements or where to pay.Field metering specialists will undergo additional
training to handle customer questions and concern5.’3 See Staff Comments at 9-10.
After field metering specialists stop knocking on doors to verbally communicate with
customers.Rocky Mountain Power will continue to inform customers of the change.After
implementation.communication will continue through the use of a message on bills with past—
due account balances,on the initial past-due reminder and final disconnection notices,3x5 cards,
The message reads:“Rocky Mountain Power employees no longer accept payments at your home or business for
safety reasons,Several payment options are available.Learn more at Qckym naippowenet.’pay or call 1-888-
221-7070.”
2 In the fall of 2015,when the door hanger is due for an annual review and reprinting,Rocky Mountain will update
it with the message that is contained on the 3x5 card,The 3x5 card inventory will be used until depleted.
I Rocky Mountain ill hold a special training session to inform the teld metering specialists of the change,why
the change is being made,and their role in the campaign.Metering managers will periodically accompany
specialists to ensure customers are being informed of the change and to evaluate how receptive customers are to the
change.
ORDER NO.33229 7
door hangers.and customer interaction with customer service representatives and field metering
specialists.IcL at 10.
Staff believes that training call center and field personnel about the reason for the
change and the resulting benefits will help ensure a smooth transition.Additionally,educating
customers with past-due balances who initiate contact with the utility before it implements the
change will help reduce confusion and the number of inquiries.Id.
Stall thus recommended the Commission direct Avista and Idaho Power to
implement a customer education campaign like Rocky Mountain’s proposed campaign,or that at
least includes the following minimum requirements:
1.Before implementing the change in utility practices.provide field
personnel and customer service representatives with additional training for
handling customer questions and concerns;and
2.Before implementing the change and for at least one (1)year thereafter:
a.Inform customers of the change when they contact the utility about a
past-due balance,a payment arrangement.where to make a payment.
or a pending disconnection:
h.Include a message about the change in the bills of customers with past-
due account balances.and on the initial past-due notice and final
disconnection notice:and
c.Inform customers of the change when contacting them by phone
before disconnection.
Id.at 10-il.Staff also recommended Idaho Power and Avista personally contact or call their
affected non-residential (i.e.,small business)customers to advise them of the policy changes and
to tell them to take any necessary steps to protect [theirl customers and employees if
disconnection is unavoidable.”See Staff Comments at 8-9.Lastly.Staff recommended the
Commission direct Avista and Idaho Power to submit their revised education plans to the
Commission within 14 days after the Conmmission’s Order issues.Id.at 10.
In reply.Idaho Power agrees it is important to:(1)educate and train field personnel
and customer service representatives (see Staff minimum requirement No.1.above);and (2)
include a message about the change on the initial past-due notice and final disconnection notice
ORDER NO.33229 8
to the customer (see Staff minimum requirement No.2.b..above),But Idaho Power disagrees
with Staffs remaining suggestions.
Idaho Power disagrees with Staffs minimum requirements 2.a and b to the extent
they suggest that the company tell customers about the changes whenever they call the company
about their account.or whenever the company calls the customer about pending disconnection.
The Company believes repeatedly telling customers about the new practices would be redundant,
annoying,and add to the length of the call and its associated costs.
Idaho Power also disagrees with the part of Staffs minimum requirement No.2.b.
that calls for the Utilities to tell customers about the changes whenever the Utilities send bills
with past-due account balances.The Company says it will adequately inform affected customers
about the changes by sending them a letter that highlights the remaining ways they can pay their
bills and encourages them to provide feedback and questions.Idaho Power Reply at 2-3,6.14
The Compan’also plans to include a message in the initial past-due notice and final
disconnection notice,as suggested by Staff Idaho Power Reply at 6-7.
Idaho Power disagrees.too.with Staffs suggestion that the Utilities contact affected
non-residential customers in person or by telephone to tell them about the changes and to “take
any necessary steps to protect [their]customers and employees if disconnection is unavoidable.”
Staff Comments at 9.Idaho Power explains that its informational letter will more effectively
communicate the changes than in-person or phone contact because non-residential customers
often have many stakeholders who may not be the appropriate person to contact.idaho Power
Reply at 3.Further,Idaho Power says it is inappropriate for the company to advise businesses
“to take any necessary steps to protect [their]customers and employees if disconnection is
unavoidable.”Id.at 4.
Lastly,Idaho Power says that if the Commission approves the exemption and directs
the Company to provide a detailed training and education plan as recommended by Staff,then
the Commission should allow the company 30 days to develop and file the plan rather than 14
days as recommended by Staff Id.
(‘ominission Findings:It will be important for the Utilities to educate their personnel
and customers about the changes that will occur under the exemption.The Commission finds
N Idaho Power agrees that its letter would also inform customers of their UCRR 307 right to have a utility contact athird-party designated by the customer before the Utility disconnects the customer’s service,as suggested by
C’APAI.S’Section B.2.b..p.18 below.
ORDER NO.33229 9
that the Utilities’educational efforts must be reasonably calculated to notify affected customers
about the changes before they occur.The Utilities may achieve this goal through a plan that
either:(1)is like Rocky Mountain Power’s plan;(2)contains Staffs suggested minimum
requirements;or (3)notifies customers of the changes both through:(a)a letter before the
changes take effict (as suggested by Idaho Power);and (b)the initial past-due notice and final
disconnection notice (i.e.,as suggested in Staffs minimum requirement No.2.b,but with no
duty to insert a similar message in the bills of customers with past-due account balances).We
also encourage the Utilities to notify customers by highlighting the changes on the Utilities’
websites.
While it is reasonable and in the public interest for the Utilities to provide notice as
described above,we find it unnecessary for a utility to personally contact or call an affected non
residential customer about the impending change if the utility has already informed that customer
about the change through a letter.We also decline to require the Utilities’letters and notices to
tell affected businesses to take steps to protect their customers and employees.
Lastly,we find it reasonable to direct Idaho Power and Avista to submit a revised
plan,consistent with the above findings,within 30 days of the service date of this order.
c.Consistently Apply No-Knock Policy.Staff recommended the Utilities consistently
apply their no-knock policies throughout the year.Rocky Mountain already proposes to do this,
and would not knock on a customer’s door regardless of when disconnection is to occur.Idaho
Power and Avista,on the other hand,would not knock outside the Winter Disconnection
Moratorium.But during the Moratorium:(I)Avista would knock for customers who lack
remote disconnect/connect capability;and (2)Idaho Power would knock for all customers
regardless of meter type.Staff fears that Idaho Power and Avista may confuse customers by
applying different knocking policies at different times of the year.Staff explains,for example,
that if Idaho Power continues to knock during the Moratorium even though a customer has a
remote connect/disconnect meter,customers may be confused and may become frustrated when
the company stops knocking after the Moratorium ends.See Staff Comments at 11-12.
(‘ommission Findings:We decline to direct the Utilities to apply their no-knock
policies as suggested by Staff We believe the Utilities should have the discretion to exercise
reasonable business judgment in deciding whether to knock or not knock during the Moratorium.
ORDER NO 33229 10
d.Reduce Reconnection Charges.With the exemption.Idaho Power and Avista will
be able to remotely disconnect and connect customers and will thus save costs.Idaho Power and
Avista thus propose reducing their reconnection charges for customers with remote
disconnect/connect meters.Idaho Power would reduce its charge to $13,while Avista would use
the same reduced charges it used in its pilot program:i.e..$12 charge for requests made during
business hours.and $24 for requests made after business hours or during weekends or holidays.
In its comments.Staff notes that Avista and Idaho Power did not provide detailed cost
justifications tbr their proposed reduction in reconnection charges.Staff nevertheless
recommended the Commission approve the reduced charges with the exception of Avista’s
proposed $24 charge to reconnect customers after hours or on holidays or weekends;with respect
to that charge.Staff instead recommended Avista apply a $12 charge regardless of when the
request is made.Staff believes the proposed charges will provide cost savings to affected
customers while being high enough to encourage customers to avoid disconnection.After the
new procedures have been implemented and the cost of remote reconnection is better known,
Staff would re-examine the appropriateness of the reconnection charges.See Staff Comments at
12.
Commission !indmgs:The Commission finds it reasonable and in the public interest
for Idaho Power and Avista to reduce their reconnection charges as proposed.with Avista further
reducing its proposed.$24 charge for reconnections outside normal business hours to $12 as
suggested by Staff.We believe these reduced charges will benefit customers and reflect,at least
to some extent,the Utilities’lower cost to reconnect without having to dispatch field personnel.
We expect Staff to work with the utilities to reassess the appropriateness of these charges after
the Utilities have had time to gather further data on the costs saved through the use of remote
meters.
e.IlnJ?lemenl (‘oiiiinission-Approved (7ianges on Mm:1.2015.Avista and Rocky
Mountain Power ask the Commission to approve the exemption effective March 1,2015,to
coincide with the end of the Winter Disconnection Moratorium.Staff prefers a May 1,2015
effective date.Staff says that customers who seek Moratorium protection have a heightened risk
of being disconnected at the end of the Moratorium period.Further,even customers who do not
seek Moratorium protection may have difficulty paying high winter bills.Staff thus
recommended the Utilities implement the approved changes on May 1.2015.instead of on
ORDERNO.33229 11
March 1.201 5.to allow the Utilities extra time to educate employees and customers about the
policy change..ee Staff Comments at 13.
in its reply.Idaho Power concurs that a May 1,2015 effective date should be used.
Idaho Power Reply at 14.
Commission Findings:To ensure that the Utilities can adequately educate their
customers and personnel about the changes that will occur once the exemption takes effect,we
find ii reasonable and in the public interest for the exemption to take effect on May 1.2015.
instead of at the end of the Winter Moratorium Period.
B.(AP41
CAPAI argues that the Commission should deny the Petition because:(1)the Utilities
have failed to carry their burden of proof under [JCRR 9:and (2)the Utilities’proposal
unlawfully discriminates against low-income customers.Alternatively.CAPAI argues that the
Commission should conditionally approve the Petition with:(1)safeguards for vulnerable,low—
income customers and (2)a commitment to reassess the exemption’s impact in one year.
CAPA1’s arguments and Idaho Power’s reply to each are summarized below.
1.Arguments for Denying Petition
CAPAI asks the Commission to deny the Petition for the following reasons.
a.The LTiiliiies have Failed to Carri’Their Burden of Proof lJnder UCRR 9.CAPAI
asserts that the Utilities have Failed to carry their burden of proof under UCRR 9.Under UCRR
9.utilities may obtain an exemption to UCRR 311 .04 and .05 if they can prove that “unusual or
unreasonable hardships exist from the application of’those rules.CAPAI argues that the
Utilities have failed to carry this burden.Specifically,while the Utilities claim “good cause”
exists for an exemption because an exemption may “reduce operating costs and increase the
safety of utility employees,benefiting customers without sacrificing customer service,”the
Utilities have produced no evidence of “unusual or unreasonable hardships”arising from UCRR
311.04 and .05.
CAPAI argues that the Utilities’“employee safety concern”stems from “threatening
encounters”and a “tragic incident years ago in Mississippi,”but that the Utilities have no
evidence of “actual incidents of...harm”to their employees.
CAPAI also argues that besides “the few remote disconnect metered customers [of
Avista and Idaho Powerl.there will be no cost savings resulting from the [exemption]”that
ORDER NO.33229
might justify exempting the Utilities from the final knock rule and increasing the risk to older,
impaired.or “unhanked or underhanked”poor customers who must pay’their bills in cash.
CAPAI says the final knock rule increases the likelihood that utility employees will indentify
situations where disconnecting service could harm these vulnerable customers,and that
suspending “the final door knock rule will terminate this last safeguard.”See CAPAI Comments
at 2-5.and 8.
For these reasons.CAPA[maintains the Utilities’exemption request will be
premature until enough customers have remote disconnect/connect meters because the benefits
of suspending the final knock rule do not outweigh the risk the exemption would pose to
vulnerable customers.See Id at 9.
In reply.Idaho Power notes that in 2014.it installed remote disconnect/connect
meters for the 3%of its customers who,due to multiple field visits per year,had accounted for
about 40%of Idaho Power’s total field visits for disconnections.Idaho Power estimates that,if
the exemption is granted,the one-time,$1 million cost to install these remote disconnect/connect
meters will reduce the Company’s operating expenses by decreasing the Company’s metering
labor and transportation costs by about $700.000 per year.The Company says its customers will
realize these savings through revenue sharing under Commission Order No.33149.and through
updated rates after its next general rate case.Idaho Power Reply at 7-8.Idaho Power argues that
these henetits.and those identified by Staff (see pp.4-5.above),belie CAPAI’s claim that the
exemption would he of questionable benefit to Idaho Power’s customers.Id.at 8.idaho Power
also “is perplexed by CAPAI’s statement”that the Petition is premature in light of CAPAT’s
initial support [‘or Avista’s successful eight-year pilot program that deployed 645 remote
connect/disconnect meter collars.i’d.
Commission Findings:In order to he exempted from UCRR 311 .04 and .05,the
Utilities must establish that ‘unusual or unreasonable hardships exist from the application of”
those rules.See l,JCRR 9.IDAPA 31.21.01.009.While the Utilities do not specifically argue
that “unusual or unreasonable hardships”exist,they do argue that “good cause”exists for an
exemption to be granted under UCRR 9.We interpret the Utilities’argument to mean that they
believe unusual or unreasonable hardships do exist.As discussed below,we find that the
Utilities (and their customers)face unusual or unreasonable hardships under,and should be
exempted from.UCRR 311.04 and .05 because those sections:(1)heighten the safety risks to
ORDER NO.33229 13
utility employees;and (2)preclude the Utilities and their customers from realizing the benefits of
modern metering technologies.We believe the Utilities and their customers will actually benefit
from the exemption in numerous ways,so long as the Utilities adhere to their new practices as
approved in this Order.
First,the Utilities have shown that the knock-and-accept payment rules pose an
unreasonable safety risk for their field personnel.Rocky Mountain,for example,attests that in
2012 a Mississippi utility employee was killed while attempting to disconnect a customer,and
that the number and severity of threats or incidents have increased nationally and in Rocky
Mountain’s and PacifiCorp’s service territories from year-to-year.Rocky Mountain explains:
PacifiCorp recorded thirteen physical incidents in 2012 and 2013.Of the
thirteen physical incidents,one involved a customer spitting on an employee
and then slamming the Company truck door on the employee’s leg,one
involved a pit bull attack,one involving a customer attempting to engage the
employee in a fist fight,one was an unspecified physical attack on a meter
reader,one involved a customer turning a hose on an employee driving a
vehicle and then spitting on the employee and eight involved a customer
brandishing their firearm.Four incidents in particular noted the customer
pointed the firearm directly at the employee.Currently in Idaho,the Company
has nine sites where aggressive customer behavior has been documented and
three additional sites where police escort is required.These are sites where it is
known we must use an abundance of caution.Unfortunately,unlawful and
harmful behavior does not always come with a warning.
Rocky Mountain also expresses concern about a rule that requires its employees to accept on-site
payment,and notes that its field employees have been robbed.Barbara Coughlin Direct,pp.4-6.
Avista similarly attests:
We continue to see an increase in the number of customers that pose a real
threat to our employees.Safety is a concern for the meter readers and service
people tasked with disconnecting power or acting as impromptu bill collectors.
Aggressive dogs are often used to deter utility personnel from doing their jobs.
Over the years,Avista servicemen have encountered situations where angry
homeowners threaten to release their dogs to attack them.Others have
threatened physical harm,sometimes with a gun in hand.Concern for safety is
especially important when you consider these “bill collectors’are unarmed and
can be carrying collections on their route.Due to the numerous safety
concerns,two-person crews are typically used,as well as in some cases,a
police escort.
ORDER NO.33229 14
Linda M.Gervais Direct,pp.7..8.It is thus clear that the knock-and-accept-payment rules have
posed actual safety risks for personnel.
Second,the Utilities have shown that the knock-and-accept payment requirement
unreasonably precludes them (and their customers)from fully realizing the benefits of modern
metering technologies.The rules,for example,force Avista and Idaho Power—and ultimately
their customers—to unnecessarily incur labor and transportation costs that might otherwise be
avoided through remote disconnection and reconnection.See Staff Comments at 6.For
example,in 2014,Idaho Power installed about 14,500 meters that can remotely disconnect and
reconnect customers at sites that had multiple visits to disconnect or reconnect the customer over
18 months.But because of the knock-and-accept payment rules,Idaho Power has not been able
to use the remote disconnect function.Instead,the rules obligate Idaho Power to incur about
$700,000 a year in labor and transportation costs to dispatch employees to personally disconnect
and reconnect service.If we were to exempt Idaho Power from these rules and allow it to
remotely disconnect and reconnect non-paying customers,Idaho Power’s operation and
maintenance expenses would decrease by about $700,000 per year.These avoided costs,in turn,
will ultimately translate into savings that customers will realize through revenue-sharing
mechanisms or new base rates.We find it is unreasonable to deprive the Utilities and their
customers of these benefits.
We also find that the Utilities’customers will benefit from the exemption in other
ways that highlight the unreasonable hardship that the rules currently impose.As an initial
matter,we note that few customers have actually avoided disconnection by paying at the door.
The final-knock rule thus appears to provide little benefit to customers overall,in terms of
numbers.This may be,in part,because the Utilities require customers who pay at the door to
also pay an added,field visit charge to avoid disconnection.Exempting the Utilities from the
final-knock rule should enable more customers to avoid disconnection by paying their bills (with
no added field visit charge)before the disconnection date.These customers will continue to
receive multiple disconnection notices before disconnection occurs,and they will continue to
have multiple ways to pay their bills,including through the mail,pay stations (stores or other
businesses where customers can pay their power bills),drop boxes,on-line or by telephone.
And,if a customer with a remote meter is nevertheless disconnected for non-payment,that
customer will benefit from the exemption by enjoying faster and more predictable reconnection
ORDERNO.33229 15
of service,and reduced reconnection fees.Other benefits include those identified at pages 4-5 of
this Order.
For these reasons,we find that requiring the Utilities to knock and accept payment at
the door creates an undue or unreasonable hardship that warrants us exempting the Utilities from
UCRR 311 .04 and .05 under the conditions specified in this Order.
b.The Utilities’Proposal Unlawfully Discriminates Against Low-Income Customers.
CAPAI argues that the Utilities’proposal unlawfully discriminates against low-income
customers in violation of Idaho Code §sS 61-301 (utility’s charges for products and services must
be just and reasonable)and 61-315 (utility cannot unreasonably discriminate between localities
or customers as to rates,charges,service,facilities,or other matters).In support of its argument,
CAPAI notes that Idaho’s poverty rate is at least 15.1%.CAPAI claims that Avista and Idaho
Power target customers for remote meters based on whether those customers have had multiple
prior disconnection visits.CAPAI argues that because most of those visits are due to non
payment,it “is intuitive that the customers most likely affected by [the Utilities’proposal]will
be low income.”CAPAI thus concludes the proposal is unreasonably discriminatory,and that
any potential “employee safety”benefits and modest cost savings do not offset the proposal’s
risks to vulnerable,low-income customers.Id.at 2.
In reply,Idaho Power says it does not target customers but rather locations where
remote meters would be best deployed to speed up reconnection while decreasing costs borne by
the residents and all customers,and that the meters will not be relocated if the resident moves to
a different location.Further,Idaho Power says CAPAI cannot properly “intuit that locations
with these meters serve low income customers”when only 8%of the Company’s 12,743 remote
connect/disconnect meters are installed at locations where the current customer received a Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)payment in 2013-2014.Idaho Power also
argues that its proposal does not violate:(a)Idaho Code §61-301 (charges must be just and
reasonable)because the only charge at issue—a reduced charge to reconnect customers who
have remote disconnect/connect meters—is based on the company’s actual cost to perform that
function;or (b)Idaho Code §61-315 (no unreasonable discrimination or preference)because
Idaho Power’s proposal would reduce costs for all customers regardless of meter type.Idaho
Power argues its proposal that customers trade “an expensive opportunity to pay at the door at
disconnection and faster reconnection with less expensive reconnection fees”does not propose a
ORDERNO.33229 16
prohibited “preIrence”or disadvantage’under Idaho Code §61-3 15.Idaho Power also notes
that the Commission previously approved Avista’s partial rollout of remote connect/disconnect
meters,and that in the eight years since that pilot was approved Avista has received no
complaints from customers believing they have been disadvantaged by the use of remote
connect/disconnect meters.Idaho Poer Reply at 9—10.
(o,,iinissioii 1iidiizgs:We find no evidence to suggest that the Utilities’proposals
will impose unreasonable charges or unreasonably discriminate against low-income customers in
violation of Idaho Code S 61-301 and Idaho Code §61-3 15.As Idaho Power notes,the
proposals would not impose unjust or unreasonable charges but would instead reduce
reconnection charges.Further,the proposals do not unreasonably discriminate against or
disadvantage low-income customers.As Idaho Power notes.it installed 92%of its remote
meters at localions where customers do not receive Lu—lEAP assistance.Further.Avista’s and
Idaho Powers proposals \vill decrease labor and transportation costs and ultimately reduce costs
for all customers.including low-income customers.regardless of whether they have a remote
meter or manual meter installed.In the end,we believe the proposals will benefit low-income
customers (and other customers)by providing for faster reconnection,less expensive fees,and
other benefits as identified in Section B.I .a.above.
2.Aiguments l’or Conditional Approval
(‘A PAl next argues that if the Commission does not deny the Petition,then it should
only approve the Petition upon conditions that safeguard vulnerable low-income customers.
CAPAI proposes the following safeguards.
a.File Monthly Report.CAPAI proposes that each utility file a monthly report with
the Commission and all interested persons,similar to the report that Rocky Mountain already
submits for its low—income customers.that states:(1)number of payment agreements in place;
(2)number of payment agreements with Moratorium declaration in past 12-month period;(3)
agreements with arrears:(4)total arrears amount;(5)number of past-due notices;(6)number of
final notice letters:(7)number of disconnections for non-payment;(8)number of same day
reconnections:and (9)number of reconnections within one week,CAPAI Comments at 9.
In reply.Idaho Power says it is willing to provide the requested data each month for a
year afier the change in collection practices.Because the requested information contains interim
non-quarterly financial and energY sales information that is not released monthly in a Security
ORDERNO.33229 17
and Exchange Commission filing or other means of broad public distribution,Idaho Power
requests that CAPAI and other parties sign a non-disclosure agreement before receiving the
report.idaho Power Reply at 12.
Commission Findings:Because we are exempting the Utilities from the final-knock
rule,we find it reasonable and in the public interest to monitor the exemption’s effects on low-
income persons by requiring the Utilities to file a monthly report containing the information
enumerated above,with the first required report due on May 1,2015.We encourage the Utilities
to consult with Staff on the type of report form that might be filed.It could be similar to the
report already filed by Rocky Mountain.We see no reason why the Utilities would need a
confidentiality agreement in order to file such a report:Rocky Mountain apparently does not,and
Idaho Power,which argues for the agreement.cites no specific authority that might suggest such
an agreement is necessary.We encourage Idaho Power to confer with Rocky Mountain Power
on how best to provide the required information.
b.Coinnuinicale Third-Party Noii/icaion Rights.CAPAI proposes that the Utilities
tell customers about their third-party notification rights before the exemption takes effect.
Specifcally,before the exemption’s effective date,the Utilities should notify all customers about
the new,no-knock policy and advise them of their third-party notification rights under UCRR
307 (each utility shall provide a third-party notification program under which,at customer
request,the utility will notify a third-party designated by the customer of the utility’s intention to
terminate service).Further.CAPAI proposes that the Commission require the Utilities to notify
the third-party of impending disconnection at least one week before disconnection is set to occur.
CAPAI Comments at 9-1 0.
In reply.idaho Power proposes to mail a letter that advises affected customers of the
policy changes,highlights the multiple remaining ways of making payment,and encourages
customer feedback and questions.Idaho Power Reply at 2-3.The letter would also inform
affected customers of their rights under UCRR 307,as suggested by CAPAI.Idaho Power Reply
at 3.Idaho Power notes.in addition,that its initial reminder notice (seven days before
disconnect)and final disconnection notice (three days before disconnect)will advise affected
customers of’their UCRR 307 rights.The Company’s annual Idaho Residential Customer
Information brochure also discusses UCRR 307.To avoid confusing the majority of customers
whose accounts are not past-due or who take service at a location that lacks a remote
ORDERNO.33229 18
connect/disconnect meter,Idaho Power proposes to include the UCRR 307 information in its
letter to affected customers instead of all customers,as suggested by CAPAL Idaho Power
Reply at 5-6.
Commission Findings:We find it reasonable and in the public interest to require the
Utilities to notify affected customers,rather than all customers about the new,no-knock policy
and their third-party notification rights under UCRR 307.We believe that notifying non-affected
customers could potentially be confusing.Further,we find it reasonable to direct the Utilities to
notify a customer’s third-party designee of an impending disconnection at least one week before
disconnection is to occur.We encourage the Utilities to find out who a customer’s third-party
designee is when the customer signs up for service.
c.Veri Pay Station Capability.CAPAI proposes that,before the exemption’s
effective date,each utility must verify to the Commission,in writing,that its pay stations will be
able to instantaneously transmit customer payment data to the utility that will then
instantaneously relay that data to appropriate company disconnect personnel to ensure that they
do not inadvertently disconnect the customer.CAPAI Comments at 10.
In reply,Idaho Power notes that it has about 60 pay stations and that it provides pay
station services under a contract with Western Union.Under the contract terms,payment
information is transmitted to Idaho Power each day.Idaho Power says it is unaware of any
service provider that can instantaneously transmit payment data,as requested by CAPAI.Idaho
Power Reply at 12.
Commission Findings:It appears from Idaho Power’s representation that there may
not be pay station providers that instantaneously transmit payment data to the Utilities.
However,we think CAPAT’s suggestion is a good one,and that the Utilities should take
precautions to ensure that they do not inadvertently disconnect a customer who has already paid
their bill.In this regard,we find it is reasonable and in the public interest to direct the Utilities to
investigate whether procedures or technologies exist that might enable them to instantaneously
receive the customer’s payment data,and to relay their findings to Staff.
d.Assess the Exemption ‘s Impact in One Year.CAPA1 proposes that the
Commission initiate a proceeding in one-year to assess how exempting the Utilities from UCRR
311.04 and .05 has impacted customers.CAPAI proposes that the Commission require the
Utilities to provide:(1)number of disconnections;(2)number of reconnections;(3)average time
ORDER NO.33229 19
between disconnection and reconnection;and (4)payment type used to reconnect utility service.
CAPAI (omments at 1 0.
In reply.Idaho Power notes that there have been no complaints about discontinuing
knocking and accepting payment at the door in the four other states where Rocky Mountain
Power no longer makes in-person contact to attempt to collect a past-due bill.Idaho Power thus
argues that the Commission should not order a new proceeding now but should instead initiate a
future proceeding only if action is needed to resolve unforeseen issues.Idaho Power Reply at
1’1”
—I
Commission Findings:We decline to order Staff or the Utilities to initiate another
case in a year to assess the exemptions impact on customers.Earlier in this Order,we have
directed the Utilities to provide monthl’reports that will assist Staff in assessing how the
exemption and proposals are aflècting low-income customers.Further,it appears that changes
like those proposed here have generated no complaints for Rocky Mountain in states where
Rocky Mountain has already implemented them.See Barbara Coughlin Direct.pp.8-9.We
encourage the parties and Staff to try to work through concerns that might arise after the
exemption takes effect.We find it reasonable to initiate a formal proceeding only if specific,
otherwise irresolvable complaints arise.
e.Ensure [)eposiis do not Change.It is unclear to CAPAI if and how exempting the
Utilities from UCRR 3 11.04 and .05 might affect the deposits that customers pay when
connecting or reconnecting.CAPAI recommended the exemption not change customer deposits.
CAPA!Comments at 1 0.
Conumnissiom,Findings:The Uti I ities Petition says nothing about customer deposits.
Accordingly,nothing in this Order should he interpreted to change how customer deposits are
treated.
C Customer Comment
One customer..John Weber.submitted written comments.Mr.Weber explains that
people who live paycheck to paycheck are good at budgeting for prepaid commodities such as
food and gas.but are often challenged in budgeting for electricity because they are billed for the
electricity after they use it.Mr.Weher suggests that the Utilities allow customers to prepay for
kilowatt-hours of electricity.He explains that in the Caribbean.customers can buy kilowatt—
hours that are then reflected in a balance shown on their smart meters at home.Mr.Weber notes
ORDER NC).33220 20
that this svslem worked well and prompted the customer to more closely monitor energy use by
reading their small meter.Then.if a customer’s balances were to run low,the customer either
could choose to conserve energy so as not to exceed the balance,or to buy more kilowatt-hours
and add them to the balance.As a result,the need for on-site disconnection visits would
decrease,and both utilities and customers would achieve cost savings.
In its comments.Staff notes that none of the regulated electric utilities in Idaho have a
prepaid metering system in place such as that described by Mr.Weber.But customers can
prepay lor service,pay at intervals besides monthly intervals,or set up a level payment plan in
which a utility estimates the customer’s yearly energy costs and then spreads the payments
evenly throughout the year.Further,Avista and Idaho Power customers may access their usage
in fonnation on—line.
(o,iiiiiissioi:Iinduzgs:The Commission appreciates Mr.Weber’s time in submitting
this thoughtful comment.At this point,it appears that the Utilities may lack the equipment or
technology to allow for the prepayment of’kilowatt-hours.We encourage the Utilities to explore
the options suggested by Mr.Weber and whether they can use their smart meters to further
enhance their customers’experience,and to share their findings with Staff
IJITIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSiONS OF LAW
The Utilities are electrical corporations.The Commission has jurisdiction and
authority over them and the issues in this case under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure,IDAPA 31.01.01.000,et seq.Based on our review of the
record and the discussion above,we find it is fair,just,reasonable,and in the public interest to
grant the Utilities’Joint Petition by exempting them from the requirements of UCRR 311.04 and
.05.and approving their proposed practices under that exemption.under the conditions set forth
above.We thank the parties for conducting the informational workshop to explain their
proposals and air their concerns before submitting comments.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that,effective May 1,2015,the Utilities shall be
exempted from the requirements of UCRR 311.04 and .05,and their proposed practices under
that exemption are approved under the conditions set forth above.
ORDER NO.33229 21
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by 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 and 62-6 19.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this /‘7
day of February 2015.
i7I4JELLAD,PRESIDENT
MACK A.REDFORD,COMMIS STONER
/1
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jell
mmission Secretary
O:GNR-U-14-Olkk3
ORDER NO.33229 22