20071025Idaho Power Company comments.pdf

RECf:!\ F~
IDAHO~POWER(ID
An IDACORP Company
ZOOl OCT 24 Pi, 3: 43
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Attorney II
i()l;I,j() F'UBLIC
UTIU'rif.:S COi\MvnSSiO,
October 24 2007
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re:Case No. RUL-07-
IN THE MATTER OF THE REVISION OF THE COMMISSION'
UTILITY CUSTOMER RELATIONS RULES , IDAPA 31.21.
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for filing an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power
Company s Comments for the above-referenced matter.
I would appreciate it if you would return a stamped copy of this transmittal letter
in the enclosed self-addressed , stamped envelope.
Very truly yours
;;f~ fJ.1(
Lisa D. Nordstrom
LDN:sh
Enclosures
O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 WldahoSt.
Boise, 10 83702
FCECF:I
BARTON L. KLINE, ISB # 1526
LISA D. NORDSTROM , ISB No. 5733
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
bkline
(g)
idahopower.com
Inordstrom (g) idahopower.com
'1"; or T r;!
') ,;
r,. " lie., L-; trl -.)':.+J
UTiU PUf3t.
CC;;,!:AiSS!O,
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Express Mail Address
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE REVISION OF
THE COMMISSION'S UTILITY CUSTOMER
RELATIONS RULES, IDAPA 31.21.IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
COMMENTS
CASE NO. RUL-07-
COMES NOW Idaho Power Company ("Company ) and hereby submits the
following comments regarding the Idaho Public Utilities Commission s ("Commission
proposed changes to the Utility Customer Relations Rules IDAPA 31.21.01. The
Company s Comments particularly focus on Rules 203,204 310 and 311.
RULE 105.The Company supports the proposed revisions to Rules 105.01 and
105.02 to clarify the provisions for installment payments of deposits.
RULE 203. The Company supports the Commission s proposed revisions to
Rule 203.04 and the proposed addition of Rule 203.01.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page
Rule 203.03 -- Idaho Power believes the existing language in Rule 203.
adequately addresses rebilling of customers to correct under- or over-charges.
however, the Commission believes that the rebilling period must be adjusted , Idaho
Power believes it is most equitable for the rebilling period to be symmetrical regardless
of what time period is chosen. A symmetrical rebilling period is fair to both the utility
and the utility s customers , and is non-discriminatory and non-preferential in its
treatment of both under-billed and over-billed customers.
Although billing errors are most frequently the fault of the utilities , errors are not
purposeful and cannot be completely eliminated in any business. Utilities are already
incentivized to minimize or eliminate errors given the frustration they cause customers
the negative impact errors have on the utilities' image , and the significant employee
resources required to correct them.Because Idaho Power billing errors most
frequently involve under-billing for periods that sometimes exceed three (3) years, Idaho
Power has a financial incentive to find and correct billing errors as well. An additional
incentive in the form of an asymmetrical rebilling provision is not necessary to
encourage utilities to minimize billing errors.
Idaho Power is also concerned that an asymmetrical rebilling period will create
an additional incentive for customers to provide inaccurate information that causes them
to be billed on a less expensive tariff for which they would not be eligible.Rule 203.
alludes to this problem, but appears to only address when customers have been
overcharged based upon their representations rather than undercharged.Limiting
utilities' ability to rebill for undercharged amounts to six (6) months will have the effect of
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 2
rewarding customers who make inaccurate representations about their energy
consumption.
The Company is concerned that the proposed language stating "unless a
reasonable person should have known of the inappropriate billing" will be subject to a
variety of interpretations and prone to disagreement. It is also unclear how long "the
rebilling period may be extended" under those circumstances, and whether the length of
that rebilling period is dependent upon how reasonable the customer lack of
knowledge was. Idaho Power recommends that the language "unless a reasonable
person should have known of the inappropriate billing, in which case the rebilling period
may be extended" be deleted from the proposed rule.
Finally, Idaho Power has no objection to the proposed requirement that utilities
implement procedures designed to monitor and identify customers who may be billed
under an inappropriate tariff schedule.
RULE 204 . Rule 204 is currently titled "Inaccurately Billed Service under Correct
Tariff Schedule - Failure to Bill for Service . Idaho Power believes it would be less
confusing and more accurate to replace the dash with "" to further differentiate the two
issues. With this revision the title for Rule 204 would read "Inaccurately Billed Service
under Correct Schedule or Failure to Bill for Service
Rule 204.01 -- The Commission s proposed revision to Rule 204.01 adds
metering equipment was incorrectly programmed" as a reason requiring the utility to
prepare a corrected billing. The Company supports the intent of this rule revision but
requests a modification to more accurately reflect a bill error relating to the metering
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 3
equipment.The Company recommends the following language for Rule 204.
(clarifying language in italics):
01. Errors in Preparation or Malfunction or Failure to Bill.
Whenever the billing for utility service was not accurately determined
for reasons such as a meter malfunctioned, failed, or was incorrectly
installed bills were estimated , or bills were inaccurately prepared
the utility shall prepare a corrected billing. If the utility has failed to
bill a customer for service , the utility shall prepare a bill for the period
during which no bill was provided.
The Company believes the intent of the Commission s proposed "metering equipment
was incorrectly programmed" language is to address situations in which bills are
incorrectly prepared due to an error associated with complex metering equipment, such
as current transformer (CT) metering.However, billing errors associated with CT
metering usually result from incorrect information being entered into a utility s billing
system, not from an error in programming a meter.Consequently, the Company
believes errors associated with incorrect programming, regardless of whether they
result from meter, billing system , or other issues are already addressed by the "bills
were inaccurately prepared" language currently in the rule and adding language
specifically referring to meter programming is not necessary.
Rule 204.02.b and c -- As explained in greater detail above with regard to Rule
203., Idaho Power believes the existing language in Rule 204.02.b adequately
addresses rebilling of customers to correct under- or over-charges. If , however, the
Commission believes that the rebilling period must be adjusted , Idaho Power believes it
is most equitable, non-discriminatory, and non-preferential for the rebilling period to be
symmetrical regardless of what period is chosen as expressed in the Company
comments regarding proposed Rule 203.03. Idaho Power also recommends that the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 4
language "unless a reasonable person should have known of the inappropriate billing, in
which case the rebilling period may be extended" be deleted from the proposed rule
consistent with the Company s comments regarding changes to proposed Rule 203.03.
Rule 204.03 and .04 -- The Company supports the Commission s proposed
revisions to Rule 204.03 and Rule 204.04.
RULE 300.The Company supports the addition of Rule 300.04 to allow
electronic mail as a method of providing "written notice" to customers who consent to
receive electronic notification.
RULE 302. Idaho Power s operating practices already comply with the language
proposed in Rule 302.08 and similar requirements found in Idaho Code 9 5-217.
Consequently, Idaho Power supports the proposed revision.
RULE 310 The Company supports the intent of the proposed revisions to Rule
310. However, the addition of Rule 310.02 as proposed creates confusion with its
reference to the criteria listed in Subsections 31 0.01.b through 31 0.01.d as insufficient
grounds for denial of service. Specifically, Rule 310.01.b states in part: "The unpaid bill
cited as grounds for termination is for utility service to any other customer" (italics
added). This reference causes confusion in the case of denial of service since a service
denial does not always result in a termination of service. To eliminate this confusion
Idaho Power recommends the words "cited as grounds for termination" be deleted from
proposed Rule 310.01.Also, in order to make the criteria listed in Subsection
31 0.01.b through 31 0.01.d clearly applicable to both customers and applicants , Idaho
Power recommends the proposed language of Rule 310.01.d be revised to include
applicant" in addition to "customer" so that the rule reads (clarifying language in italics):
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 5
d. The unpaid bill is for service provided four (4) or more
years ago unless the customer or applicant has promised in writing
to payor made a payment on the bill within the last four (4) years.
Idaho Power also believes that provisions included as part of the Commission
proposed Rule 311 , specifically proposed Rules 311.01.c and 311.01., are more
appropriately related to insufficient grounds for termination or denial of service and
should be included as part of Rule 310. This recommendation is detailed more fully in
the Company s comments relating to the proposed changes to Rule 311.
Finally, to ensure that the criteria listed for denial of service are clearly applied
Idaho Power recommends that proposed Rule 310.02 be revised as follows (clarifying
language in italics):
02. Denial of Service. No applicant shall be given notice
of denial nor shall the applicant be denied service if any of the
criteria listed in Subsection 31 0.01.b through Subsection 310.01.
apply to the unpaid bill cited as grounds for denial of service.
RULE 311.Idaho Power disagrees with several of the proposed changes to
Rule 311 as identified below.
1 . Restrictinq Times When Service May Be Denied There is a very clear
distinction between the denial of service and the termination of service. When service is
denied , the physical status of the service at the applicant's service location can either
be currently connected or currently disconnected.If the existing service is currently
disconnected , the Commission rules are very clear that the utility is not obligated to
1 The addition of language comprising Subsection 31 O.O1.e is discussed on page 9.2 More than half of Idaho Power s applicants requesting service have service transferred into their name
without the need for a physical reconnection of service.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 6
connect service to an applicant for whom service is denied (see Rule 302.08) until the
applicant satisfies the conditions cited by the utility for denial of service.
However, if the existing service is currently connected , the Commission rules
very clearly delineate the steps the utility must take before service to the applicant may
be terminated. Specifically, Rules 301 and 312 require the utility to provide written
notice to an applicant for whom service is denied notifying him or her of the utility
intent to terminate service if the applicant does not take the actions identified in the
notice. The written notice needs to be provided to the applicant at least two calendar
days prior to the proposed termination date. The act of denying service does not
change the status of the existing service. In fact, when an applicant for whom service is
currently connected is "denied service " the applicant is simply informed that service
cannot be put into the applicant's name until the applicant takes further action. No
service termination may be performed for at least two days. Therefore, restricting the
times when a utility may deny service will hamper the utility's ability to communicate
with applicants and make it more difficult for applicants to obtain service.
Under a literal application of the Commission s proposed Rules 311.01 and
311., if an applicant contacted the utility on a Friday, any weekday after 5:00 p., or
on a weekend requesting service be connected or be put into his or her name and the
utility determined that the applicant had an outstanding amount owed for service
received less than four years ago, the utility would be unable to inform the applicant of
the service denial. Rather, the utility would need to wait until the following Monday or
business day to inform the applicant of the service denial and the actions the applicant
must take in order to obtain service.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS , Page 7
Attempting to add denial of service criteria to provisions that clearly are
addressing termination of service, as is the case with the proposed Rule 311 , adds
confusion , hampers the utility ability to provide service, and negatively impacts
applicants' ability to obtain service. For these reasons, Idaho Power recommends that
all references to service denial included in the Commission s proposed Rules 311.
and 311.02 be deleted.
Restrictinq Times When Service May Be Terminated The Company
preference is to make no changes to the language of Rule 311.01.a. so that utilities may
continue to terminate service on Friday mornings. The current rules permitting Friday
morning service terminations allow the Company to balance the weekly workload of its
employees performing the service terminations as well as the employees fielding the
calls associated with the service terminations. In addition, the Company has employees
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to connect or reconnect service. Customers
subject to a service termination can not only have Idaho Power reconnect service at any
time of the day or any day of the week, they also have a greater ability than in the past
to access funds needed to have service reconnected during extended hours of the work
week as well as on weekends.
However if the Commission deems it appropriate to adopt the proposed
revisions to Rule 311.01.a restricting the times when service may be terminated , the
Company supports the proposed change to Rule 311.02.b extending the times when
service may be terminated from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The
additional hour available to terminate service on those four (4) days will allow utilities
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 8
the same number of hours per week during which service terminations may be
performed.
Bills in Dispute. Idaho Power believes the proposed language of Rule
311.01.d should be amended to specify that the payment for "utility service" at dispute in
an Idaho court is related solely to the disputed amount with that particular utility
company. Otherwise the language could be used to justify non-payment on undisputed
amounts with that utility, or perhaps even amounts owed to other utilities, while a court
case is pending. To eliminate this possibility, Idaho Power suggests combining the
language in the proposed Rule 311.01.c and .d into a single rule as Rule 310.01.
detailed below.
In addition , Idaho Power believes the conditions described in the proposed Rules
311.01.c. and d are more accurately described as "insufficient grounds for termination
or denial of service" than as "times when service may not be terminated". As such
Idaho Power believes it is appropriate to remove the provisions of proposed
Subsections 311.01.c and .d and combine and include them as part of Rule 310 as
follows:
310.
e. The unpaid bill is in dispute with a complaint filed
pursuant to Rule 402 pending before this Commission or a case
pending before a court in the State of Idaho.
Personnel to Authorize Reconnection. Proposed Rule 311.03 addresses
the requirement to have personnel available to reconnect service when the conditions
which led to the termination of service have been corrected. As the Company has
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 9
described earlier in its comments, the act of denying service is very separate from the
act of terminating service. Idaho Power believes that adding language to Rule 311.
referencing denial of service simply adds confusion by implying that denial of service
and termination of service are one and the same. It is the Company s recommendation
that the reference to denial of service be removed from this proposed rule.
Opportunity to Prevent Termination of Service, Notice of Procedure for
Reconnectinq Service . The context of proposed Rules 311.04 and 311.05 is that a
utility representative is on-site at the customer s premises to perform an action, namely
a service termination. While the requirements of proposed Rule 311.04 and 311.05 are
practicable for a service termination, they are not reasonable for a denial of service
because a site visit is rarely made as part of a service denial. In almost all cases , the
service denial is made at the time an applicant contacts the utility requesting service.
The addition of denial of service language to proposed Rules 311.04 and 311.05 will
create a new requirement that utility representatives now make a site visit as part of the
service denial process. Idaho Power does not believe that the Commission intends to
add a costly provision to its requirements as part of this rulemaking. In order to ensure
that utilities are not required to now make site visits as part of the denial of service
process , Idaho Power recommends the references to denial of service be deleted from
proposed Rules 311.04 and 311.05.
Customer Requested Termination Rules 301 , 302, and 303 contain
provisions that adequately address the denial of service to applicants. Consistent with
the Company s recommendation to exclude denial of service provisions from Rule 311
Idaho Power recommends that proposed Rule 311.06 be revised to read:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page 10
06. Customer Requested Termination. Nothing in this rule
prohibits a utility from terminating service at any time pursuant to a
customer s request.
Rule 600.The Company supports the Commission s proposed revisions to Rule
600.05.
24th
DATED at Boise , Idaho, this day of October 2007.
LISA NO . STROM
Attorney for Idaho Power
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S COMMENTS, Page