Via Electronic Filing and U.S. Mail · PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY to be served by First...
Transcript of Via Electronic Filing and U.S. Mail · PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY to be served by First...
June 7, 2006
Via Electronic Filing and U.S. Mail
Oregon Public Utility CommissionAttention: Filing CenterPO Box 2148Salem OR 97308-2148
Re: Ash Hill Signs v. Portland General Electric Co.OPUC Docket No. UCB 32
Attention Filing Center:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned docket is Portland General Electric’s Answer. This document is being filed by electronic mail with the Filing Center.
An extra copy of this cover letter is enclosed. Please date stamp the extra copy and return it to me in the envelope provided.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
/s/ INARA K. SCOTT
Inara K. Scott
cc: Bryan Ashby, Ash Hill Signs
Enclosure
Page 1 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF OREGON
UCB 32
Ash Hill Signs,
Complainant,
vs.
Portland General Electric,
Defendant
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INTRODUCTION
On May 22, 2006, Ash Hill Signs (Complainant) filed a complaint (Complaint) against
Portland General Electric Company (PGE) with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon
(Commission). On May 23, 2006, the Commission served the Complaint on PGE. Pursuant to
OAR 860-021-0015(5), PGE is required to file an Answer to the Complaint by June 7, 2006,
15 days from service of the Complaint.
PGE responds to the Complaint as follows: After a history of non-payment and past due
account, Complainant was disconnected on May 17, 2006. Prior to disconnection, Complainant
received written 15-day and 5-day disconnection notices, and spoke with a PGE Customer
Service Representative (CSR) about his past due account. Complainant was informed of the
requirements for continued service and did not tender payment. PGE fully complied with its
tariffs and all applicable rules and regulations for disconnecting service.
Complainant suggests that the total amount due on his bill does not accurately reflect the
amount he owes. This suggestion appears to stem from a $200 deposit required by PGE and
charged to Complainant’s account. PGE Tariff Rule D(4) Section B(4) provides that the
company may require a customer to provide a deposit if the customer does not satisfy the
Page 2 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
utility’s credit criteria. Due to the history of non-payment on this account and repeated 15-day
and 5-day disconnection notices, Complainant did not satisfy the credit criteria. Complainant
received two separate notices regarding the deposit requirement and spoke with a PGE CSR prior
to the deposit amount being charged to his account. Again, Complainant was fully informed
about the deposit requirement, and PGE’s actions complied fully with its duty under its tariffs
and all applicable Commission rules and regulations. This complaint should be dismissed.
FACTS
Complainant opened an account with PGE on September 25, 2004. Between that time
and July 12, 2005, Complainant made only two payments toward its account. See Account
History, attached as Exhibit A.1 Due to this history of non-payment and disconnection notices,
PGE found that Complainant no longer met credit requirements. See PGE Tariff Rule D(4)
Section B(4). Thus on July 12, 2005, PGE sent a letter notifying Complainant that its account
would need to be paid in full immediately or PGE would require Complainant to pay a deposit.
See Letter from PGE Credit Department to Ash Hill Inc., dated July 12, 2005, attached as
Exhibit B.
On July 14, 2005, Complainant made a payment in the amount of $308.00 to PGE’s Field
Connect Representative (FCR) and avoided disconnection of service on the past due amount.
Because of this payment, PGE did not assess a deposit. However, Complainant continued not to
pay its bills. On November 28, 2005, Complainant received another 15-day notice of
disconnection for non-payment, and received a 5-day notice in writing and via telephone on
December 6, 2005. This prompted a payment on December 15, 2005.
1 Complainant received a 15-day written notice of disconnection on May 25, 2005 and a verbal notice by
telephone on June 10, 2005, per PGE’s practice at the time. Similarly, Complainant received a 15-day written notice of disconnection on June 24, 2005, and a verbal notice by telephone on July 8, 2005. Subsequent to this time, PGE changed its practice to deliver the 5-day notices both in writing and verbally by telephone.
Page 3 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
After the December 15, 2006, payment, Complainant stopped paying its bills and
received a 15-day notice of disconnection on February 27, 2006 and a 5-day notice on March 7,
2006. On March 13, 2006, PGE issued a new letter informing Complainant that due to its unpaid
balance and history of non-payment, a deposit in the amount of $200.00 would be required to
ensure uninterrupted electrical service. See Letter from PGE Credit Department to Ash Hill Inc.,
dated March 13, 2006, attached as Exhibit C. On March 15, 2006, a PGE CSR spoke with a
representative of Complainant, Mr. Brian Ashby. Mr. Ashby promised to pay $332.11, which
was the amount due at the time the February 27, 2006 notice was posted. The pending
disconnection was cancelled.
A new 15-day notice of disconnection was sent on March 28, 2006. On April 3, 2006,
Complainant made a payment of $332.11. In between the time Complainant received its
February 27, 2006, notice of disconnection and the date of his payment, however, two more
months of service had been billed to his account, along with the $200.00 deposit to the account
as described in the March 13, 2006 letter. Thus after the April 3, 2006 payment, Complainant
still owed $381.83 on its account.
Complainant failed to pay the outstanding balance and new bill for service, and was
issued a 15-day notice of disconnection on April 26, 2006 and a 5-day notice on May 4, 2006.
On May 10, 2006, Mr. Ashby spoke with a PGE CSR and was informed that he was required to
pay the arrears on his account no later than May 12, 2006, to avoid disconnection. Mr. Ashby
asserted that he should be up to date on his payments because of the $332.11 payment he had
made in April. The CSR informed Mr. Ashby that $200.00 of the payment made in April went to
the deposit, and that Complainant still had a significant unpaid balance. Complainant did not
make any additional payment on the account after that time.
Page 4 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
On May 17, 2006, a PGE FCR traveled to Complainant’s location to collect the past due
amount on the account or disconnect the service. Complainant did not make the payment, so the
PGE FCR disconnected service.
Following the filing of the complaint and the payment made by the Complainant in the
amount of $170.00 to protect the utility from further losses, service was reconnected at 3:20 p.m.
on May 23, 2006.
DISCUSSION
PGE complied with its tariff and all applicable rules and regulations with regard to
Complainant’s account. As the Account History shows, Complainant made only sporadic
payments on its account, generally after the history of non-payment triggered a 15-day or a 5-day
disconnection notice. Complainant received numerous 15-day and 5-day notices of
disconnection. See Exhibit A.
Per PGE Tariff Rule D(4) Section B(4) the Company may verify a nonresidential
Consumer’s creditworthiness at any time. If the Consumer does not satisfy the credit criteria, the
Consumer may be required to provide a deposit equal to a maximum of two months’ billing. In
July 2005, after Complainant failed to pay its bills for a number of months, PGE sent a letter
notifying Complainant that a deposit would be applied to the account if Complainant did not
immediately pay the past due amount. See Exhibit B. Complainant initially complied, but then
proceeded to run up another large past due amount. In March 2006, PGE sent Complainant
another letter informing it that due to its history of non-payment, a deposit of $200.00 was
required for continued service. See Exhibit C. A representative of Complainant was also
informed about this deposit requirement in a telephone conversation with a PGE CSR prior to the
Page 5 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
deposit being charged to the account. This amount was charged to Complainant’s account on
March 28, 2006.
PGE has provided a detailed record of Complainant’s account and copies of letters sent to
Complainant regarding the deposit requirement that demonstrate that PGE complied with its
tariff and all applicable rules and regulations. There can be no genuine dispute that PGE
properly billed Complainant and provided it with proper notice of the deposit requirement.
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
PGE complied with its tariff and all applicable rules and regulations with regard to
Complainant’s account. PGE therefore respectfully requests that this Complaint be dismissed.
DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ INARA K. SCOTT_______________________Inara K. Scott, OSB # 01013Portland General Electric Company121 SW Salmon Street, 1WTC1301Portland, OR 97204(503) 464-7831 (telephone)(503) 464-2200 (telecopier)[email protected]
Page 6 – ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY to be served by First Class US Mail, postage
prepaid and properly addressed, and by electronic mail, upon the following party in this docket:
Bryan Ashby21633 S Highway 99 ECanby OR [email protected]
Dated at Portland, Oregon, this 7th day of June, 2006.
/s/ INARA K. SCOTT_______________________Inara K. Scott