Suez Water Idaho, Inc.

Dear [redacted],   Here is the resolution from the IPUC complaint that Mr. [redacted] filed on 4/3/17.  According to your correspondence, he contacted your organization on 4/4/17.  I would have had a more timely response if we had been given more time to investigate the situation....

Unfortunately, troubleshooting a situation like his takes longer than overnight to resolve.   Mr. [redacted] contacted us on 3/21/17 and said his bill was incorrect.  We verified his current meter reading and performed a leak check on 3/22/17 that showed his reading was correct and that there was indication of leakage. We verified the information from the field check with the AMI Software. We found he had had a continuous flow of water through his meter since 12/10/2016. He told us that he would pay the bill and check for leaks on his property.   He contacted us again and expressed he didn’t feel that he had a leak at his property. He wanted his meter tested because he didn’t trust our information.  Mr. [redacted] filed a IPUC complaint on 4/3/17 regarding his bill being high. On 4/4/17, we checked his meter again.  The meter reading was correct and there was no indication of leakage when we were at the property.  After the Customer Service Supervisor spoke with him on 4/4/17, he told her that he had dismantled the AMI equipment from the meter. She let him know that the meter and metering equipment is our property and that he is not allowed in our meter box. By tampering with the equipment, we couldn’t tell what had been done.   We reviewed his usage history and noticed it was higher than his typical usage.  Mr. [redacted] wanted a credit for the full overage amount.  We reminded him that he has had continuous water flowing through his meter from 12/10/2016 to 3/22/17 at 5 p.m.  He wasn’t happy with our response. He then started researching articles on the internet about metering equipment (Iperl) that was failing in the field.  We let the IPUC know that Mr. [redacted] didn’t have that brand/type of equipment at his property. In fact, none of our residential customers have this type of metering equipment.   We then offered to test his meter and replace with a brand new one.  He then wanted to submerge the meter under water to prove it was faulty equipment. We let him know to leave the meter as it was (under water in the meter box) and we would change out his meter.   On 4/15/17, our weekend field person met the customer at his property at 10 a.m.  On 4/17/17, the PUC requested graphs of Mr. [redacted]’s usage over the weekend which we gladly supplied.   On 4/21/17, the IPUC responded back to us and said the customer was satisfied that the metering equipment was functioning as it should. He said that rather than be present for the meter test and continue dragging the whole issue on, he wanted to know if SUEZ was willing to compromise with him and split the difference on what he originally requested. He originally wanted $100.94. We agreed to credit him $50.47.   On a positive note, Mr. [redacted] was appreciative of our efforts at the local office. He was happy that we replaced his meter and feels that the chance of a reoccurrence was pretty slim. He said the technician that came out to the property was very professional and on time.   The IPUC complaint was then closed on 4/21/17.  It’s always difficult to prove how water was used at a property when a customer receives a bill after 60 days of use.  Once the water flows through the meter, we don’t have a way to monitor how it was used or where it went. What we can do is verify the readings received and test the equipment for accuracy. I feel his original metering equipment reported the proper amount of usage.  When we tested his original meter.  it tested at 100% average efficiency.   I hope this answers any questions you may have about Mr. [redacted]’s complaint with the Revdex.com.  Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.   Linda M[redacted] SUEZ Water Idaho Customer Service Manager