Idaho Power started adding "broadband infrastructure maintenance fees" of $127/month to several commercial accounts here in Boise. The charges appeared without notice under rider schedule BB-1. Customer service claims it's for "system-wide fiber optic network maintenance" but I can't find this rider in their current tariff filing. Anyone else seeing similar phantom broadband charges?
Broadband billing addendum charges - legitimate or scam?
Pete, we're seeing this exact issue with NorthWestern Energy in Montana. They're calling it "communications infrastructure surcharge" - $89/month per account. Filed a formal complaint with the PSC last month. These utilities think they can just invent new fee categories without proper regulatory approval.
This is becoming a pattern nationwide. MLGW tried something similar here in Memphis - "digital services enhancement fee" that wasn't in any approved rate schedule. The key is demanding to see the regulatory filing that authorized these charges. If they can't produce it, you've got grounds for full refund plus interest.
Randy's right about the regulatory filing requirement. National Grid tried this in Rhode Island with "smart grid communication fees" - $45/month. Turned out the PSC never approved it. Got $127,000 in refunds for my clients once we challenged it properly. These utilities are getting way too creative with their billing.
Anthony, that's a huge recovery! I'm preparing formal challenges for three Idaho Power accounts. The total exposure is around $73,000 if we can get 24 months back. Problem is proving the charges weren't properly noticed to customers. Idaho Power claims they sent postcards but none of my clients received anything.
Pete, check if Idaho requires certified mail for tariff change notifications on commercial accounts over certain kW thresholds. Montana requires it for accounts over 1000 kW. If they didn't follow proper notification procedures, the charges are invalid from day one.
Another angle - request the cost justification studies for these broadband fees. Utilities have to demonstrate that the charges are related to actual costs incurred. I've found that most of these "infrastructure fees" are just revenue enhancement schemes with no cost basis.
Great advice Randy. Idaho Power's response to my cost justification request was basically "proprietary information." That's usually code for "we made it up." Filing a data request with the IPUC this week to force disclosure of their broadband infrastructure spending.
Pete, you might also check if these fees violate any existing rate case settlements. National Grid's broadband charges here violated a 2019 settlement agreement that capped certain surcharges. That gave us additional leverage beyond just the tariff filing issues.
Anthony, excellent point. Idaho Power has a 2020 settlement that specifically limits new surcharges without 90-day notice. These broadband fees appeared with zero notice. That might be the smoking gun I need. Thanks for the insight!
Update from Montana - NorthWestern Energy agreed to suspend the communications charges pending PSC review. Not a full victory yet but at least they're not accumulating additional bogus charges. Sometimes just filing the complaint is enough to get their attention.
Marilyn, that's progress. Even a suspension saves your clients money while you fight the bigger battle. Pete, any updates on your Idaho Power challenge? I'd be interested to hear how the IPUC responds to your data request.