a review of utility benchmark cases august 2014-2015 margaret a. morris, esquire

A REVIEW OF UTILITY BENCHMARK CASESAUGUST 2014-2015

Margaret A. Morris, Esquire

2

Young & Haros LLC v. Met-EdPM 9/11/14 C-2013-2355974

PUC permitted customer to switch its EDC service from Met-Ed to PPL. Met-Ed filed Petition for Reconsideration/ Clarification arguing the ruling caused confusion as to the distinction between EDC and EGS or what cost is the determinative factor for permitting the switch.

Petition denied. Arguments raised are speculative. Ruling was based on prior decisions as applied to unique

facts of case (pole at Service Location contained both PPL and Met-Ed lines).

Factors concerned included the fact that the facilities of both EDCs were already duplicative, proximity to the Service Location, and no cost for customer.

3

Spirat v. Met-EdPM 9/11/14 C-2013-2367044

Complainants object to Med-Ed’s use of herbicides to clear vegetation along a transmission line ROW across their property.

Met-Ed asserts its practice, based on nationally accepted best practices and standards, and does not violate Code or regulations.

ALJ Colwell dismissed the Complaint, ruling the practice was within Code and practice did not violate Section 1501, yet, she fined the Company since the use of herbicides was not safe service.

Med-Ed filed Exceptions arguing that without violating Code, it cannot be ordered to change practice and raised procedural issues.

4

Spirat v. Met-EdPM 9/11/14 C-2013-2367044

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed. Practice does not violate Code and proper vegetation

management within transmission ROW is critical. PUC’s ability to determine if practice represents safe and

reasonable service under Code is not constrained by EPA approvals.

Complaint filed pro se; no reason to change pleading from Complaint to Petition for Injunctive Relief.

Rulings from other jurisdiction or law review articles are not binding on PUC or do not constitute proper COLs.

Efficient service does not always equate to using least expensive method to achieve an objective and must be balanced against safe service.

5

Wilburn v. PECOPM 9/11/14 F-2013-2375491

Complainant disputed the transfer of unpaid balance from prior account alleging his service was stolen. He requests an investigation and PAR. PECO asserted charges were correct and he defaulted on prior PUC PAR.

ALJ Jones dismissed Complaint, finding prior PAR defaulted and did not carry burden RE: high bill.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing his position. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

6

Wilburn v. PECOPM 9/11/14 F-2013-2375491

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed 2nd PAR not permitted under §1405(d). PECO never advised of billing dispute so reasonable

not to conduct investigation. Historical usage does not support allegation of high

bill Allegation of “theft of service” was solely

speculative. PAR defaults if payment is not made by the due date. Complainant has burden of proof for Complaint

proceeding per Section 332(a) of Code.

7

Bonnie Roberts v. NFGPM 10/2/14 C-2014-2408721

The Complainant requests a single gas line into her home; she currently shares a service line with 2 other townhomes (she bought property with current configuration). The Complainant has 3 meters in her basement - one is hers; the other 2 service her neighbors. Complainant wants her neighbor’s meters outside their home not in her basement. NFG asserts that is common for attached properties to share a service line; company offered to move meters to outside of Complainant’s home but she refused. Each customer pays for their own metered usage.

ALJ Jandebeur dismissed the Complaint finding the Complainant has not met her burden of proof and holding that the regs (Chapter 59) do not specify how single-family homes versus townhomes are to be treated. ALJ reviewed the Code (Section 1501) and ruled that there were no safety concerns and NFG’s proposal to move meters outside was reasonable. Finally, any gas leak on the customer’s side of the meter is the customer’s, not NFG’s, responsibility.

8

Bonnie Roberts v. NFGPM 10/2/14 C-2014-2408721

The Complainant filed Exceptions disputing the veracity of NFG’s evidence and the validity of its investigation. NFG filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. The gas service provided to the Complainant as currently

configured is sufficient to service her and her neighbor’s adjoining properties.

Company’s proposal to bear cost to move meters outside was reasonable in light of the fact that the Complainant is responsible for cost but for NFG offer.

No finding that current service violates Code or PUC regs. NFG is not required to supply an individual service line and

attendant meter to every individual customer particularly where multiple customer receive service at “one building.”

9

Theresa Brown-Albert v. PPLPM 10/23/14 F-2013-2342492

Complainant, owner of Service Location, objects to being held responsible for all separately metered accounts where she did not reside. PPL argued that the bills for the other 2 accounts were in the name of family members and she was liable.

ALJ Buckley found that the Complainant, as sole owner of the Service Location, was a “customer” and thus responsible for the bills for all three accounts.

The Complainant filed Exceptions arguing inaccuracies in PPL’s records and she was prejudiced by not timely receiving the hearing notice and PPL’s exhibits. PPL filed Reply Exceptions supporting the ID.

10

Theresa Brown-Albert v. PPLPM 10/23/14 F-2013-2342492

ID reversed; remanded for hearing. Motion Cawley

Sections 56.16(b) and 56.2 holds those who actually benefit from the service and have some legal connection to the Service Location responsible for charges, regardless of whether service is in that person’s name.

ID does not consider whether Complainant actually benefitted from the service, but rather relies solely on the Complainant’s status as owner.

Remand is necessary to determine if Complainant benefitted from the service and therefore qualifies as a “customer.”

11

Titus Wright v. PGWPM 10/23/14 C-2013-2368462

Complainant disputes transfer of outstanding balance from a Service Location and the resultant placement of a municipal lien. PGW admitted the lien was erroneously filed and was working to remove it. This matter was originally resolved with a Certificate of Satisfaction which the Complainant later filed an objection.

ALJ Melillo dismissed the Complaint with prejudice finding res judicata in that the Complainant sought to re-litigate issues previously addressed in 2 prior formal complaints, which were also resolved by Certificates of Satisfaction.

12

Titus Wright v. PGWPM 10/23/14 C-2013-2368462

The Complainant’s late filed Exceptions were treated as a Petition for Reconsideration disagreeing with the ID. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Petition for Reconsideration denied. Petition does not met standard of Duick.

13

Nathaniel Haynesworth v. PGWPM 10/23/14 C-2013-2388558

Complainant alleges PGW issued his first bill for 5 years of usage and he requests a complete service history from 2008-2013 and a breakdown of the billing period. PGW alleges Complainant was a “user without contract” and issued make-up bill consistent with Section 56.14.

ALJ Vero found no merit in the Complainant’s claim of inadequate and unreasonable service. Complainant was not eligible for PAR because he is no longer a customer. Failure to issue Complainant’s monthly bills for seven months was unreasonable service under Section 1501 and a $200 fine was assessed.

14

Nathaniel Haynesworth v. PGWPM 10/23/14 C-2013-2388558

ID modified; Complaint denied in part. Joint Motion Witmer and Powelson

PGW acted unreasonable by using “user without contract” mechanism for over four years.

PGW’s failure to identify the correct party to bill in a timely manner is a clear violation of Section 1501 warranting an increased penalty of $500.

Failure to issue monthly bills for seven months constitutes unreasonable service under Section 1501.

Complainant benefitted from the unbilled gas service and has an obligation to apply for service and is responsible for the service he used since February 2009.

15

Sandra Hopely v. PECOPM 11/13/14 F-2014-2404303

Complainant objects to being held responsible for electric charges while service was in her mother’s name. PECO asserts she was an occupant at the time the charges accrued and benefited from the service.

ALJ Melillo found the Complainant did not provide any evidence that she did not reside at the property during the disputed time period; she did provide documentation of her residency after the disputed time period.

ID adopted.

16

Kevin Washington v. PGWPM 11/13/14 C-2013-2388427

Complainant alleges PGW did not reinstate his PAR as agreed. PGW applied the requested payment to an unpaid security deposit and the remaining towards the catch-up amount. PGW filed Certificate of Satisfaction with the wrong customer name and failed to serve the Complainant.

ALJ Jones found PGW made several operational errors in the handling of the matter ; she refused to reinstate the PAR based on the Complainant’s failure to demonstrate a good faith payment history.

ID reversed; remand for hearing; Complaint sustained.

17

Kevin Washington v. PGWPM 11/13/14 C-2013-2388427

Motion Brown Equity demands that PGW honor the agreement that

$700 would reinstate the PAR. Reinstatement of Company PAR does not constitute

a PUC-ordered PAR. Remand to determine if fine is in the public interest.

Statement Witmer Complainant defaulted on 27 of 30 Company PARs. Complainant encouraged to make full and timely

payments since “this resolution is a lucky break given his prior payment history.”

18

Joseph Nadav v. Respond PowerPM 11/13/14 C-2014-2429159

Complainant alleges that the EGS charged his business an excessive rate and seeks rate recalculated rate and a refund. EGS filed PO arguing that the PUC did not have jurisdiction over generation rates.

ALJ Salapa granted the PO finding the Complaint was legally insufficient for failing to identify a violation of a matter the PUC had jurisdiction.

ID modified; Complaint dismissed.

19

Joseph Nadav v. Respond PowerPM 11/13/14 C-2014-2429159

Motion Coleman PUC lacks authority to regulate EGS rates. PUC has authority, per Section 2807(d)(1), to

order refund or credit in appropriate circumstances.

PUC has interpreted Section 2807(d)(1) to find that a full refund of EGS charges is an appropriate remedy when a customer has been slammed.

20

Barry and Deborah Harshbarger v. PECOPM 12/4/14 F-2014-2417792

Complainant seeks a realistic 2nd PUC PAR. PECO contends 2nd PUC PAR is not permitted by Chapter 14 since no change in income or no significant change in circumstances.

Special Agent Johnson dismissed the Complaint finding the Complainant had not established an entitlement to a 2nd PUC PAR.

The Complainants filed Exceptions stating the monthly income varies and the household has experienced significant medical bills due to Mr. Harshbarger’s liver disease. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID arguing that the events alleged occurred more than 4 years ago and are not relevant.

21

Barry and Deborah Harshbarger v. PECOPM 12/4/14 F-2014-2417792

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Household income has not changed since

BCS Decision issued. No record evidence that there was a

significant change in circumstances from the onset of any new illness, which caused a significant loss in household income.

22

Rosa Hobson v. PGWPM 12/18/14 C-2013-2378746

Complainant seeks affordable PAR and questioned PGW’s handling of the account while in CAP, application of LIHEAP payment and budget billing.

ALJ Cheskis dismissed finding the Complainant defaulted on a prior PUC PAR and Chapter 14 did not permit a 2nd PUC PAR since no change in income or significant change in circumstances; no evidence that PGW committed any error in the handling of the account while in CAP, application of LIHEAP payment and budget billing.

No timely exceptions filed; Final Order entered July 22, 2014. Complainant filed Petition for Reconsideration arguing she did not receive the ID and provided her notes on the ID. PGW filed Answer that Duick standard not met.

23

Rosa Hobson v. PGWPM 12/18/14 C-2013-2378746

Petition denied. No new or novel argument raised. Affirmed ID finding that there had not been a

decrease in household income of 10% or more to entitle her to a 2nd PUC PAR.

PUC cannot legally order PGW to enter into a Company PAR with the Complainant.

24

William Edney v. PGWPM 12/18/14 F-2013-2393858

Complainant alleges bills are incorrect since property was vacant and the appliances were non-functional. PGW asserts that an adjustment was given for the fast meter (2.634% but magnetic inference found); property had potential for usage and a PAR was offered for the make-up bill.

ALJ Guhl dismissed but directed a 48-month make-up PAR per Section 56.14 finding PGW’s investigation showed that the appliances were functioning and connected to the gas service and that regardless of when he moved into the property (2014), he placed service in his name (2007) and is responsible for the charges.

Complainant filed Exceptions stating he “did not agree” and requested a “new court date.” PGW filed Replies to Exceptions in support of the ID.

25

William Edney v. PGWPM 12/18/14 F-2013-2393858

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed; Tentative Order issued. Record evidence supports finding that gas appliances were functioning

properly and utilized gas. A 20% conservation credit is appropriate since the record shows that the

Complainant conserved usage after he received accurate price signals. Since magnetic interference with the AMR device and resulting billing

inaccuracies occurred through no fault of the Complainant, LPCs should not be assessed as long as PAR is not in default.

Comments due in 10 days. Statement Brown

The frequency of the meter related make-up bill complaints against PGW may indicate a larger problem with PGW’s monitoring of its billing system and/or AMRs.

PGW reminded of the importance of routine monitoring of its facilities to deter occurrences of unbilled usage.

26

Omar Ali v. PECOPM 12/18/14 F-2014-2417840

The Complainant alleges unauthorized charges on the account and objects to the transfer of a prior balance to his current account. He requests removal of LPCs and the transferred charges.

ALJ Colwell dismissed finding that the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case that PECO did anything wrong; he offered no evidence (or reason) to support his claims.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing the finding that the transferred balance was accurate since his family vacated that residence over 17 years ago and alleged that PECO did not submit documents ordered during the hearing. PECO filed Replies to Exceptions in support of the ID.

27

Omar Ali v. PECOPM 12/18/14 F-2014-2417840

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed. ID modified solely to correct address/account

where the balance was transferred; transfer was proper.

ALJ never required PECO to submit bills to support entries on PECO Exhibit 2.

Utilities are entitled for payment for provided utility service when determination made that a customer has used those services. See, Berry v PGW, (F-01184412, entered 4/15/04).

Complainant did not make prima facie case.

28

Rodney Temple v. West PennPM 12/18/14 C-2014-2412337

Complainant alleges that West Penn unlawfully assessed a security deposit and the call center was rude and unresponsive. The Company asserted that while the customer pays his bill in full each month, the payment is consistently late and denied that its reps were unprofessional. After the record was closed, the Company filed a Motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Section 5.245(c) because the Complainant sent threatening and vulgar emails to counsel.

ALJ dismissed finding the account was delinquent, the security deposit was lawful under Sections 1404 and 56.41, and there was no record evidence that the Company’s action were retaliatory because of his activism absent West Penn. ALJ Long denied West Penn’s Motion finding “it not unusual for a complainant to threaten the Commission with negative publicity in the event of an adverse ruling” and that the offensive language occurred after the hearing.

ID adopted.

29

Rodney Temple v. West PennPM 12/18/14 C-2014-2412337

Statement Witmer No amount of frustration justifies the

inappropriate language or threatening language. The Complainant’s comment that he would

continue to “file complaints and not show up thereby costing the Company money” reflects misunderstanding those monies spent defending complaints are recovered from ratepayers.

PUC is legally bound to dismiss repeat frivolous complaints and limit ability of that customer to file additional future complaints.

30

M Heather Michail v. PECOPM 1/15/15 F-2014-2404586

Complainant requests PUC PAR. ALJ Hoyer dismissed the Complaint finding a

substantial amount of the outstanding balance was CAP arrears and Complainant did not demonstrate good faith effort to pay her bill to warrant PUC PAR for non-CAP arrears.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging her income decreased and rent increased. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID and objecting to the extra record evidence.

31

M Heather Michail v. PECOPM 1/15/15 F-2014-2404586

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. New assertion not considered because

record closed. PUC cannot order PAR on CAP arrears. PUC declined to issue PAR for non-CAP

arrears due to poor payment history and defaulting on prior Company PARs.

32

Marion Werle v. Respond PowerPM 1/15/15 C-2014-2429158

Complainant alleges EGS rates were “absurd.” EGS filed PO attorney asserting PUC has no jurisdiction over EGS rates.

ALJ Jandebeur granted PO since PUC has no jurisdiction over EGS rates and cannot order a refund or credit to Complainant and no other allegation of any violation of Code or PUC regulations.

ID revised; Complaint dismissed.

33

Marion Werle v. Respond PowerPM 1/15/15 C-2014-2429158

Motion Coleman PUC does have authority to order refund as

appropriate remedy when customer is slammed.

PUC can order credit or refund if EGS fails to bill in accordance with its disclosure statement.

Statement Brown Hearing should have been held on issue of

improper marketing or sales activities of EGS.

34

Marcus Love v. PGWPM 1/29/15 F-2013-2355580

Complainant alleges PGW installed a faulty meter and did not find issue for 4 years. PGW asserts that the mechanical part of the meter was functioning but the meter registered zero usage and it is permitted to issue make-up bill for unbilled usage.

ALJ Guhl found that PGW was authorized to issue the make-up bill and is entitled to payment for that usage. However, due to the fact that PGW did not investigate the reason for the zero readings for over 3 years, a 20% conservation credit was warranted. ALJ fined PGW $1,000 for violation of Section 1501.

PGW filed Exceptions challenging the conservation credit and requested the matter be remanded for evidentiary hearing on the appropriate level of the discount.

35

Marcus Love v. PGWPM 1/29/15 F-2013-2355580

Motion Coleman Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed. Section 56.14 authorizes make-up bill and the customer is

responsible for usage. While utilities are not required to provide perfect service, failing to

notice the zero reads for over 3 years is not reasonable service. The customer did not occupy the property for 27 of the 40-month

period so conservation credit not warranted since not deprived of any meaningful opportunity to conserve during that period.

Fine of $1,000 affirmed. Statement Witmer

Supports Motion of Commissioner Coleman. Concerned that PGW continues to have problems identifying issues

regarding its meters in a timely fashion. Troubled that customer did not questions why his bills for more than

3 years reflected no usage.

36

James Coppedge v. PECOPM 1/29/15 F-2014-2406180

Complainant alleges that PECO is unreasonably refusing to accept his “alleged negotiable instrument tendered to pay his bill. He also asserts that he entered into the PUC PAR under duress. PECO asserts that it only accepts cash, certified checks, money orders and valid bank checks or payments by certain enumerated credit cards.

ALJ Long dismissed the Complaint finding that PECO’s policy of only accepting certain types of payment was not unreasonable or in violation of the Code or PUC regulations.

The Complainant filed Exceptions challenging the findings that PECO’s refusal was reasonable and he may legally claim the right to discharge his PECO debt through invocation of the UCC.

37

James Coppedge v. PECOPM 1/29/15 F-2014-2406180

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Complainant failed to prove that PECO’s

action was unreasonable or unreliable service.

Complainant raised the same issue in his 2010 Complaint, which was also dismissed since PECO’s limitation of what is acceptable to satisfy the debt for service is reasonable.

38

Massey v. PeoplesPM 2/12/15 C-2013-2397016

Complainant alleges Peoples improperly permitted a person who was not a party to a lease to establish gas service in a property he owns.

ALJ Hoyer dismissed the Complaint finding no violation of the Code, PUC regulations, or orders; it was irrelevant whose name was on the lease or who established service. Complainant responsible for balance once foreign load confirmed – Section 1529.1 requires owner to advise utility of rental units with master meter.

The Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing his position that Peoples failed to follow proper procedure by placing service in the tenant’s mother’s name and Peoples knew the property was a duplex served by one meter. No Reply Exceptions were filed.

39

Massey v. PeoplesPM 2/12/15 C-2013-2397016

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Peoples’ practice not to require proof of ownership or

tenancy if the Company has no records of past credit or payment problems complies with Chapter 56.

Section 1529.1 does not place burden on the utility to discern either the ownership or utility set-up of a dwelling.

Regardless of whose name service was in, the Complainant is responsible for the billed usage upon the discovery of foreign load.

Prior to the discovery of foreign load, People’s business records reflected that the property was a single family dwelling and the Complainant did not introduce evidence to contradict that record or to notify the Company per Section 1529.1(a) that it was now a rental property with 2 or more units.

40

Merkert v. PECOPM 2/12/15 F-2014-2413585

Complainant objects to the transfer of tenant’s balance due to discovery of foreign load arguing shared apartment was not rented and lease acknowledges and discounts rent for “shared usage.”

ALJ Colwell dismissed Complaint finding PUC precedent is clear: transferred balance is owner’s responsibility due to foreign load; irrelevant whether shared apartment is rented. Complaint must seek compensation from former tenant in another forum.

The Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position that she should not be responsible for the tenant’s account balance since she corrected the foreign load within days of being notified. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

41

Merkert v. PECOPM 2/12/15 F-2014-2413585

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Absent a finding that a PUC-approved tariff provision is

discriminating, a utility must comply with it. While the owner can control to whom she leases her

property, she has no control over whose name the utility service is established.

Complainant’s liability was the condition of the rental unit, which was completely within her control.

Code does not permit landlord and tenant to enter into lease in which tenant would agree to be billed for electric service that includes foreign load.

Tenants are not permitted to accept utility service which is not exclusive to their homes.

42

Stephanie M. Sawyer v. PGWPM 2/12/15 F-2013-2392770

Complainant alleges PGW removed her from CAP because her home was also used for her law practice.

ALJ Vero dismissed the Complaint finding that CAP was funded by other residential customers and inappropriate for her business to receive an undeserved subsidy from other residential ratepayers.

Joint Motion Cawley and Brown Service location has mixed use: residential and commercial. Complainant is eligible for CAP; gas service is primarily for household

purpose. Neither Code, PGW’s CAP Program nor tariff prohibit Complainant’s

enrollment in CAP. CAP Program does not contain standard to determine exclusion for

residence with shared business use. PGW can propose amendment during next 3-year Universal Service

Plan filing.

43

Stephanie M. Sawyer v. PGWPM 2/12/15 F-2013-2392770

Statement Witmer Concurs in result in only this instance. Agrees with ALJ that permitting small

business to operate from residence benefiting from CAP on an ongoing basis is not the right policy decision.

PGW urged to eliminate any ambiguity going forward by making necessary changes in 3-year Universal Service Plan filing.

44

Michael Scotto v. PPL PM 2/26/15 C-2014-2414070

The Complainant alleges there are incorrect charges due to a faulty meter and PPL entered his property to exchange meter without his specific permission; he seeks PUC PAR or re-instatement into CAP.

ALJ Cheskis directed a Level 1 PAR and dismissed all other claims finding the Complainant did not carry burden.

Complainant filed Exceptions re-arguing position; PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

45

Michael Scotto v. PPL PM 2/26/15 C-2014-2414070

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint sustained in part. Increased usage bolstered by usage history. Company permitted to access property to exchange

meter—need not request specific permission. Recent revisions to PPL’s Universal Service Plan

directs Company to allow CAP customers to remain in CAP on budget billing even after they have reached CAP benefit limit.

PUC PAR not appropriate since currently enrolled in CAP.

If Complainant exhausts CAP benefit, he can file to amend order and seek PUC PAR.

46

Andree Lombard v. PECOPM 3/26/15 C-2014-2416855

Complainant seeks 2nd PAR. PECO asserts no change in income or significant change in circumstances.

ALJ Heep found change in income did not meet statutory 20% requirement for Level 2 customers. She also found medical bills under SCIC only accounted for decrease in income of 3.8%.

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed. Complainant was permitted to testify but should not have

been permitted to cross-examine the Company’s witnesses. When determining change in income, appropriate to

compare current gross monthly household income to income at time PUC PAR was established.

Household income increased so no need for SCIC analysis.

47

Andree Lombard v. PECOPM 3/26/15 C-2014-2416855

Complainant seeks 2nd PAR. PECO asserts no change in income or significant change in circumstances.

ALJ Heep found change in income did not meet statutory 20% requirement for Level 2 customers. She also found medical bills under SCIC only accounted for decrease in income of 3.8%.

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed. Complainant was permitted to testify but should not have

been permitted to cross-examine the Company’s witnesses. When determining change in income, appropriate to

compare current gross monthly household income to income at time PUC PAR was established.

Household income increased so no need for SCIC analysis.

48

Darnell Fassett v. PGWPM 3/26/15 F-2014-2408541

Complainant seeks PAR for back billed usage for 4 years of unauthorized gas. PGW terminated service to property in May 2002. Complainant disputes time period and amount.

ALJ Jones dismissed Complaint but granted Level 2 1407 PAR for balance.

Motion Coleman Calculation methodology based on potential use and degree-days. PGW could have billed to 2002; good customer relation to limit to date

of discovery of use (2013). PAR never appropriate when theft of service since back bill is not

make-up bill under § 56.14. PGW could not have detected theft sooner (meter by-pass). Complainant not credible that he lived at property since 2009 and did

not know gas was on when furnace and all appliances were gas. Complainant must pay entire balance to establish service- not fair to

give PUC PAR when willfully misused utility service.

49

Darnell Fassett v. PGWPM 3/26/15 F-2014-2408541

Statement Cawley All EGS should routinely monitor their

facilities to deter theft of service. PGW strongly encouraged to make

presentation to PUC regarding internal policy and procedures implemented or to be implemented to monitor all dormant accounts’ unauthorized use.

50

Gerald H. Smith v. PECOPM 4/23/15 C-2014-2443198

The Complainant objects to installation of a smart meter; requested analog meter and removal of any “EMF emitting device”; PECO filed PO since it is required to install smart meters.

ALJ Salapa granted the PO finding the law well settled that Act 129 and PUC precedent authorize smart meters and do not permit customers to opt out of the installation.

Complainant filed Exceptions requesting for first time damages for “sparking from meter.” PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

51

Gerald H. Smith v. PECOPM 4/23/15 C-2014-2443198

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. PO properly granted since Complaint was

legally insufficient (Complainant cannot opt out of installation of a smart meter).

Issue of damages was not raised until exception stage; PUC has no authority to award damages.

PECO encouraged to further investigate to determine if a safety issue with smart meter exits and to take corrective action if warranted.

52

William Femea v. UGI PM 5/7/15 C-2014-2430768

The Complainant seeks a PUC PAR. UGI contends he is not entitled to a second or subsequent PAR or an extension of the defaulted PUC PAR.

Special Agent Hunt denied the request consistent with Sections 1405 (d) and (e).

Complainant filed Exceptions pleading for a second chance and insisting he will comply with the terms. UGI filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID stressing that the Complainant’s strategy has been to file multiple informal and formal complaints and to negotiate new Company PARs and then fail to honor that PAR.

53

William Femea v. UGI PM 5/7/15 C-2014-2430768

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Complainant not entitled to 2nd PUC PAR

under Section 1405(d) and 1403. BCS Decision clearly advised of requirement

to make payments; Complainant defaulted on PAR directed by BCS.

Complainant also defaulted on subsequent Company PARs.

54

Mark Ferraiolo v. PPLPM 5/19/15 C-2014-2428009

The Complainant alleges a reliability issue with his service citing 4 momentary outages, 3 outages of unknown duration, and 1 extended outage for 212 minutes. PPL contends none of the incidents were in its control and its responses in each incidence was reasonable and adequate.

ALJ Jandebeur dismissed the Complaint finding 2 outages a month over an 8 month period was not unreasonable and PPL’s efforts to manage future outages are appropriate.

Complainant filed Exception rearguing his position that he is entitled to perfect service. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

55

Mark Ferraiolo v. PPLPM 5/19/15 C-2014-2428009

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. PPL required to provide reasonable, not

perfect service. Outages were outside control of PPL. Two outages a month is not unreasonable. PPL offered convincing evidence of the

effective changes to its system and practices to make the Complainant’s electric service more reliable.

56

Williams v. EquitablePM 6/11/15 F-2014-2436364/C-2014-2435842

The Complainant checked every box on the complaint form and seeks restoration of service for both electric and gas services and a PAR for each respective balance. The Service Location was condemned by the City of Pittsburg in early 2014. Equitable terminated service after discovering a leak in the house line and safety violations on several appliances (furnace, range, and water tank); service will not be restored until the repairs are made and verified by Equitable. DQE terminated service for non-payment; service will not be restored until the electrical wiring is inspected. Both utilities require, before restoration of either service, that the City remove the condemnation order and the Service Location is safe for habitation.

57


ALJ Cheskis dismissed both complaints finding the actions of both utilities, in not restoring service until the property was no longer condemned, were proper and warranted under the Code.

The Complainant filed Exceptions and attached a hearing notice regarding his LIHEAP appeal. Both utilities filed Reply Exceptions noting the irrelevance of the LIHEAP grant since no amount of payment will restore service until the property is no longer condemned and the safety violations are corrected and verified.

58


Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. Service will not be restored until the Complainant

addresses the safety concerns identified and clearly establishes that the property is no longer in a condemned status by providing a notice from the City stating the same.

Utilities have absolute obligation to provide adequate, efficient, safe and reasonable service; the Service Location is currently unsafe.

Until the issue regarding condemnation are resolved, the issues regarding outstanding amounts owed, security deposits and reconnection fee are moot.

59

Daniel C. Matesic v. DQEPM 6/11/15 C- 2014-2438493

Complainant alleges his payments were not properly posted and Company would not guarantee his social security number would be kept secure. DQE had mistakenly placed his social security number on another account not in his name. DQE filed PO since Complainant sought damages.

ALJ Long dismissed the Complaint that alleges the termination and posting of the payment was improper customer service. She did fine the Company $500 for the Company’s failure to protect his social security number.

60

Daniel C. Matesic v. DQEPM 6/11/15 C- 2014-2438493

Motion Brown The 10-day delay in posting the online payment was unreasonable;

DQE did not offer any explanation for the delay which resulted in the termination of service the day before the payment was posted.

A fine of $500 is warranted for a violation of Section 1501. DQE to contact BCS to ensure that it has adequate processes in

place to expeditiously credit a customer’s online website payment. $500 fine for not protecting customer information was warranted. DQE to contact BCS to ensure that it has adequate processes in

place for when a change is made to the identifying information of a customer’s account.

Statement Witmer All regulated utilities are reminded to continuously address both

their cyber and physical security plans to protect against the type of errors made in this case.

61

Mary Rogers v PECOPM 7/8/15 F-2013-2378582

Complainant alleges PECO technician was unprofessional and discussed her account with a third party when attempting to terminate her service. PECO denies that the technician discussed the particulars of the account with non-authorized persons.

ALJ Johnson sustained the Complaint finding that PECO violated Section 1501 by broadcasting the status of the Complainant’s account within earshot of neighbors and people passing by. A fine of $500 was assessed.

PECO filed Exceptions arguing (1) the Complainant’s testimony was not credible and conflicting; (2) it was prevented from properly cross-examining the contractor to establish the witness’ bias and (3) Complainant did not meet her burden of proof.

62

Mary Rogers v PECOPM 7/8/15 F-2013-2378582

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint sustained. Record evidence supports finding that PECO tech did

inform the contractor that the Complainant carried an unpaid balance that warranted termination of her service.

PECO was not prohibited from pursuing line of questioning regarding bias.

PECO chose not to introduce tech’s report that contradicted the contractor’s testimony.

ALJ correctly found the contractor’s testimony more credible.

Fine was warranted for inappropriately revealing Complainant’s private information to the contractor.

$500 fine was sustained.

63

Carnevale v PPLPM 7/8/15 C-2014-2426383

Complainant alleges his bills are higher than neighbor’s and he cannot afford to pay them. PPL tested the meter that was found within PUC guidelines.

ALJ Jandebeur dismissed the Complaint finding the Complainant refused to have an energy usage analysis performed which would have assisted in the high bill determination.

Complainant filed Exceptions asserting his inability to hire an attorney hampered him in the proceeding as well as rearguing his position. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID noting the Company’s offer on 5 different occasions to do high bill investigation.

64

Charles Dennis v PGWPM 7/30/15 C-2014-2426383

Complainant seeks a favorable PAR. PGW asserts that the Complainant defaulted on seven Company PARs.

ALJ Guhl dismissed the complaint; the household income increased since the Complainant defaulted on the PUC PAR.

Complainant filed Exceptions merely reiterating his testimony. PGW filed Replies to Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed. No record evidence of change in income or significant

change in circumstance so a 2nd PUC PAR is prohibited by the Code.

65

Bihn Tran v RespondPM 7/8/15 C-2014-2417540

Complainant alleges he was slammed and EGS is price gauging him. Respond asserts the Complainant was billed a variable rate consistent with his sister’s enrollment with the EGS.

ALJ Jandebeur found the switch by the sister to be invalid since she was not authorized to make changes on the account, was not a customer of PECO and EGS did not get authorized signature to make switch.

EGS filed Exceptions arguing the ID is contrary to BCS precedent that EGS enrollment is valid when initiated by sibling or relative of customer; sister claimed to be the customer and PUC has no authority to order refund of all EGS charges.

66

Bihn Tran v RespondPM 7/30/15 C-2014-2417540

Exceptions granted in part; ID reversed; Complaint dismissed. No prima facie case that Code, regs or order

violated. Complainant acknowledged receipt of the

disclosure statement and monthly bills with EGS charges.

Section 2807(d) authorizes refund for slamming.

Section 510 permits refunds to carry out consumer protections in Choice Act.

67

Douglas v PGWPM 8/20/15 F-2010-2164009

Commission in 6/17/15 Tentative Order directed PGW to provide additional info regarding the Complainant’s gas meter: class, last tested, billing adjustment and supporting calculations for fast meter under Section 59.21.

PGW timely submitted info that meter was last tested in 2011 and 2012 and 2 adjustments totaling $71.75 and $1.13 for fast meter were provided. Complainant filed comments that billing adjustment was not sufficient/correct.

68

Douglas v PGWPM 8/20/15 F-2010-2164009

Record re-opened for additional refund information. Billing adjustment calculated over 1-year

period was insufficient. Meter was tested nearly 15 years ago. Meter was in service 7 years beyond regular

test period. Refund period must begin 5/31/11. The date

the meter was tested and found to be 2.4% fast.

Refund calculations due in 30 days.

69

Kiback v IDT EnergyPM 8/20/15 C-2014-2409676

Complainant alleges his EGS tripled from 9¢ to 27¢ after being promised that he would save 10% over the PTC. IDT contends the increase in the variable rate was result of market forces and a retroactive rate adjustment and good will credit were provided.

IDT filed Motion for Summary Judgment since there was no allegation that there was a violation of the Code or regs. OCA intervened and filed an Answer to the Motion raising questions concerning IDT’s marketing and billing conduct as an EGS raising a disputed material fact.

70


ALJ Cheskis denied the Motion and after hearing found IDT violated PUC regs and imposed a $2,000 fine and ordered refund for difference between variable rate and PTC for January and February 2014.

IDT filed Exceptions alleging (1) ID was not supported by substantial evidence but on vague and contradictory recollection of a phone call 30-months prior; (2) bills/rate comport with disclosure statement and (3) a fine is not warranted.

71


Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint sustained. IDT violated Section H.2 of 2010 Interim

Guidelines, not Section 112.10(a) as ALJ found. Section H.2 requires compliance with the

telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and related regs.

2010 Interim Order also addressed EGS oral marketing through the actions of its agents and reps that mandated clear and truthful marketing practices.

Record supports finding that the sales agent violated telemarketing regulations.

72


ID comports with PUC policy and precedent: regulatory scheme encompasses the entire sales process from oral marketing to written confirmation.

Fine appropriate for violating PUC regs, which incorporated the marketing behaviors, prohibited by federal statues not the federal act.

IDT violated PUC marketing regulatory standards and PUC billing regs.

Refund for overbilling for Jan & Feb 2014 is authorized under Section 501, not Section 1312 of the Code.

73

Francis v PECOPM 8/20/15 C-2014-2451351

Complainant alleges PECO was improperly attempting to install a smart meter against her wishes and is threatening to terminate her service. PECO filed PO since there is no provision under Act 129 to opt out of smart meters.

ALJ Pell granted PO based on sound PUC precedent and dismissed the matter without hearing.

The Complainant filed Exceptions alleging her complaint is supported by scientific research, she has right to be free of physical harm form a monopolistic corporation and she is entitled to hearing. PECO filed Reply Exceptions asserting its actions were in compliance with Code, regs and its tariff.

74

Francis v PECOPM 8/20/15 C-2014-2451351

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Referral to BIE; Complaint dismissed. Customers do not have the ability to opt out of

smart meter installations. Hearing is not necessary since opt out cannot

be granted. Complainant’s health and safety concerns

were referred to BIE for whatever action it deems necessary.

75

Susan Kreider v PECOPM 9/3/15 P-2015-2495064

PECO filed Petition for Review of Material Question, which remanded complaint on allegations that smart meter had deleterious heath effect on customer. PECO alleged Judge Heep’s ruling contradicted Judge Salapas’s ruling on PECO PO.

76


Material Questions answered in negative. In view of the inconsistencies between 2 ruling,

the standard for interlocutory review was met. Instant case is distinguishable from prior

complaint cases because Complainant has raised factual averments regarding specific health effects she has experienced after the smart meter was installed outside her residence.

Complaint alleges 150 violations for unsafe or unreasonable service.

77


The Code does not prohibit PUC from considering safety of smart meters when a legally sufficient claim is present.

Complainant should have opportunity to be heard on her claims of heath effect related to the smart meter at her residence.

78

Melanie Sowa v Met-EdPM 9/3/15 C-2014-2436997

Complainant alleges she could not discontinue service in her name because of a PFA and her estranged husband, not her, is responsible for the outstanding bill. Met-Ed contends Complainant is legally responsible for charges and failed to discontinue service but rather allowed the account to be terminated for non-payment.

ALJ Hoyer dismissed the Complaint finding that since the Complainant is neither a customer or applicant for service, the PUC cannot relieve her of the responsibility for the charges incurred while service was in her name.

ID adopted.

79

Questions?MARGARET A. MORRIS, ESQUIRE

REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLPCIRA CENTRE, 13th FLOOR

2929 ARCH STREETPHILADELPHIA, PA 19104

T: 215.495.6524E: [email protected]

a review of utility benchmark cases august 2014-2015 margaret a. morris, esquire

Documents