close

Se connecter

Se connecter avec OpenID

2014 Digest

IntégréTéléchargement
A REVIEW OF UTILITY BENCHMARK CASES
AUGUST 2014-2015
Margaret A. Morris, Esquire
Young & Haros LLC v. Met-Ed
PM 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.

2
Spirat v. Met-Ed
PM 9/11/14




3
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.
Spirat v. Met-Ed
PM 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.

4
Wilburn v. PECO
PM 9/11/14



5
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.
Wilburn v. PECO
PM 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.
6
Bonnie Roberts v. NFG
PM 10/2/14


7
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.
Bonnie Roberts v. NFG
PM 10/2/14


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.




8
C-2014-2408721
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.”
Theresa Brown-Albert v. PPL
PM 10/23/14



9
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.
Theresa Brown-Albert v. PPL
PM 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.”
10
Titus Wright v. PGW
PM 10/23/14


11
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.
Titus Wright v. PGW
PM 10/23/14


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
12
C-2013-2368462
does not met standard of Duick.
Nathaniel Haynesworth v. PGW
PM 10/23/14


13
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.
Nathaniel Haynesworth v. PGW
PM 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.

14
Sandra Hopely v. PECO
PM 11/13/14



15
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.
Kevin Washington v. PGW
PM 11/13/14



16
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.
Kevin Washington v. PGW
PM 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.”
17
Joseph Nadav v. Respond Power
PM 11/13/14



18
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.
Joseph Nadav v. Respond Power
PM 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.
19
Barry and Deborah Harshbarger v. PECO
PM 12/4/14



20
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.
Barry and Deborah Harshbarger v. PECO
PM 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.
21
Rosa Hobson v. PGW
PM 12/18/14



22
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.
Rosa Hobson v. PGW
PM 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.
23
William Edney v. PGW
PM 12/18/14



24
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.
William Edney v. PGW
PM 12/18/14

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


25
F-2013-2393858
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.
Omar Ali v. PECO
PM 12/18/14



26
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.
Omar Ali v. PECO
PM 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.
27
Rodney Temple v. West Penn
PM 12/18/14



28
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.
Rodney Temple v. West Penn
PM 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.
29
M Heather Michail v. PECO
PM 1/15/15



30
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.
M Heather Michail v. PECO
PM 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.
31
Marion Werle v. Respond Power
PM 1/15/15



32
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.
Marion Werle v. Respond Power
PM 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.
33
Marcus Love v. PGW
PM 1/29/15



34
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 makeup 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.
Marcus Love v. PGW
PM 1/29/15

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



35
F-2013-2355580
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.
James Coppedge v. PECO
PM 1/29/15



36
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.
James Coppedge v. PECO
PM 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.
37
Massey v. Peoples
PM 2/12/15



38
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.
Massey v. Peoples
PM 2/12/15

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.




39
C-2013-2397016
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.
Merkert v. PECO
PM 2/12/15



40
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.
Merkert v. PECO
PM 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.

41
Stephanie M. Sawyer v. PGW
PM 2/12/15



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





42
F-2013-2392770
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.
Stephanie M. Sawyer v. PGW
PM 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.
43
Michael Scotto v. PPL
PM 2/26/15



44
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.
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.

45
Andree Lombard v. PECO
PM 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.

46
Andree Lombard v. PECO
PM 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
Darnell Fassett v. PGW
PM 3/26/15



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






48
F-2014-2408541
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.
Darnell Fassett v. PGW
PM 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.
49
Gerald H. Smith v. PECO
PM 4/23/15



50
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.
Gerald H. Smith v. PECO
PM 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.
51
William Femea v. UGI
PM 5/7/15



52
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.
William Femea v. UGI
PM 5/7/15

C-2014-2430768
Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
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.
 Complainant
53
Mark Ferraiolo v. PPL
PM 5/19/15



54
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.
Mark Ferraiolo v. PPL
PM 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.
55
Williams v. Equitable
PM 6/11/15

56
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.
Williams v. Equitable
PM 6/11/15


57
F-2014-2436364/C-2014-2435842
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.
Williams v. Equitable
PM 6/11/15

F-2014-2436364/C-2014-2435842
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.
58
Daniel C. Matesic v. DQE
PM 6/11/15


59
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.
Daniel C. Matesic v. DQE
PM 6/11/15

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

60
C- 2014-2438493
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.
Mary Rogers v PECO
PM 7/8/15



61
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.
Mary Rogers v PECO
PM 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.

62
Carnevale v PPL
PM 7/8/15



63
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.
Charles Dennis v PGW
PM 7/30/15




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.

64
C-2014-2426383
No record evidence of change in income or significant change in
circumstance so a 2nd PUC PAR is prohibited by the Code.
Bihn Tran v Respond
PM 7/8/15



65
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.
Bihn Tran v Respond
PM 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.

66
Douglas v PGW
PM 8/20/15


67
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.
Douglas v PGW
PM 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.

68
Kiback v IDT Energy
PM 8/20/15


69
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.
Kiback v IDT Energy
PM 8/20/15


70
C-2014-2409676
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.
Kiback v IDT Energy
PM 8/20/15

C-2014-2409676
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.

71
Kiback v IDT Energy
PM 8/20/15
C-2014-2409676
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.

72
Francis v PECO
PM 8/20/15



73
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.
Francis v PECO
PM 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.

74
Susan Kreider v PECO
PM 9/3/15

75
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.
Susan Kreider v PECO
PM 9/3/15

P-2015-2495064
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.

76
Susan Kreider v PECO
PM 9/3/15


77
P-2015-2495064
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.
Melanie Sowa v Met-Ed
PM 9/3/15



78
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.
Questions?
MARGARET A. MORRIS, ESQUIRE
REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLP
CIRA CENTRE, 13th FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104
T: 215.495.6524
E: mmorris@regerlaw.com
79
Auteur
Документ
Catégorie
Без категории
Affichages
4
Taille du fichier
518 Кб
Étiquettes
1/--Pages
signaler