BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Candace Taylor, )
Complainant, )
v. ) File No. GC-2015-0143
)
Laclede Gas Company, )
Respondent )
NOTICE OF
RECOMMENDED REPORT AND ORDER
Issue Date: January 26, 2016
The regulatory law judge is issuing the attached recommended
report and order. Under Commission
rule 4 CSR 240-2.070(15)(H), this recommended report and order is subject to
comments from parties. Any comments
opposing the recommended order shall set forth reasons the order is unlawful,
unjust or unreasonable. The
Commission will then review the recommended order along with any comments and
either reject or accept the order.
Any comments must be filed by February 5, 2016.
BY THE COMMISSION
Morris L. Woodruff
Secretary
Kennard L. Jones, Senior Regulatory
Law Judge, by delegation of authority
pursuant to Section 386.240, RSMo 2000.
Dated at Jefferson
City, Missouri,
on this 26th day of January, 2016.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
|
RECOMMENDED REPORT AND ORDER
|
Issue Date:
Effective Date:
BEFORE
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Candace Taylor, )
Complainant, )
v. ) File No. GC-2015-0143
)
Laclede Gas Company, )
Respondent )
Appearances
Candace Taylor, pro
se
Rick Zucker, for Laclede Gas Company
Marcella Mueth, for the Staff
of the Commission
Judge: Kennard Jones, Senior Regulatory Law
Judge
RECOMMENDED REPORT
AND ORDER
Syllabus: The Commission concludes that Laclede Gas
Company has not violated any statute within the Commission’s
jurisdiction, the company’s tariff, or any Commission rule or order.
Background
Candace Taylor (Complainant) lived with her mother at 4656 Lee,
in St. Louis. Her mother passed
away and Complainant got married and moved out, but assumed responsibility for
the house on Lee. Because the home
was vacant, she contacted Laclede Gas Company with the apparent intention of
minimizing the gas bill. Meanwhile,
she also assisted an elderly neighbor with his gas bill at 4658 Lee.
After living at different addresses with her husband over about a
two-year period, they moved to a home on Salida. Complainant then contacted Laclede about
receiving service in her name on Salida.
Laclede informed her about an arrearage from 4656 Lee. Although she had been making random
payments on the account, the arrearage had grown to over $1,000.
Complainant filed this complaint not only because Laclede
transferred that arrearage from 4656 Lee, but also because of the amount of the
arrearage given conversations she had with Laclede about minimizing the bill at
the vacant home. Complaint requests
that the Commission direct Laclede to reduce the balance of the account to
zero. Laclede posits that while
managing accounts at both 4656 and 4658 Lee, Complainant may have confused her
conversations with Laclede about those accounts.
Findings
of Fact
Complainant and Laclede agreed to certain facts. Those non-disputed facts are italicized
in the findings below, while facts gathered from the record are in standard
type.
1.
In 2011, Complainant lived with her mother in a home owned by her
mother at 4656 Lee.
2.
Complainant’s mother passed away in 2011.
3.
Complainant made several payments on the gas account at 4656 Lee in
2012.
4.
Complainant got married and moved out of 4656 Lee in March of 2012 and moved
in with her husband, Mr. Woodard, at 2358 Bramble, where her husband was the
customer of record.
5.
Gas service to 4656 Lee was disconnected in July 2012 with a final
balance owed of $356.19.
6.
Complainant made a $100 payment on the account in August 2012, reducing
the balance to $256.19.
7.
On October 8, 2012, Complainant
called Laclede and requested that gas service be turned on the next day with
budget billing for $50/month.
8.
In October of 2012, Laclede restored service to 4656 Lee.
9.
Complainant incorrectly assumed
the bill would be $30 per month.
10.
After service was initiated in
Complainant’s name at 4656 Lee, in October of 2012, bills were sent to that
address until January 2014, when the post office informed Laclede of a
forwarding address on Bramble. But
bills mailed by Laclede were returned as undeliverable.
11.
When the company restored
service in October of 2012, the account was zeroed out and began with a balance
of $50.90.
12.
In the summer of 2013, Complainant and her husband moved to number 4
Laurel Court, which was not served by Laclede.
13.
In the summer of 2014, Complainant and her husband moved to 3824
Salida, where they currently live, and Complainant opened up a gas account at
that address under the name of Candace Woodard (her married name).
14.
With regard to 4656 Lee, from
October of 2012 through June of 2014, Complainant was billed a total amount of
$2,094.71, made payments totaling $1,020.00, leaving a balance on the account
of $1,074.71.
15.
The payments Complainant made
were irregular and did not reflect the billed amounts.
16.
In June of 2014, Laclede disconnected service at 4656 Lee.
17.
Laclede alleges that Complainant was the customer at 4656 Lee from 2012
to 2014, and from that account owes $1074.71. Complainant disputes this debt.
18.
This complaint was initiated after Laclede transferred the debt of
$1074.71 from the Lee account to Complainant’s account on Salida.
19.
4656 Lee was vacant for the period of 2012 to 2014 covered by the
account. Complainant has since
leased out the residence.
20.
Gas usage from October 2012
through June 2014 was normal for someone operating a home.
21.
The gas usage shown for 4656 Lee
on Exhibit 2 is consistent with a thermostat being set at 68 degrees.
22.
The winter of 2013/2014 was very
cold.
23.
On October 10, 2014, the meter
at 4656 Lee tested within acceptable standards.
24.
Despite any confusion about
where bills were to be mailed, of the 21 months comprising October 2012 through
June 2014, Complainant made payments on the account in all but 6 months.
25.
Mr. William Butler was the customer of record at 4658 Lee, which is
next door to 4656 Lee, the relevant account.
26.
During 2012 and 2013, Complainant assisted Mr. Butler in maintaining
his gas account by making payments on the account. And, during 2013, there was a credit
balance to the account.
Conclusions of Law
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Complainant has the burden of
proving that a utility has violated the law, its tariff or is otherwise
engaging in unjust or unreasonable action. Although Complainant does not call
attention to any specific provision of law that the company may have violated,
the facts of the complaint give rise to certain legal issues, which Staff
raises: the accuracy of the
company’s meter at 4656 Lee; and, the transferring of a debt from a
previous account to a customer’s current account.
Meter Accuracy – 4 CSR 240-10.030(18)
Rule 4 CSR 240-10.030(18) sets standards for meter accuracy. Because Complainant’s allegations
of overstated usage raise issues as to the accuracy of the bill, meter accuracy
is relevant. The rule requires that
no meter be mechanically defective or show an error in measurement in excess of
2% when passing gas. Further, two
consecutive tests must not vary by more than 1/2 %.
A
special meter test and supporting testimony shows that the meter tested within
acceptable limits. The Staff of the
Commission opines that Laclede has not violated any Commission rules. And moreover, Complainant, who has the
burden of showing that the meter was defective, has not done so. The Commission concludes that Laclede
has not violated 4 CSR 240-10.030(18).
Transfer of an unpaid balance to a subsequent account – 4 CSR
240-13.050(2)(B).
The rule, in part, states that, “. . . in the event of
disconnection or termination of service at a separate residential metering
point, . . . a utility may transfer and bill any unpaid balance to any other
residential service account of the customer . . .”
An arrearage of $1074.71 was recorded in June of 2014 at 4656
Lee. When the Lee account was
terminated, that amount was transferred to Complainant’s account on
Salida. Laclede’s transfer of the arrearage is not in violation of the
Commission’s rules.
Time in processing small complaints – 4 CSR 240-2.070(15)(G)
Delayed scheduling of prehearing conferences and efforts by the
parties to resolve this complaint constitute good cause to extend the time for
issuing this recommended report and order.
Discussion
The Commission first notes that the findings concerning Mr.
William Butler at 4658 Lee are relevant only to the extent that
Laclede’s theory is that Complainant, while managing the two accounts on
Lee, has confused transactions and telephone conversations with Laclede about
those accounts. Although that may
be true, a determination in that regard in unnecessary to dispose of this
complaint.
Complainant’s position is that she understood that monthly
payments for 4656 Lee would be around $30.
However, without the benefit of viewing the actual bills, Complainant
made monthly payments in excess of $30/month. That Complainant and the company agreed
her monthly payments at 4656 Lee would be $30/month is not supported by
Complainant’s actions or the record.
What is apparent from the record is that Complainant requested
service in October of 2012 and made irregular payments that did not reflect the
billed amounts. After October of
2012, Complainant moved to two addresses where her name was not associated with
Laclede gas service. The company
therefore had no opportunity to transfer the arrearage from 4656 Lee to
Complainant. Upon Complainant
moving to Salida and requesting service in her name, Laclede then transferred
the Lee arrearage to the Salida account.
Finally, 4656 Lee may have been vacant during the relevant time
period. However, there is no
evidence that Laclede did anything other than supply the amount of gas that was
demanded. The cost of such is
$1074.71, which Complainant now owes.
Although Complainant posits that the bill should not be that high
because the property was vacant, an abnormally cold winter and evidence
supporting the fact that there was usage, belies Complainant’s position.
Decision
The Complainant has not shown that Laclede violated the law, its
tariff or any Commission rule.
Complainant’s request for relief is therefore denied.
THE
COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:
1.
The relief requested through this complaint is
denied.
2.
This order shall become effective on [issue date
+ 30 days].
3.
This file shall be closed on [issue date + 31
days].
BY THE COMMISSION
Morris L. Woodruff
Secretary
( S E A L )
[voting notation]
and certify compliance with the
provisions of Section 536.080, RSMo.
Dated at Jefferson City, Missouri,
on this [DATE], 2016.
