Charles Harter, 827 South Sappington, St. Louis,
Missouri 63126, on behalf of himself as a pro se complainant.
Appearing for UNION
ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a AMEREN MISSOURI:
Sarah E. Giboney, Smith Lewis, LLP,
111 S. Ninth Street, P.O. Box 918, Columbia, Missouri 65205-0918.
Appearing for the STAFF
OF THE MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION:
Jennifer Hernandez, Senior Staff Counsel, and Nathan Williams, Deputy Counsel,
Governor Office Building, 200 Madison Street, Jefferson City, Missouri
65102.
REGULATORY LAW JUDGE: Michael
Bushmann, Regulatory Law Judge
REPORT AND ORDER
On May 7, 2013, Charles Harter filed a complaint with the
Missouri Public Service Commission (“Commission”) against Union Electric
Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (“Ameren Missouri”). Mr.
Harter alleged that Ameren Missouri
failed to provide adequate notice of payments due under a Cold Weather Rule
payment agreement, improperly revoked the payment agreement, and improperly
refused to reinstate the payment agreement.
The Commission determined that the case should proceed
under the small formal complaint procedures in Commission Rule 4 CSR
240-2.070(15).
Ameren
Missouri answered the complaint by denying Mr. Harter’s allegations. The Commission’s Staff investigated and found
no violations of any statute, regulation or Commission-approved tariff. However, because there were material facts in
dispute, the Commission held an evidentiary hearing on September 19, 2013 in Jefferson
City, Missouri, to address Mr. Harter’s allegations. At the hearing, the regulatory law judge
amended the complaint without objection to include an additional issue
submitted by the parties regarding whether Ameren Missouri violated any statute,
Commission rule, order or tariff when it sent Mr. Harter disconnect notices
after the filing of his May 7, 2013 complaint.
After the hearing, Ameren Missouri requested an order from the
Commission by September 23, 2013, authorizing it to disconnect Mr.
Harter’s electric service after October 2, 2013, provided Ameren Missouri
gave appropriate notice and Mr. Harter failed to make a payment by that
date. Ameren Missouri’s request was
denied.
On
October 23, 2013, the regulatory law judge issued a Notice of Recommended Report and Order pursuant to Commission Rule
4 CSR 240-2.070(15)(G). On October 24, 2013, Mr. Harter filed a
pleading titled Complainant’s Application
for Rehearing with a supporting memorandum, which the Commission considers
to constitute Mr. Harter’s comments under 4 CSR 240-2.070(15)(H)
opposing the recommended report and order.
II. Findings
of Fact
Any finding of fact for which it appears that the Commission has
made a determination between conflicting evidence is indicative that the
Commission attributed greater weight to that evidence and found the source of
that evidence more credible and more persuasive than that of the conflicting
evidence.
1.
Charles Harter resides at 827 South Sappington,
St. Louis, Missouri and, at all times relevant hereto, was a customer of Ameren
Missouri for electric service.
2.
Ameren Missouri is a Missouri corporation with
its principal place of business at One Ameren Plaza, 1901 Chouteau, St. Louis, MO 63103. Ameren Missouri is engaged in the
business of providing electric service in Missouri to customers in its service
areas.
3.
Ameren Missouri is an “electrical corporation”
and a “public utility” as those terms are defined in Section 386.020, RSMo
Supp. 2012, and is subject to the jurisdiction and supervision of the
Commission as provided by law.
4.
The Office of the Public Counsel (“Public
Counsel”) “may represent and protect the interests of the public in any
proceeding before or appeal from the public service commission.” Public Counsel “shall have discretion to
represent or refrain from representing the public in any proceeding.” The Public Counsel did not participate in the
evidentiary hearing in this matter.
5.
The Staff of the Missouri Public Service
Commission (“Staff”) is a party in all Commission investigations, contested
cases and other proceedings, unless it files a notice of its intention not to
participate in the proceeding within the intervention deadline set by the
Commission. Although a party in this matter, pursuant to
the small formal complaint procedures Staff did not advocate a position beyond
reporting the results of its investigation.
6.
On December 17, 2012, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
7.
On December 18, 2012, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
8.
On December 20, 2012, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
9.
On or about December 21, 2012, Mr. Harter and
Ameren Missouri entered into a cold weather rule payment arrangement that
called for an initial payment of $157.14 by January 2, 2013
and 12 monthly installment payments of $32.00 thereafter.
10.
One of the terms of the cold weather rule
payment agreement, which Mr. Harter does not dispute, was that as long as
he made his payments in full by the delinquent date Mr. Harter’s payment
agreement would not default.
11.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $157.14 pursuant to
and in accordance with said cold weather rule agreement, as agreed, received by
Ameren Missouri on January 2, 2013.
12.
On January 21, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit B to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
13.
The bill issued to Mr. Harter on January 21,
2013 clearly stated the beginning and ending meter readings and the dates of
the readings; the date when the bill was considered due and the date when it
would be delinquent; the amount due for the most recent billing period for
electric usage; the amount due for other authorized charges; the total amount
due; the toll-free telephone number and address where a customer may initiate
an inquiry or complaint; taxes; and the purchased gas adjustment charge. There were no charges billed for services not
subject to Commission jurisdiction.
14.
The bill issued to Mr. Harter on January 21,
2013 did not state any previous balance because Mr. Harter’s prior delinquent
balance had been made part of the cold weather rule payment agreement to be
paid in future installments. The bill
clearly stated the total payment agreement amount and the remaining number of installments
to be paid after that bill.
15.
On February 13, 2013, Mr. Harter called Ameren
Missouri to determine the amount owed. Mr. Harter’s call on that date was to an
automated voice response unit, which provided him with information concerning
amounts currently due on the January 21, 2013 bill, including the current
amount due, the payment due date, the avoid disconnect amount, the avoid
disconnect date, the last payment amount, and the last payment received date.
16.
Ameren Missouri’s automated voice response unit
system cannot provide information about amounts that will be due in the future. The system does provide customers with an
option to connect with an Ameren Missouri customer service representative for
additional questions. There was no evidence presented that Mr.
Harter attempted to contact a customer service representative during his call
on February 13, 2013.
17.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $177.01 received by
Ameren Missouri on February 14, 2013.
18.
On February 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit C to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts in the amount of $162.66 due on March 1, 2013 and delinquent
after March 12, 2013.
19.
Mr. Harter did not pay in full the bill issued
on February 19, 2013 by the delinquent date of March 12, 2013, which caused Mr.
Harter to default on the cold weather rule payment agreement and the agreement
to end.
20.
On March 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the disconnect notice attached as Exhibit D to the Joint Stipulation of
Non-Disputed Material Facts.
21.
On March 20, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit E to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
22.
On March 22, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
23.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $162.66 received by
Ameren Missouri on April 1, 2013.
24.
On April 18, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
25.
On April 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit F to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
26.
On April 23, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the disconnect notice attached as Exhibit G to the Joint Stipulation of
Non-Disputed Material Facts.
27.
The disconnect notices of March 19, March 22,
April 18, April 23, July 18, July 23, August 16 and August 21, 2013 each
contained the name and address of the customer, the reason for the proposed
disconnection, the date on or after which service would be disconnected, how Mr.
Harter could avoid the disconnection, the possibility of a settlement
agreement, and the telephone number and address where Mr. Harter could make an
inquiry without incurring a toll charge.
28.
The disconnect notices of March 19, March 22,
April 18 and April 23 did not involve a matter that was in dispute at that time
or the subject of a valid settlement agreement.
29.
Ameren Missouri provided notice of the
disconnections to Mr. Harter by written notice at least ten days prior to the
proposed discontinuances.
30.
Ameren Missouri provided additional notice at
least 24 hours prior to the proposed discontinuances.
31.
Mr. Harter called Ameren Missouri on April 30,
2013 to request reinstatement of his cold weather rule payment agreement.
32.
Outside of the period November 1 through March
31, Ameren Missouri offers its customers a non-cold weather rule payment
agreement, which requires the customer to pay 50% of the outstanding bill and
split the remainder into three monthly payments.
33.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $278.00 received by
Ameren Missouri on May 6, 2013.
Ameren Missouri established a non-cold
weather rule payment agreement for Mr. Harter with three remaining monthly
payments of $92 each.
34.
On May 20, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit H to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
35.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $150.00 received by
Ameren Missouri on June 3, 2013.
Out of that payment, Ameren Missouri applied $93.10 to the amount then due for
electric service and applied the remaining $56.90 to the monthly payment
agreement amount of $93 that was due. After the application of this payment, the
total amount remaining due under Mr. Harter’s cold weather rule payment
agreement was $220.48.
36.
After Mr. Harter filed his complaint, Ameren
Missouri suspended any collections activity or disconnection of service based
on the remaining amount in dispute of $220.48.
37.
On June 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit I to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
38.
On July 18, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the disconnect notice attached as Exhibit J to the Joint Stipulation of
Non-Disputed Material Facts.
39.
On July 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit K to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
40.
On July 23, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
41.
Mr. Harter made a payment of $176.99 received by
Ameren Missouri on August 2, 2013.
Mr. Harter’s payment removed him from the immediate threat of disconnection.
42.
On August 16, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the disconnect notice attached as Exhibit L to the Joint Stipulation of
Non-Disputed Material Facts.
43.
On August 19, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter the bill attached as Exhibit M to the Joint Stipulation of Non-Disputed
Material Facts.
44.
On August 21, 2013, Ameren Missouri issued Mr.
Harter a disconnect notice.
45.
The disconnect notices sent to Mr. Harter on
July 18, July 23, August 16, and August 21, 2013 were for electric service
provided after Mr. Harter filed his complaint and did not include a request for
payment of the amount in dispute of $220.48.
46.
The disconnect notices issued on August 16, 2013
and August 21, 2013 resulted from Mr. Harter’s failure to pay the current
charges due from the electric bill issued on July 19, 2013.
47.
Mr. Harter did not notify Ameren Missouri that
he wished to dispute any of the charges for electric service incurred after he
filed his complaint on May 7, 2013.
III. Conclusions of Law
Although Mr. Harter is not a person or an entity regulated by the
Commission, he submitted himself to the Commission’s jurisdiction when he filed
his complaint pursuant to Section 386.390, RSMo 2000. Ameren Missouri provides electric service to
customers throughout the service area certificated to it by the
Commission. Ameren Missouri is an
“electrical corporation” and “public utility” as those terms are defined by
Section 386.020, RSMo Supp. 2012, and is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction,
supervision, control and regulation as provided in Chapters 386 and 393,
RSMo.
Since Mr. Harter brought the complaint, he bears the burden of
proof. The burden of proof is the preponderance of the
evidence
standard. In order to meet this standard, Mr. Harter must
convince the Commission it is “more likely than not” that Ameren
Missouri violated an applicable statute, rule, or provision of a
Commission-approved tariff.
The complaint alleges facts within the small complaint procedure. That procedure includes a time limit for
issuing a recommendation subject to good cause.
Good cause includes a good faith request for reasonable relief. The parties asked for a hearing date past the
deadline, a prehearing conference was rescheduled due to a party’s
non-appearance, and one party filed a request for an extension of time. Those facts constitute good cause to extend
the time limit. Therefore, the time
limit is extended.
The issues for determination as
submitted by the parties are as follows:
a. Whether the
January 21, 2013 bill issued by Ameren Missouri to Mr. Harter and the
information provided by Ameren Missouri regarding it violated any Commission
statute, rule, order or approved Company tariff;
b. Whether
Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order
or approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri removed Mr. Harter from the
cold weather rule payment arrangement;
c. Whether
Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order
or approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri refused to reinstate Mr. Harter
to the cold weather rule payment arrangement;
d. Whether
Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order or approved
Company tariff when Ameren Missouri sent Mr. Harter disconnection notices prior
to his filing of the May 7, 2013 Complaint; and
e. Whether
Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order or approved
Company tariff when Ameren Missouri sent Mr. Harter disconnection notices
subsequent to his filing of the May 7, 2013 Complaint.
Whether the January 21, 2013 bill issued by
Ameren Missouri to Mr. Harter and the information provided by Ameren Missouri
regarding it violated any Commission statute, rule, order or approved Company
tariff.
Commission Rule 4 CSR
240-13.020(9) states as follows:
Every bill for
residential utility service shall clearly state—
(A) The beginning and ending meter readings of
the billing period and the dates of these readings;
(B) The date when the bill will be considered due
and the date when it will be delinquent, if different;
(C) Any previous balance which states the balance
due for utility charges separate from charges for services not subject to
commission jurisdiction;
(D) The amount due for the most recent billing
period for electric, gas or water usage stated separately from the amount due
for the same period for a deposit and the amount due for the same period for
service not subject to commission jurisdiction;
(E) The amount due for other authorized charges;
(F) The total amount due;
(G) The telephone number the customer may call
from the customer’s service location without incurring toll charges and the
address of the utility where the customer may initiate an inquiry or complaint
regarding the bill as
rendered or the service provided. Charges for measured
local service are not toll charges for purposes of this rule;
(H) License,
occupation, gross receipts, franchise and sales taxes; and
(I) Purchased gas adjustment cost in total or
cents per unit basis.
Mr. Harter has alleged that Ameren Missouri’s bill issued on
January 21, 2013 and the information provided by Ameren Missouri during his
call on February 13, 2013 was misleading, in that Ameren Missouri failed to
provide him with notice of the total amount due under the cold weather rule
payment agreement. The evidence showed
that the January 21, 2013 bill contained all the information required by
Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-13.020(9). In
addition, the bill clearly stated the total payment agreement amount and the
remaining number of installments to be paid after that bill.
Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-13.040(2) requires Ameren Missouri to
make qualified personnel available and prepared during normal business hours to
receive and respond to customer inquiries.
Ameren Missouri’s automated voice system did not provide Mr. Harter with
the amount of future payments under the payment agreement because it was not
capable of providing that information.
However, that system does provide customers with an option to connect
with an Ameren Missouri customer service representative for additional
questions. Mr. Harter could have
obtained the information he was seeking about the total amount due under the
payment agreement from a customer service representative, but he failed to
utilize that service. The Commission
concludes that Mr. Harter has failed to demonstrate that the January 21,
2013 bill and the information regarding it violated any Commission statute,
rule, order or tariff.
Whether Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order or approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri
removed Mr. Harter from the cold weather rule payment arrangement.
Mr. Harter alleges in his complaint that Ameren Missouri
improperly revoked the cold weather rule payment agreement even though Mr.
Harter paid the bill issued on February 19, 2013 in full on April 1,
2013. However, the evidence showed that
the terms of the payment agreement required Mr. Harter to pay that bill prior
to the delinquent date of March 12, 2013.
Mr. Harter’s failure to pay that bill in a timely manner caused his default
on the payment agreement and the agreement to end. The Commission concludes that Ameren Missouri
did not violate any statute, rule, order or tariff with regard to the default
and termination of the cold weather rule payment agreement.
Whether Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order or approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri
refused to reinstate Mr. Harter to the cold weather rule payment arrangement.
The cold weather rule is only effective from November 1 through
March 31 of every year. A customer who has defaulted on a cold
weather rule payment agreement may be reinstated to that agreement under
certain circumstances. The evidence showed that Mr. Harter did
not request reinstatement of his payment agreement until April 30, 2013, which
was outside of the time period for which the cold weather rule reinstatement
provision was operative. Ameren Missouri
did establish a non-cold weather rule payment agreement for Mr. Harter around
May 6, 2013. The Commission concludes
that Mr. Harter was not entitled to reinstatement of his cold weather rule
payment agreement when he made the request on April 30, 2013 and that Ameren
Missouri did not violate any statute, rule, order or tariff when it refused
that request.
Whether Ameren Missouri violated any Commission statute, rule, order or
approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri sent Mr. Harter disconnect notices
prior to his filing of the May 7, 2013 Complaint.
Mr. Harter did not present any evidence that the disconnect
notices issued prior to May 7, 2013 were improper. The evidence showed that these disconnect
notices contained the information required by Commission Rule 4 CSR
240-13.050(4);
that Ameren Missouri provided at least 10 days written notice to Mr. Harter
prior to the proposed disconnections involving amounts not currently in dispute
as required by Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-13.050(5);
and that Ameren Missouri provided additional notice at least 24 hours prior to
the proposed disconnections as required by Commission Rule 4 CSR 240‑13.050(7). The Commission concludes that the disconnect
notices issued by Ameren Missouri to Mr. Harter prior to May 7, 2013 did not
violate any statute, rule, order or tariff.
Whether Ameren Missouri violated any
Commission statute, rule, order or approved Company tariff when Ameren Missouri
sent Mr. Harter disconnect notices subsequent to his filing of the May 7, 2013
Complaint.
Mr. Harter alleges that the disconnect notices issued by Ameren
Missouri after May 7, 2013 were improper because the amounts claimed to be
due under those disconnect notices involved a matter in dispute between Mr.
Harter and Ameren Missouri. Utilities
are prohibited from discontinuing electric service to customers on the basis of
amounts in dispute that are the subject of a complaint before the Commission. The credible evidence showed that the amount
in dispute at the time Mr. Harter filed his complaint was $220.48, which was
the remaining amount due to Ameren Missouri from the defaulted cold weather
payment agreement. Ameren Missouri suspended
any collections activity or disconnection of service based on this remaining
amount in dispute, as required by Commission rules. The evidence also showed that the disconnect
notices sent to Mr. Harter on July 18, July 23, August 16, and August 21,
2013 were based on charges for electric service provided after Mr. Harter filed
his complaint that were not in dispute and did not include a request for
payment of the amount in dispute of $220.48.
The form and issuance dates of those disconnect notices also fully
complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-13.050. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the
disconnect notices issued by Ameren Missouri to Mr. Harter after May 7, 2013
did not violate any statute, rule, order, or tariff.
IV.
Decision
In making this decision, the Commission has considered the
positions and arguments of all of the parties.
After applying the facts to the law to reach its conclusions, the
Commission concludes that the substantial and competent evidence in the record
supports the conclusion that that Mr. Harter has failed to meet, by a
preponderance of the evidence, his burden of proof to demonstrate that Ameren
Missouri violated any statute, Commission rule, order or tariff provision. Mr. Harter’s complaint will be denied on the
merits.
THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:
1.
Charles Harter’s complaint is denied.
2.
This Report and Order shall become
effective on December 13, 2013.
3.
This file shall close on December
14, 2013.
BY THE COMMISSION
Morris L. Woodruff
Secretary
R. Kenney, Chm., Stoll, W. Kenney,
and Hall, CC., concur, and certify
compliance with the provisions of
Section 536.080, RSMo.
Dated at Jefferson City, Missouri,
on this 13th day of November, 2013
