BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Craig Mershon, )
)
Complainant, )
)
vs. ) File No. EC-2013-0521
)
Union
Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri )
)
Respondent. )
POST-CONFERENCE ORDER
Issue Date: November 14, 2013 Effective
Date: November 14, 2013
The Missouri Public Service Commission
is ruling on the matters discussed at the November 13[1] conference, which include matters
arising from the October 16 pre-hearing conference, as follows.
On November 4, Craig Mershon filed an Objection to the Unfair Treatment of the
[Opposing] Attorney and Proposed Hearing Schedule[2]
(“objection”). Also on November 4, Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri
(“Ameren”) filed a response to the objection.[3] On November 7, Mr. Mershon filed
a Motion to Cease Harassment from Ameren
Union Electric Company and [Its] Employees[4] (“motion”).
The objection and the motion each
requested a conference to discuss matters that arose at the pre-hearing
conference, including disconnection notices, scheduling, and service of
documents.
Disconnection Notices
In the motion, Mr. Mershon asks to
receive no disconnection notices from Ameren. At the conference, the parties
agreed that Mr. Mershon’s account is not subject to imminent
disconnection. Ameren also noted that
the Commission’s regulations require Ameren to issue a disconnection notice
under specified facts, and alleged the notices comply with Ameren’s Commission-approved
tariff. Mr. Mershon did not dispute that
argument, but argues that the form of the disconnection notice is subject to
improvement, which he will propose by draft that he intends to file
eventually. Therefore, the Commission
will deny the request to halt disconnection notices.
Schedule
On October 17, Ameren and Staff filed
a proposed procedural schedule.[5]
Also on that same date, the Commission ordered Mr. Mershon to file a
response to the proposed procedural schedule stating:
If Mr.
Mershon disagrees with the proposed schedule, his response shall propose an alternative
schedule.
In response, Mr.
Mershon filed the objection. In the objection, Mr. Mershon states that he has
had no opportunity to file a proposed procedural schedule. Neither the
objection nor the motion includes any alternative dates. By separate order,[6] the Commission has directed the
parties to file proposed procedural schedules. Ameren and Staff filed a new
proposed procedural schedule on November 14. The separate order makes Mr.
Mershon’s proposed procedural schedule due on November 22. Therefore, this
order will make no further ruling on scheduling matters.
Filing and Service
In
the objection, Mr. Mershon recounts Ameren’s request for his email address, to
which Mr. Mershon objects, because Ameren employed a format for attachments
that Mr. Mershon states is difficult for him to use. At the conference, Mr. Mershon stated that
his ability and inability to work with documents depends on the format as
follows. A PDF is difficult for him to open and read. An email with the
document’s text in the body is workable. Hard copy is the easiest format for
him to work with. Ameren and Staff agreed that service of any document on Mr.
Mershon will be in hard copy by mail, with an email transmission setting forth
the document’s text in the body of the email.
The Commission has already given Mr.
Mershon permission to file any request for any ruling by email, directed to the
regulatory law judge assigned to this action, and copied to the other parties. [7] The Commission will expand that
ruling to any document that Mr. Mershon files with the Commission. Mr. Mershon
may file any document with the Commission by emailing the
regulatory law judge assigned to this action (“judge”) at Daniel.Jordan@psc.mo.gov
and copying all other parties. The judge will forward any such document to the
Commission’s data center.
Using email will expedite the
Commission’s consideration of any document. Mr. Mershon may also employ other
methods of filing and service as provided by law but the risk of transmission
shall be with Mr. Mershon. That includes the Commission ruling without the
benefit of Mr. Mershon’s input.
The Commission orders that:
1.
The
Objection to the Unfair Treatment of the
[Opposing] Attorney and Proposed Hearing Schedule is denied.
2.
The
Motion to Cease Harassment from Ameren
Union Electric Company and [Its] Employees is denied.
3.
Craig
Mershon may file any document with the Commission by the methods, and subject
to the conditions, set forth in the body of this order.
4.
This order is effective immediately upon issuance.
BY THE COMMISSION
Morris
L. Woodruff
Secretary
Daniel Jordan, Senior Regulatory Law
Judge,
by delegation of authority pursuant
to Section 386.240, RSMo 2000.
Dated at
on this 14th day of November, 2013.