Consumer Digest

PM 3/12/20
C -2017-2630792

Complainant seeks PUC PAR despite having active Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition.

ALJ Guhl dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Complainant filed Exceptions arguing the Petition was discharged after the hearing was held.

Motion Coleman
- Complainant provided no evidence that the bankruptcy was discharged/dismissed.

- Complainant may request PUC PAR once he can demonstrate that the bankruptcy was discharged.
- Complainant is responsible to pay undisputed portion of bills while complaint is pending per Section 56.181.
- PECO is authorized to terminate for failure to make payment for current undisputed charges per Sections 56.181 and 56.164.

PM 2/27/20
F-2019-3013486

Complainant seeks PUC PAR to restore service. PGW seeks full amount since 2 defaulted PARs and lacks good faith effort to pay his gas bill.

Special Agent Arnold directed a Level 4 PAR based on household of 3 with gross monthly income of $5,500.

ID adopted.

PM 2/6/20
F-2018-3003502

Complainant disputes billings alleging he wants a verification by an independent party, not the utility, that his meter is correctly recording the usage. The hearing was continued twice and rescheduled for in-person in Pittsburgh based on the Complainant’s request.

The morning of the hearing, the ALJ received email that the Complainant needed emergency surgery due to a fall. The Complainant did not attend the hearing which was held as scheduled. The Company opposed any further continuance and moved to dismiss the matter for failure to appear.

Judge Long issued an Interim Order providing the Complainant with the opportunity to file a request for continuance and substantiate the asserted medical emergency to prove that his failure to appear was unavoidable. The Complainant did not timely submit by 12/18/18 and the record was closed. In the ID, Judge Long granted the Motion and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

The Complainant filed Exceptions requesting a new hearing arguing he sent the documentation on 12/19/18. Penelec filed Reply Exceptions noting the documentation was not timely submitted and the documentation failed to state anything to confirm the asserted reasons for the Complainant’s failure to appear.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed with prejudice.
- No factual or legal error to reverse the ID.
- It is within the sound discretion of the ALJ to determine if the failure to appear was unavoidable and whether permitting a hearing would prejudice the public interest or the interest of Penelec.
- ALJ made numerous adjustments to the proceeding schedule to accommodate the Complainant for medical reasons.
- Complainant repeatedly failed to timely respond or communicate with ALJ.
- ALJ was not obligated to accept filing of party who had not been substantiated an authorized to appear on behalf of the Complainant.
- ALJ conducted thorough review of the submission and found the email and photos were not credible.
- No basis to overturn the credibility determination of the ALJ.

Dissenting Statement Dutrieuille

Matter should be dismissed without prejudice based on pro se status.
Because the requested medical certification was ultimately produced, matter should be remanded for further hearing.

PM 2/6/20
C-2017-2605462

Complainant objects to the installation of a smart meter due to health and safety concerns.

ALJ Heep found the Complainant did not meet burden that the installation of the smart meter would negatively affect her health or created safety concerns.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging her requests for extensions during hearing were improperly denied, ALJ erred in number of exhibits she introduced, the Pro Hac Vice Motion was not timely and disputed 2 FOFs.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

-Even though her proposed exhibits were not admitted to the record, ALJ permitted the Complainant to testify about what she read and how she reached her conclusions that smart meter would be harmful.
- Complainant waived objection re: PECO expert.
- Pro Hac Motion was technical error in that it was not sought earlier but no prejudice to the Complainant.
- Exceptions to procedural history is without merit.
- No error in FOF 12 or 13; the FOFs were true at time ID was written and need not be revised.

PM 1/16/20
F-2018-3001072

Complainant seeks rescission of Final Order dismissing Complaint disputing termination of service.

Petition denied

Did meet Duick standard.
No reason to disturb Final Order: Complainant refused to identify herself on the record and was combative at hearing.
No party can expect to proceed at hearing in a manner that obstructs the ALJ’s orderly conduct of the proceedings.
Incorrect charges were not raised in Formal Complaint.
Allegation that she did not receive the ID in a timely manner is without merit.

PM 9/19/19
F-2016-3006790

Complainant appeals BCS PAR alleging he cannot afford terms.

ALJ Calvelli directed a Level 1 PAR.

Complainant late filed Exceptions arguing due to ongoing dispute with local government and tenants, he cannot afford to pay more than $40 on arrears.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint sustained in part.
PUC has no jurisdiction over issues with local government or landlord/tenant.
Terms of Level 1 PAR consistent with Code.

PM 9/19/19
C-2018-3004601

Complainants alleged incorrect charges and request “independent investigation into the functionality of PGW’s meter and meter readings.”

ALJ Vero dismissed for failure to appear at 2nd scheduled hearing (1st hearing was continued at Complainants’ request to conduct discovery).

Complainants filed Exceptions offering various reasons for their late arrival at the PUC’s office for the hearing and arguing no hearing should have been scheduled until independent review of PGW meter.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed
Complainants waived the opportunity to participate in hearing.
No good faith effort to attend hearing.
Complainants knew a continuance was needed when they sought PGW’s position on the continuance but took no steps to notify ALJ.
Complainants knew of process having been granted a continuance.
Complainants made no attempt to conduct discovery of either an informal or formal nature which was the reason for the continuance.
Complainants have burden of proof and failed to respond to PGW’s request to access the meter so it could be tested.

PM 9/19/19
C-2017-2615206

Complainant objects to threat of termination for failure to permit PECO to install a smart meter at his residence arguing the meter is a defective product and fire hazard.

ALJ Heep dismissed the matter finding the Complainant did not establish that the installation of an AMI meter is unsafe or unreasonable.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing the standard should be “substantial evidence” and not “preponderance of the evidence. He also argued that PECO’s witnesses were rehearsed and biased since all were PECO employees. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the AMI meter PECO proposes to install is a defective product and will cause fires and therefore the installation of a smart meter constitutes unsafe or unreasonable service under Section 1501.
Complainant was qualified as an expert in the general field of microcircuits and the software which controls microcircuits. He offered only opinion testimony that the AMI is unsafe because he believes it is a rebranding of a previous AMI meter used by PECO.
Complainant admitted he is unfamiliar with the specifics of the proposed meter.
No record evidence to support his claim.
No reason to reverse ALJ ruling on sequestration of witnesses since witnesses were employees and no demonstration of the possibility of collusion.

PM 8/29/19
C-2018-3006130

Complainant alleges PPL improperly terminated service and the delay in restoring service jeopardized late father’s art collection. She seeks civil penalties commensurate with alleged damage.

ALJ Buckley found service was unlawfully terminated on Friday; rep did not know how to issue restoration order during weekend. PPL has retrained employees re: process for estates and protocol for seeking management guidance. Complainant provided no evidence of the value of the art work or damage. PUC cannot award damages. Section 1501 violation warranted for failure to adequately respond to repeated attempts to restore service over weekend. Penalty of $7,000 assessed (the maximum $1,000 fine for the disconnection, each day of the four day outage, and both of the attempts to gain reconnection to which PPL did not timely respond.) Conduct may not have intentionally meant to cause inconvenience and emotional upset but its negligence has same affect on the Complainant.

ID adopted.

PM 8/29/19
F-2018-3001318

Complainants allege incorrect charges and the establishment of a PAR without their consent.

ALJ Vero found the Complainants were entitled to refund of LPC but found CAP credit was properly calculated.

The Complainants filed Exceptions rearguing their position. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint sustained in part.
PECO did not terminate CAP enrollment; account was temporarily removed for failure to reverify income.
Complainants did enter into Company PAR which was a benefit to then by not requiring delinquent charges to be due immediately.
No record of any payment during the disputed period.

PM 8/29/19
C-2017-2633043

Complainant filed Petition for Rescission of Final Order denying Exceptions and dismissing Complaint for failure to appear.

Petition denied.

Complainant did not assert a factual or legal basis to support rescinding Final Order.

The Complainant waived opportunity to participate in hearing and did not contact ALJ to explain absence.

PM 8/29/19
C-2017-2585680

Complainant filed Petition for Rescission of Order granting PECO’s Exceptions arguing he was unaware he was to respond to PECO’s Exceptions, was not notified of PM and the unfairness of his tenant not paying their electric bill for 10 months. He seeks “independent review” of Order. PECO filed Reply in opposition to the Petition.

Petition denied.
No factual or legal basis to grant relief.
Complainant had notice of ID and Exceptions.
Complainant’s due process rights were not violated; public meeting was duly noticed.
Complainant is responsible for the tenant’s charges billed while foreign load existed.

PM 8/8/19
C-2018-3003485

The Complainant alleges high bills and requests a Commission PAR. UGI contends the Complaint is barred by the res judicata doctrine.

ALJ Cheskis dismissed the Complaint and barred the Complainant from filing any further complaints concerning her arrears until she pays the outstanding account balance in full based on a finding that she abused the Commission’s complaint process.

Complainant requested an extension of time to file Exceptions alleging she had a decrease in income and the Company did not test the meter in her presence. UGI filed Replies to Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.
Res Judicata doctrine applicable. UGI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The ALJ should have dismissed based on res judicata grounds not on an abuse of process finding.
No Commission precedent in which a pro se complainant’s case was dismissed without first providing the opportunity for a hearing, solely based on an abuse of process finding.
UGI’s allegations of abuse deemed admitted; the Complainant did not file a reply to the New Matter.
Complainant filed ten formal complaints within past two years, requested multiple continuances in those proceedings, and failed to appear at scheduled hearings, which constitutes an abuse of process.
Appropriate to dismiss Complaint since Commission cannot grant 2nd PUC PAR.
No disputed material fact to warrant a hearing.
Child support was not included in the Complainant’s household income for PUC PAR.
Child support or other similar payments benefitting minors are not calculated into the household income under Section 1403.

PM 8/8/19
C-2017-2627873

Complainant alleged that PAWC was threatening termination and incorrect charges based on a non-functioning meter.

ALJ Salapa granted PAWC’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to participate in the scheduled hearing and found the Complainant had abused the Commission’s complaint process. He barred the Complainant from filing any further complaints concerning her arrears until she pays the outstanding account balance in full.

The Complainant filed Exceptions claiming she was not served the ID by certified mail and requesting more time to file.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed with prejudice.
The Complainant’s request for continuance the morning of the hearing was properly denied.
ALJ observed that Complainant’s conduct is similar to conduct in other complaint proceedings concerning other utilities in which Complainant also failed to appear after multiple continuances.
ALJ found that the circumstances support the conclusion that Complainant is filing meritless complaints to prevent or delay lawful termination.
The Commission properly served the ID via electronic service to which Complainant consented. Electronic service of documents constitutes valid legal service.
The Docket contains no notification that the ID failed to be delivered electronically.

PM 7/11/19
C-2018-3005410

Complainant alleges ME is not providing reasonable service due to excessive outages throughout its service territory. Met-Ed argues nine outages experienced in 24 months, six of which were outside its control.

ALJ Calvelli dismissed finding the Complainant did not carry burden noting his admission that his records were not correct.

Motion Sweet

Off ROW tree does not automatically exonerate utility of fault.
PUC review would have been aided by a more detailed evaluation to determine whether the utility had taken sufficient action to prevent the incidents in order to assign fault.
Corrective actions taken by company weighs in favor of finding that the outages were not excessive.
A violation of 1501 regarding unreasonable service is fact-specific as to the number of outages, their causes and the utility’s corrective actions. Order served on BIE for consideration if civil penalty is warranted for failure to meet benchmarks on a consistent basis.

PM 7/11/19
C-2018-3001144

Complainant refuses smart meter and objects to threat of termination. Penelec asserts Act 129 requires installation.

ALJ Watson dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with his procedural order compelling responses to Penelec’s Discovery.

ID adopted.

PM 7/11/19
C-2018-3004383

PGW filed Petition for Rescission of Final Order since CSAT filed two months prior.

Petition granted.

PM 7/11/19
F-2017-2633420

Complainant alleges incorrect and abnormally high charges on her account. PECO contends account correctly billed.

ALJ Vero found that the Complainant did not carry her burden of proof that her bills were inaccurate based on her usage history and potential load.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position and disputing the ALJ’s ruling not to admit her late-filed exhibits. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant’s late filed exhibits A and B raise claims for the first time in Exceptions and are not before the PUC.
Complainant’s late filed exhibits A and C raise claim for billing credit not raised in complaint or at hearing.
PECO investigated and addressed the high bill and meter concerns during the three field investigations which confirmed meter functioning properly and no unauthorized foreign load.
Usage is consistent with historical range and any increase in billing was due to rate increase.

PM 7/11/19
C-2017-2616249

Complainant alleges smart meter PECO wants to install creates safety and health concerns due to exposure to level of RF fields and violates her Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches. PECO argues Act 129 requires installation of smart meter.

ALJ Heep found that the Complainant did not carry her burden of proof that installation of AMI meter would be unreasonable or unsafe under Section 1501.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position that Bio Initiative Report 2012 and testimony before other state commissions support finding that AMI meter is unsafe. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant did not offer any medical or scientific expert opinion testimony that her exposure to RF emissions caused or will cause adverse health effects.
Complainant’s testimony was lay opinion based on review of studies/articles from internet research.
ALJ correctly recognized that non-expert opinion testimony does not constitute competent evidence.
PECO credibly rebutted the Complainant’s testimony with expert testimony.
PUC does not have authority, absent directive in the form of legislation, to prohibit the utility from installing smart meter when the customer does not want one.
No provision in PA law to opt out.

PM 6/13/19
C-2018-3006416

Complainant requests a PUC PAR. PGW contends that the balance consists of CAP and non-CAP arrears.

Special Agent Chiodo denied the request for a PUC PAR finding that the Complainant did not make a good faith effort to pay her gas bills consistent with Hewitt v PECO.

ID adopted.

PM 6/13/19
F-2017-2636316

Complainants request a PUC PAR but contend they do not owe DQE any money for service arguing they signed and stamped their electric bill with the endorsement “ACCEPT FOR VALUE” and mailed the endorsed bill to DQE since “no legal tendered such as US currency.” DQE argue that its requirement that the Complainants pay their bills in US currency was a reasonable manner of payment.

ALJ Johnson found payment in US currency was a “reasonable manner of payment” and denied the request for a PUC PAR finding the Complainants refused to admit liability for their billed electric or the unpaid account balance, which are prerequisites to receiving a PUC PAR.

Complainant filed Exceptions, entitled “Commercial Affidavit of Truth” reiterating their arguments presented at hearing. DQE filed Motion to Quash since filing did not conform with Commission regs.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Motion to Quash granted in part; Complaint dismissed.
Since Complainants are pro se, filing was considered “exceptions” to secure just, speedy & inexpensive resolution.
Exceptions denied on merit.
56.94 does not specify the forms of payment to avoid termination. Only that payment must be in full and tendered by any reasonable manner.
DQE Tariff permits payment by US currency, check, money order and on-line payment options.
DQE payment methods are reasonable under Section 1501.
PUC PAR denied since no admission of liability and no plan to pay charges in US currency.
Motion to Quash granted in part, i.e. Complaint dismissed.

PM 5/23/19
C-2018-2644957

Complainant objects to the installation of smart meter alleging smart meters are health hazards, cause fires and raise privacy and cyber security concerns. She requests an exemption arguing Act 129 requires customer to request a smart meter. PPL argued there is no opt-out and denying that smart meters have an adverse impact on health and safety.

ALJ Barnes dismissed the Complaint finding the Complainant did not carry her burden of proof. Act 129 does not permit opt-out and PPL can terminate service for failure to provide access for the meter exchange.

Complainant filed Exceptions restating her position. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant’s entire testimony is predicated on hearsay and her exhibits were properly given no weight.
Complainant was not qualified as an expert and her testimony does not constitute an unequivocal opinion to support FOF that smart meter will cause her adverse health effects.
Proof of causation is required in order to prevail under Section 1501.
PPL met burden of evidence production and Complainant did not introduce further evidence to demonstrate a conclusive causal connection between smart meter and adverse health effects.
Act 129 does not allow customer to opt out from smart meter installation.

PM 5/9/19
F-2018-3006723

Complainants alleged payment issue due to medical expenses and requested a PAR. PGW denied material allegations.

Special Agent Arnold found Complainants made a good faith effort to pay their bill ($10,169 payment posted 4/2/17) and directed a Level 3 PAR (12 months).

ID adopted.

PM 5/9/19
C-2015-2475726

Complainant refused smart meter installation due to health concerns and alleged service was subject to termination. She requests an analog meter. PECO averred there is no opt out provision and that its actions were consistent with Act 129.

ALJ Heep found Complainant’s due process rights were not violated, no record evidence that RF’s from smart meter cause health problems, and service was reasonable. ALJ denied request for an analog meter.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position and alleging the PUC should refrain from deciding the case due to the scientific issues. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID modified in part; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant was required to prove the allegations in her Complaint (i.e. RF exposure from smart meter caused or will cause adverse health effects) by a preponderance of the evidence. Krieder.
To prove utility service is unsafe, the focus is on whether the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a facility or service caused or will cause harm to the public. Povacz.
Complainant’s EHS testimony cannot be given any weight because it was based on self-diagnosis.
Dr. Prociuk’s diagnoses of Complainant’s EHS was based on her self-diagnosis and is not sufficient to establish she has EHS.
PUC rejected notion that if “potentially harmful” it is both unsafe and unreasonable under 1501.
Complainant’s due process rights were not violated.

PM 3/28/19 C-2018-3005589

Complainants disputed the use of herbicides by Met-Ed on ROW due to health and safety concerns. Met-Ed denied material allegations and averred dismissal on the grounds of res judicata.

Met-Ed filed PO, asserting the current Complaint is barred by res judicata because the issue was litigated in a prior complaint.

ALJ Myers found the facts of Complaint’s case have already been adjudicated and are barred from relitigation by the principal of res judicata.

ID adopted.

Concurrent Statement Brown
Dissent in prior Order concluded that an alternative vegetation management process should be used considering particular facts of each case.
Res judicata precludes the adjudication of same facts a second time.

PM 3/28/19 C-2018-3001726

Complainants allege service is subject to termination, incorrect charges, and request a refund of state taxes, settlement reimbursement from IDT Energy, and return of billed security deposit. Penelec denied material allegations and admitted service was terminated and then restored after payment was received.

ALJ Hoyer found termination and billing were proper. Complainants were not entitled to a refund of their security deposit, state taxes, or IDT energy settlement.

ID adopted.

PM 3/28/19 C-2018-3003563

Complainants allege incorrect charges for bills adjudicated in a prior PUC Order. Complainants further allege that they were not served PGW’s Exceptions to the prior order. PGW denied improper billing and averred dismissal on the grounds of res judicata.

PGW filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asserting the current Complaint is barred by res judicata.

ALJ Salapa granted PGW’s Motion, finding the present complaint is an attempt to re-litigate the same billing issue resolved by the prior Order.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing their position. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
The prior Order was entered on May 22, 2018 at Docket No. F-2016-2547528.
The record reflects that the Complainants were served with a copy of the prior Order; they did not appeal or request reconsideration.
PGW submitted proof of service of its Exceptions to the prior Order.

3/28/19 F-2017-2601990

Complainant alleged service was subject to termination and refused smart meter installation. PECO averred there is no opt out provision and that its actions were consistent with Act 129.

ALJ Heep found PECO complied with Act 129 and found the smart meter installation would not constitute unsafe or unreasonable service.

PECO filed a petition for Limited Remand to address the pro hac vice admission of Thomas Carl Watson, attorney for PECO.

Petition granted; Remand.

• PECO retained Thomas Carl Watson for a series of complaints to address negative health effects of smart meters.
• PECO inadvertently failed to file a pro hac vice motion in this case.

PM 3/14/19
F-2015-3000867

Complainant seeks PAR and alleges large portion of bill was from 10 or more years ago. Met-Ed contends only 2 customer payments and 7 LIHEAP payments since 9/2014 and she defaulted on 2015 PUC PAR.

ALJ Haas found Complainant did not carry burden that Met-Ed sent bills to neighbor and she never raised issue in 2014 Informal which directed the Level 1 PAR which was not appealed.

Complainant filed Exceptions re-arguing position.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant precluded from disputing charges incurred outside SOL.
Complainant never raised issue in 2014 Informal.
CII is not valid.
Met-Ed encouraged to work closely with Complainant in determining whether she qualifies for any low-income assistance.

PM 3/14/19
C-2015-2504851

In March 2015, PUC entered Order that found PGW erred when it removed the Complainant from CAP Program because 25% of home was used for law practice and ordered Account rebilled. Complainant alleges that PGW did not do rebill for 90 days and disagreed with PGW calculation that all arrears were not forgiven.

ALJ Vero found rebilling was correct but assessed $1,000 civil fine for PGW’s delay in rebilling the Account.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing ALJ’s disposition of the pre-program arrears, LPCs for 3 months in 2015 and Motion to Disqualify ALJ since she ruled against the Complainant initially.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted.
Based on payment history, forgiveness only warranted 27 out of 48 months.
Complainant had duty to pay undisputed portion of bill and LPCs were lawfully billed.
Ruling denying Motion to Disqualify affirmed; ALJ decision was thorough and legally sound.

PM 2/28/19
F-2018-3001419

Complainant, who has an active PFA, seeks PAR on balance of $15,255.16 which consists of arrears from 2 separate service locations.

ALJ Guhl found the charges correct and dismissed the Complaint.

Joint Motion Place & Sweet
ID reversed; Complaint sustained
PGW did not properly credit account for payments totaling $383.67.
Complainant not responsible for the theft of service since she did not reside at property and had active gas service at another address.
6 year PAR directed due to active PFA.
PGW encouraged to discuss all assistance program the Complainant may be eligible.

Dissent Coleman
Complainant lived at property for much of the tampering period and benefited from service.
ALJ did not find Complainant’s testimony persuasive regarding her role with meter tampering.
Receipts had “gas” written on them but money orders contained no info re PGW account and not reflected in PGW payment records.
PAR is never appropriate when any arrears are related to theft of service.

PM 2/28/19
C-2018-3001616

Complainant alleges foreign wiring at Service Location, and requests PUC PAR. PECO denied material allegations.

ALJ Johnson dismissed the Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to appear.

Complainant filed Exceptions requesting the hearing be rescheduled stating he could not attend because he recently obtained new employment. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
It is within the sound discretion of ALJ to decide whether the Complainant’s failure to appear was unavoidable and whether permitting a hearing after a “no show” would prejudice the public interest or the interest of the other party.
Complainant did not provide proof of new employment.
Complaint dismissed with prejudice; Complainant is barred from filing another complaint with PUC raising the same issues or claims as raised in dismissed complaint.

PM 2/28/19
C-2016-2576738

Complainant objects to the installation of smart meter against her wishes due to health concerns. PECO asserts that it is required to install smart meter and no “opt out” provision. PECO filed PO that its actions were consistent with Act 129.

ALJs Heep and Pell sustained PO regarding Complainant’s opt-out request and scheduled a hearing to address if smart meter installation constituted reasonable service, considering Complainant’s health condition.

ALJ Heep sustained the Complaint regarding installation of the gas meter after the Complainant disputed the installation and never informed her that the Physician’s letter was deficient. A civil penalty for violation of 1501 was assessed.

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

Remand.

Matter remanded to address whether PECO’s attorney was admitted to practice in PA or sought pro hac vice.

PM 2/7/19
C-2018-3002149

Complainant alleged service was subject to termination and disputed foreign wiring. Penelec admitted service was subject to termination due to foreign wiring.

ALJ Pell dismissed for failure to appear.

Complainant filed Exceptions requesting a new hearing and enclosed medical documentation excusing his failure to appear. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of rescheduling the hearing.

Exceptions granted; ID reversed; Remand.

Complainant’s letter to the Secretary’s Bureau explaining his absence was a good faith attempt to contact ALJ prior to the close of record.

PM 2/7/19
C-2016-2552460

Complainant alleged service was subject to termination and requested a PAR. PECO denied all material allegations.

ALJ Vero found Complainant ineligible for 2nd PUC PAR because she defaulted on her prior PUC PAR.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging there was an agreed upon PAR that was not honored. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Complainant defaulted on prior Company and PUC PARs.
No CII or SCIC.
No proof of agreed upon PAR.

PM 1/17/19
F-2017-2629733

Complainant alleged her account was slammed, incorrect charges and requested a PAR. Penelec argued PUC cannot direct PUC PAR since active Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

Titan denied slamming the account.

ALJ Barnes dismissed the complaint finding usage was consistent with seasonal changes; Complainant was not slammed because WPP correctly notified her of EGS change and her identity was verified. ALJ further found Complainant ineligible for PAR due to active Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.

ID adopted.

PM 1/17/19
F-2017-2636807

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenant’s balance due to foreign wiring. PPL argues that its actions were consistent with Section 1529.1 and PUC precedent.

ALJ Calvelli found Complainant responsible for foreign load charges and PPL did not delay verifying correction.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging the foreign wiring was limited to one light bulb and PPL delayed in verifying the correction.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Record evidence did not support request to modify ID that foreign wiring was limited to a single light bulb.
There is no de minimus exception to Section 1529.1.
No judicial latitude to consider equity or fairness when determining foreign load.
No delay of PPL because no electricity was used from verification to correction of foreign wiring.

PM 1/17/19
C-2017-2627743

Complainant requested a subsequent PAR or an extension of current PAR. PGW argued the Complainant is not entitled to either under Section 1405.

ALJ Brandy found Complainant was not entitled to a new PUC PAR or extension as she did not experience CII or SCIC.

Complainant filed a Petition for Rescission rearguing her position that she only defaulted on PUC PAR due to unexpected expenses for daughter beginning college.

Petition denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
PUC lacks discretion to waive Section 1405(d).
PUC lack of discretion does not equate to indifference.

Statement Brown
Expense for college does not qualify as CII or SCIC.
Utilities asked to work with customers when possible.

Statement Place
Customer exhibited a good faith payment history and Company should work with her to have her pay incrementally to fully satisfy the arrearage.

PM 1/17/19
C-2017-2585680

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenant’s balance due to foreign wiring. PECO verified foreign wiring and lawfully transferred correct balance.

ALJ Cheskis granted PO and dismissed the Complaint. Complainant filed Exceptions alleging part of the transferred balance was accrued by the tenant at another property. PUC granted Exceptions in part and directed remand to address Complainant’s allegation.

On Remand, ALJ Cheskis found Complainant was not responsible for $1,602.80 of the tenant’s balance which accrued at a different address.

PECO filed Exceptions arguing the transferred balance only related to charges while foreign load at Service Location.

Exceptions granted; ID reversed; Complaint dismissed.
PECO properly applied tenant’s payments for prior service under settlement rules and Section 56.24.
Transferred balance only contained charges from Service Location while foreign load existed.
PECO’s action consistent with Section 1529.1.
The operation of Section 1529.1, while punitive in nature, provides motivation for the owner to correct the foreign load situation resulting from the wiring, plumbing or piping for which the owner is responsible.

PM 12/20/18
C-2018-3000263

Complainant alleges termination of service and requests PUC PAR. PGW denied service was terminated and PAR cannot be directed due to CAP arrears in delinquent balance.

ALJ Jones found Complainant not eligible for CAP due to mixed arrearage and poor payment history.

ID adopted.

PM 12/20/18
C-2018-3000992

Complainant requests PUC PAR. Penelec denied PAR eligibility on mixed arrears due to poor payment history and multiple defaulted Company PARs.

ALJ Buckley dismissed Complaint with prejudice for failure to appear.

Complainant filed Exceptions requesting a new hearing, alleging she had the wrong phone number for the initial hearing. Penelec filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Complainant had the responsibility to contact ALJ to explain absence before issuance of ID.

PM 12/20/18
F-2017-2620661

Complainant requests 2nd PUC PAR due to change in income. PPL averred Complainant had the most advantageous PAR to which she was entitled.

ALJ Dunderdale granted 2nd CII PUC PAR. ALJ issued an Errata Notice correcting Complainant’s income calculation to exclude spousal support.

PPL filed Exceptions averring child and spousal supports should be included in the household income calculation for PUC PAR.

Exceptions granted in Part; ID revised; Complaint sustained.

• Income of minor child from SSI and state assistance are not part of household income for calculating PUC PAR.
• Level 1 PUC PAR directed.

PM 12/20/18
C-2017-2583759

Complainant alleges damage to her property due to a gas main replacement project and inadequate notification regarding the project and meter replacement. Peoples denied all material allegations.

ALJ Haas found the gas main replacement did not impact Complainant, so Peoples was not responsible for damages and notification was not required. ALJ further found Peoples violated § 59.18(a)(2) for failure to notify Complainant in writing of meter exchange.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position. Peoples filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint sustained in part.

• When service will be interrupted, affected customers must be notified consistent with § 59.12.
• Verbal notice satisfies § 59.12(b).
• Peoples violated § 59.18(a)(2) for failure to notify Complainant in writing of the of meter replacement.
• Fine not warranted for technical violation.

PM 12/6/18
C-2018-3002467

Complainant alleged incorrect charges from EGS. WPP denied material allegations and averred that the customer was a corporation and required to have an attorney representation in adversarial proceeding.

ALJ Johnson dismissed the Complaint due to the Customer’s failure to appear at the hearing noting the request of a non-attorney for a rescheduled hearing noting that the request must be made by licensed attorney.

ID adopted.

PM 12/6/18
F-2017-2636304

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenant’s balance due to foreign wiring and requests PAR. PGW denied material allegations and averred it verified foreign load at the Service Location.

ALJ Guhl found PGW properly billed Complainant after the discovery of the foreign load. Complainant is a level 4 customer and 6-month PAR directed.

ID adopted.

PM 12/6/18
F-2017-2613135

Complainant alleges company miscalculated the household income, charges too much for electric service and threatened to termite her service. DQE denied all material allegations.

ALJ Dunderdale ALJ reopened the record before issuing the ID to obtain evidence regarding CAP percentage calculation, CAP percentage application to the Complainant, and Complainant’s income. She found Complainant’s CAP arrearage was accurate and DQE appropriately reduced required monthly payments when Complainant informed it about reduction in household size.

Complainant filed Exceptions in support of her position. DQE filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

NOTE: No Entered Order On PUC Website

PM 12/6/18
C-2017-2601754

Complainant alleges his account was slammed by Source, fraudulent misrepresentation and requested EGS contract termination without fees. Source denied material allegations and specifically averred that Complainant was a non–residential account.

ALJ Barnes found the Complainant was a residential customer, met his burden of proof, and could terminate EGS contract without fees. ALJ directed a civil penalty of $2,000.

Source filed Exceptions averring (1) the representative that spoke to Complainant was from a different EGS; (2) Complainant signed a contract for a non-residential entity; (3) ALJ did not allow it to enter evidence regarding the civil penalty. Source agreed to terminate the EGS contract without fees.

Motion Sweet

Exceptions granted in part; ID reversed in part; Complaint dismissed.

• The dispute is settled because Source terminated the contract without fees, which is the remedy Complainant was seeking.
• Complaint is satisfied, eliminating the assessment of a civil penalty.

PM 11/8/18
C-2017-2592335

Complainant alleges PECO violated Section 1303 of the Code for failing to bill at the most advantageous rate. PECO denies all material allegations.

ALJ Vero found PECO violated §§ 1501 and 1303 when the Company did not allow Complainant to choose the most advantageous rate for its service. ALJ directed refund of $22,000 to the Complainant and a fine of $4,000.

PECO filed Exceptions averring it had a duty to assist Complainant in making rate decisions once it was notified of the change in service conditions.

Motion Sweet

Exceptions granted, in part: ID reversed; Complaint sustained in part.

• Customer has duty to inform utility when circumstances change and to seek review of appropriate rate schedule.
• Once contact is made, the utility has duty to address the situation as quickly as possible by providing the rate most advantageous to the customer. Where the rate change can be made quickly and easily, it should be done.
• PECO’s actions were consistent with its tariff and its obligations under the Code until July 2016, when it should have applied a separate rate schedule upon request of customer.
• PECO to reimburse or credit Complainant the difference between the Rate HT and Rate GS for the time period July 13, 2016 to the application of the Rate GS.

PM 10/25/18
C-2018-3002839

Complainant alleges DQE’s base rate case did not include an environmental component and requested DQE amend its vegetation management plan. DQE denied all material allegations. DQE filed PO averring Complainant lacks standing and its vegetation management plan was approved by the PUC.

ALJ Dunderdale granted PO finding Complainant did not have standing and did not allege a code violation.

Motion Sweet

ID suspended.

• Complainant has 30 days to inform PUC if he wishes to prosecute his Complaint as a standalone case.
• Complainant must show standing as a ratepayer or property owner.

PM 10/4/18
F-2018-2646638

Complainant seeks PUC PAR to restore service. PGW seeks full balance of $17,047.75 since Complainant defaulted on 2 PARs.

ALJ Brady found $876.74 was CAP arrears and denied request for PAR based on poor payment history, inability to pay and/or likeliness to default. Only 3 payments since 2015.

ID adopted.

Dissent Statement Place

• The 3 payments equate to $30 monthly based on very limited income (76% of FPG).
• Payment made after termination further shows good faith effort.
• PUC cannot prejudge whether complainant will stay current with a PAR and should not be a deciding factor in whether to direct a PUC PAR.
• In this case, Complainant has never had PUC PAR and should be granted one to restore service prior to upcoming winter heating season.

PM 10/4/18
C-2017-2613650

Complainant requests PUC PAR on mixed arrears ($7,172 non-CAP; $4,124 CAP).

ALJ Guhl denied PUC PAR on non-CAP arrears based on payment history.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing her LIHEAP grants shows good faith effort to pay bill and food stamps should not be included in income. PGW asserts Complainant defaulted on prior Company PARs and had not made a customer payment since 2013.

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.
Six payments, regardless of whether customer or LIHEAP, over 39 months does not reflect good faith effort to make payments.
Food stamps are not included in calculation of gross household income.
PUC has discretion to deny PAR for non-CAP arrears based on Complainant’s poor payment history.

Dissent Statement of Place

• LIHEAP payments (more than $800 in 2 years) reflect good faith to pay down balance.
• PUC should have granted PUC PAR on non-CAP arrears.

PM 10/4/18
C-2016-2561993

Complainant seeks reconsideration of prior order granting PECO the authority to install a smart meter at her residence. Prior Order dismissed Complaint without hearing on allegations that installation of smart meters cause adverse effects to her health, safety and privacy rights.

Petition granted; Prior Order rescinded; remand for hearing
Prior Order entered prior to Commonwealth Court decision in Romeo v Pa PUC.
Remand for hearing to permit customer to offer evidence in support of her allegations that the installation of a smart meter will cause adverse effects to her health, safety and privacy rights.

PM 9/20/18
C-2017-2610584

Complainant objects to reasonableness of removing tree, voltage on line, challenged the width of the ROW and requested environmental assessment. DQE argued PUC lacked jurisdiction regarding property rights.

ALJ Salapa dismissed matter.

Complainant filed Exceptions and DQE filed Reply Exceptions restating positions.

Motion Sweet

Exceptions granted in part, ID reversed in part; remand to OALJ

• Remand to determine safety impact of the proposed tree removal, including erosion of soil and sedimentation, safety hazards and steps DQE proposed to implement in order to comply with Section 1501.

PM 9/20/18
C-2016-2547322

WPP filed Petition for Reconsideration of PUC Order converting complaint into petition for relief, which prohibited WPP from using herbicides at Complainant’s property.

Joint Motion Sweet and Place

Petition granted; Order revised to sustain complaint

• Mr. Mattu carried his burden of proving that the risk of herbicides ending up in his drinking water if WPP used those herbicides on the ROW crossing his land was too great to permit.
• WPP plan to clear-to-clear the ROW crossing is a violation of Section 1501.

Joint Dissent Coleman and Kennard

• Duick standard met.
• Majority fail to explain how the work plan was unreasonable based on the record evidence or why the opinion testimony of layperson outweighs the testimony of multiple expert witnesses.
• Joint Motion does not satisfy Section 703(e) that requires findings of facts based on record evidence.
• Majority unclear what the minimum, safe distance the PUC deems appropriate before herbicides can be used.
• Not aware of any legal prohibitions on the use of herbicides as proposed by WPP.
• PUC should develop rules for the use of herbicides by public utilities through rulemaking as opposed to individual customer complaints.

PM 8/23/18
F-2017-2633996

Complainant requests PUC PAR and alleges incorrect charges and a reliability, safety, or quality problem with his electric service. PPL argued account had been enrolled in CPA.

ALJ Johnson denied request for PUC PAR on non-CAP arrears due to poor payment history. He found load potential supported usage. A momentary voltage drop when AC was started does not affect amount of power a customer consumes.

ID adopted.

PM 8/23/18
C-2017-2616261

Complainant alleges he was overcharges in comparison to his actual usage and the Company PAR was unaffordable. West Penn contends Complainant not entitled to another PUC PAR having defaulted on prior PAR.

ALJ Salapa dismissed the Complaint finding the Complainant failed to produce any evidence that his bills were incorrect and not entitled to PUC PAR consistent with 1405(d). He also found the decrease in income was less than 10% and no significant change in circumstances.

Complainant late filed Exceptions, which were treated as Petition for Reconsideration stating that he was filing exceptions due to unforeseen circumstances and change in income. West Penn filed reply ion support of ID.

Petition denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Petition fails to meet Duick standard for reconsideration.
Section 1405(d) prohibits 2nd PUC PAR since no demonstrated change in income or significant change of circumstances.

PM 8/23/18
F-2016-2581905

Complainant alleges unlawful termination because PECO sent notices to service address and not mailing address. PECO denied the allegation and contends the Complainant created the situation by not permitting the exchange of the meter.

ALJ Dunderdale found PECO violated the notice provisions of Section 1406 and did not timely restore service. A $5,000 fine was assessed.

PECO filed Exceptions arguing the Complainant knew of the reason for the termination, 3 day notice was posted and PECO was justified in not restoring service service until the Complainant arranged for the meter exchange.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint sustained.
Complainant was not properly notified consistent with Section 1406 since notice was not sent to mailing address.
5-month delay in restoring service was unreasonable service especially since service was unlawfully terminated.
Fine affirmed to prevent future violations from occurring.

PM 8/2/18
F-2017-2611788
C-2017-2621275

PGW appealed BCS Decision, which reduced theft of service charges. Customer appealed subsequent BCS Decision alleging incorrect charges.

ALJ Guhl granted PGW’s Complaint and dismissed Complaint with prejudice for failure to appear at the consolidated hearing.

Motion Sweet

Remand; ID vacated.

• Timely appeal of BCS determination is de novo.
• Discussion that PGW met its burden of proof is unnecessary and inaccurate since no part of informal proceedings can be relied upon.
• BCS decision does not stand if timely appealed and not prosecuted.
• Multiple attempts of service to Mr. Thomas were returned as undeliverable.
• Remand to OALJ to start proceedings over.

PM 8/2/18
C-2017-2617281

Complainant refused smart meter installation alleging health and privacy concerns. PECO denied material allegations and asserted it was required to install smart meters.

Complainant submitted request to withdraw. ALJ Heep granted the request after holding a telephonic hearing.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing typographical errors and requesting PECO be directed not to install a smart meter at the Service Location. PECO filed Reply Exceptions arguing Exceptions were attempt to circumvent process by requesting judgment without hearing which violated PECO’s due process rights.

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.

• Exceptions re: typographical errors granted.
• PECO’s due process rights would be violated by granting Exceptions to preclude the Company from installing a smart meter at the Service Location.
• Dismiss without prejudice, which holds open the opportunity to refile should her situation and health permit.

PM 7/12/18
C-2018-2644080

Complainant simply checked the box “incorrect charges” on her Complaint. DQE filed PO for insufficient specificity under § 5.101(a)(3).

ALJ Salapa granted PO and ordered Complainant to file an amended complaint within 20 days. ALJ issued 2nd Order that failure to file comply with the Order would result in dismissal of the Complaint.

ALJ dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with ALJ Order.

ID adopted.

Dissent Brown

• Company billing records provide sufficient information for a Company to respond to a Complaint. Elliot.
• ALJ relies on recent cases which provide that a Complaint can be dismissed if the Complainant ignores ALJ’s order to file an amended complaint.
• The revised PUC Complaint instructions and recent cases do not reverse the decision in Elliot.
• No precedent tantamount to strict liability authorizing dismissal when customer checks box but fails to provide exacting and detailed information.
• Dismissal without hearing is harsh request for pro se litigant.

PM 7/12/18
F-2017-2611805

PGW appeals BCS decision, which reduced charges due to theft of service.

ALJ Gulh found there was meter tampering, unauthorized use dated back before the timeframe provided by BCS and PGW’s leak survey would not have discovered tampering at an earlier date.

ID adopted.

Concurrence Brown

• PGW strongly recommended to establish internal policy to monitor dormant accounts.
• Theft of service hurts utility and ratepayers financially but also poses danger to the public due to likelihood of gas leaks.

PM 7/12/18
F-2017-2614241

Complainant alleges service is being threatened with termination, incorrect charges and high bill. PECO denied material allegations.

ALJ Heep dismissed with prejudice for failure to appear.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing that she was unable to attend the hearing due to hospitalization and requested a new hearing. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.
Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Joint Motion Sweet and Kennard

• Complainant did not present a reason why she failed to contact the OALJ to explain her absence or seek continuance.
• Commission can excuse absence if unavoidable; Complainant did not express an unavoidable excuse.

Dissent Brown

• Complainant should have 10 days to submit proof of her absence due to hospitalization to prove it was unavoidable.

PM 7/12/18
C-2017-2605783

Complainants alleged service was terminated, incorrect charges and requested PUC PAR. UGI admitted that service was terminated due to meter tampering.

ALJ found termination was proper, evidence of bypass, correctly charged the Complainants lawfully restoration fee, and denied PAR since no evidence of household income.

Complainants filed Exceptions restating their position and arguing immaterial errors of the record. UGI filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.

• PUC PAR not appropriate when charges due to tampering and theft.
• Property owners are responsible to monitor tampering or theft of service at the property. Fassett.
• Complainant, not police or utility, is responsible for unauthorized use and cost to renew service.

PM 7/12/18
C-2017-2592357

Complainant alleged service was subject to termination and incorrect charges. Penelec denied material allegations.

ALJ Watson dismissed the Complaint with prejudice for failure to appear.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing he mistakenly waited for ALJ to call him. Penelec filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
It is within the sound discretion of the ALJ to decide whether the Complainant’s failure to appear was unavoidable and whether permitting a hearing after such a “no-show” would prejudice the public interest or the interest of the other party.
Absent the record showing that the Complainant was provided clear notice and instruction to advise the ALJ before the close of the record if the Complainant’s failure to appear at the hearing was due to an unavoidable circumstance, the filing of exceptions would appear to be the proper procedural vehicle for the Complainant to explain why he missed the hearing. 52 Pa. Code § 5.533.
The statements in the Complainant’s Exceptions, on their face, do not show the occurrence of an emergency medical situation or other exigent circumstance, but rather a lack of diligence.
The Complainant’s effort in waiting to be called by the presiding officer on the day of the hearing does not amount to a “good faith” effort to attend the hearing.
He was provided clear, step-by-step instructions to call into the telephonic hearing and a clear warning that the ALJ would not call him directly.
The rules, which ensure notice and due process, must be followed by all complainants, whether or not they have counsel.
Showing up for a hearing is among the most basic of the Commission’s requirements. Geary.

Statement Brown-concur in result only

• Complainant absence was not unavoidable.
• Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because Complainant is pro se.

PM 7/12/18
F-2016-2571178

Complainant alleged her service was terminated and requested PAR. PECO admitted termination and denied material allegations.

Complainant requested a continuance the day of the hearing due to a flat tire. ALJ Guhl granted continuance.

ALJ Guhl dismissed the Complaint with prejudice for failure to appear at the continued hearing. Complainant contacted ALJ after the hearing concluded to indicate she was in the lobby at the time of the hearing.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging she was in the PUC lobby at the time of the hearing. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID and denying that anyone was in the lobby at the time of the hearing.

• Remand appropriate due to lack of specific instruction for being admitted into the hearing room in both Hearing Notices but was stated in the PHO.
• Complainant appeared in building but was mistaken as to the hearing location like Wiggins and Yomari Then.

Dissent Coleman

• Remand for 3rd hearing is prejudicial to PECO’s interest and the public.
• Complainant’s absence was not unavoidable.

PM 7/12/18
C-2016-2549952

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenants’ balance due to foreign wiring. PPL averred that its actions were consistent with § 1529.1 and PUC precedent.

ALJ Johnson dismissed the Complaint finding Complainant’s testimony not credible and balance transfer proper.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing a typographical error of the ALJ, he sent PPL the foreign wiring correction form, could not get an evicted tenant to sign the form and should not be responsible for the tenant’s balance. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Tenant affirmation of foreign load correction is not required. Franckowiak.
• Company should follow foreign load policy from Ace Check Cashing.
• Company’s six month delay notifying the Complainant of its foreign load discovery was too long and potentially prejudicial to owner.
• Fine not considered since Complainant did not carry burden.
• Lack of timeliness did not relieve owner of financial responsibility.

PM 6/14/18
F-2017-2624561

Complainant alleged incorrect charges due to malfunctioning meter. Penelec denied material allegations.

Complainant’s wife requested a continuance the day prior to the hearing due to work obligation. A legal assist spoke with Complainant before the hearing and Complainant stated his wife could attend. Neither Complainant nor his wife appeared at hearing.

ALJ Dunderdale dismissed with prejudice for failure to appear.

Statement Coleman

• Non-participation is excusable if non-attendance is unavoidable and interests of the public and other parties would not be prejudiced.
• Dismissing without prejudice or remanding when those conditions are not met goes against statutory interpretation.
• It was reasonable to rely on Complainant’s representation that his wife would appear.

Statement Brown - Dissent

• Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.
• Work conflict qualifies as good cause for continuance.

Statement Sweet

• PUC should consider developing guidelines for determining legitimate excuses for seeking a continuance.

PM 6/14/18
C-2017-2591174

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenant’s balance due to foreign wiring. PGW averred that foreign wiring was discovered on August 5, 2016.

ALJ Heep found the Complainant responsible for the foreign load charges from October 2015 through March 2016. ALJ found the Complainant is not responsible for the charges after March 2016 when the tenant took full control of the property.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing tenant as a customer of record; alleging improper notice of the foreign inspection, lack of notice of landlord’s obligation, the landlord cooperation program prevents responsibility of tenant’s bill; and requesting an explanation of charges. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID and noted the existence of foreign load.

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.

• Complainant responsible for foreign load charges from October 2015 through September 2016, when tenant changed residences.
• Utility is not required to obtain a copy of a lease or deed from applicant.
• Complainant created mixed metering situation by leasing restricted residential access of a portion of the building, while the other portion was used to run a separate commercial business.
• ALJ misapplied Drogaris to find foreign load did not exist in August 2016 because tenant had full control over the building. The unit where the tenant resided was their residential unit.
• The utility is not responsible for educating property owners on tenant’s rights.
• Complainant’s bill explanation claim is dismissed without prejudice.

PM 6/14/18
C-2016-2566320

Complainant alleged reliability issue with service and requested 17 years of bill payback for unreliable service. PPL denied material allegations.

ALJ Watson dismissed Complaint finding the 4 momentary interruptions did not constitute unreasonable or inadequate service.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing his position, alleging the ALJ of bias, and alleging PPL’s witness of lying. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Section 1501 does not require perfect service.
• Interruption of service and variation in supply can occur and not every interruption, outage or variation is per se a violation of Code.
• Complainant declined volt recording meter installation.
• Complainant did not report alleged momentary interruptions.

PM 6/14/18
C-2015-2475355

Complainant objects to installation of smart meter alleging they are unsafe and unreasonable. The Complaint included questions to the Company regarding smart meter installation. PECO asserts it is required to install smart meter and no “opt-out” provision.

Prior Order remanded for hearing on Section 1501 allegations. ALJ Heep found smart meter installation safe, reasonable, and there is no “opt-out” provision.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing the disallowance of the First Amended Complaint, exclusion of Dr. Marino’s extra-record testimony, evidentiary weight of Dr. Talmor’s testimony, and ALJ’s failure to consider harmful effects of an AMI meter on her property. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Complainant failed to meet burden of proof.
• Smart meter installation is not unreasonable or unsafe.
• PECO acted in accordance with Act 129 and there is no “opt-out” provision.
• Well-settled that when a customer refuses a utility access to its meter, the utility may terminate service after required notice is provided.
• Company’s use of unlicensed technicians to install AMI meters is reasonable.
• There is a difference between a biological effect and a health effect.

PM 5/17/18
F-2018-2641015

Complainant disputes his responsibility for gas charges incurred in 2009. PGW filed PO arguing the Complainant is barred by the SOL and PUC is divested of jurisdiction if the action is brought more than 3 years from the date the liability arose.

ALJ Salapa granted PO finding the Complaint raises issues that are outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the PUC. ALJ treated PO as Motion for Summary Judgment.

ID adopted.

PM 5/17/18
C-2015-2501838

Complainant alleged their service was being threatened and improper billing for service. PECO denied material allegations averring the Complainant, as a Corporation, must be represented by counsel. PECO filed a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings rearguing Complainant’s need for Counsel. The hearing was continued and counsel was obtained. Complainant filed an Amended Complaint alleging (1) numerous estimated bills; (2) high bills; (3) improper billing for service not rendered; (4) improper withholding of security deposit; and (5) improper late payment charges. PECO filed an Answer denying material allegations.

ALJ Vero found service was inadequate due to numerous estimated bills and dismissed the Complaint regarding all other claims.

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

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint sustained in part.

• PECO fined $2,000 for providing inadequate service in failing to timely correct communication issue with meter resulting in estimated reads for more than 15 months.
• ALJ correctly found the charges incurred from service at another business were properly transferred because the businesses were affiliated.
• ALJ misapplied Section 3314 of Code, barring the Complaint because not brought within 3 year SOL. Under Section 1312, 4 year SOL applies in a refund proceeding.
• LPC and SD were lawfully billed.
• Complainant had potential for load; billing correct.

PM 5/3/18
C-2017-2614769

Complainant alleged PGW threatened to terminate service and requested a PUC PAR. PGW denied incorrect charges arguing that the accumulated balance had been transferred between the Complainant and joint owner of the property multiple times.

ALJ Pell denied request for PUC PAR based on poor payment history and dismissed the Complaint for failure to carry burden, specifically finding PGW issued required termination notices.

ID adopted.

PM 4/19/18
C-2017-2583960

Complainant challenges the transfer of an arrearage for service to prior address to current address because the arrearage arose due to identity theft to accrue improper charges while Complainant was incarcerated. UGI alleged Complainant applied for gas service at another location and failed to prove improper use of identity.

ALJ Dunderdale received notice that Complainant would not be able to appear due to incarceration. Hearing was continued in order to provide accommodations. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss. Complainant did not properly respond and did not appear at hearing. ALJ dismissed Complaint for failure to appear.

Remand; ID reversed.
Motion Brown
Dismissal with prejudice for failure to appear in inapplicable if the failure to appear is unavoidable.
Record fails to explain whether the ALJ’s limited continuance timeline coincided with Complainant’s ability to be present or heard on the matter.
Record does not establish the Complainant’s current incarceration status or location.
OALJ schedulers know how to coordinate the hearing date and time with the counselor assigned to an inmate at the State Correctional Institution prior to issuing a hearing notice.
Remand for OALJ to make reasonable attempt to locate the Complainant.
If successful, a hearing can be scheduled; if not, ALJ can issue ID on Remand to dismiss.

Dissent Sweet
Motion glosses over the attempts made by ALJ to accommodate the Complainant upon learning he was incarcerated.
Complainant chose not to avail himself of this opportunity.
Motion presumes Complainant could not make phone calls without record evidence and appears contrary to the policy of the PA Department of Corrections.
Motion requires docket to be held open for indeterminate amount of time that could be decades in the future, if ever, depending on the length of incarceration and provides no clear path forth for OALJ.
Notable that no PUC correspondence was returned as undeliverable which results in presumption that service was effective.

PM 4/5/18
C-2017-2619974

Complainant alleged unlawful termination, incorrect charges from 2013, and requested PAR. Met-Ed denied material allegations and asserted 2013 claim barred by Statute of Limitations.

ALJ granted Met-Ed motion in limine and dismissed claims from 2013. Hearing continued due to technical issue. ALJ denied Complainant’s request for continuance and dismissed Complaint for failure to appear at continued hearing.

Remand; ID reversed.

Motion Brown

• Factual issue of whether Complainant timely received Company exhibits.
• Complainant made good faith effort to appear at the first hearing and continuance should have been granted.
• Complainant’s income should not include food stamp benefits and child disability payments.

PM 4/5/18
C-2017-2615246

Complainant alleged service was being threatened with termination and seeks PUC PAR. PPL contends Complainant is not entitled to PAR on mixed arrears due to poor payment history and defaulting on Company PAR.

ALJ Brady denied PUC PAR finding no good faith effort to make payments.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing amount owed, amount he could pay, and asserting good faith effort. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied in part; ID reversed; Complaint sustained in part.

Motion Sweet and Place

• Account was billed based on actual reads transmitted by AMI meter.
• Arrears were reduced from $9,087.07 to $1,571.32 while enrolled in CAP, which shows good faith effort.
• Entitled to Level 1 PUC PAR for non-CAP arrears per Hewitt noting record of defaulting on Company PAR difficult to ignore.

PM 4/5/18
C-2016-2538724

Complainant alleged service is being threatened with termination and seeks PUC PAR. PGW alleged Complainant defaulted on prior PUC PAR.

ALJ Guhl found Complainant defaulted on prior PUC PAR and was not eligible for another PAR.

Complainant filed Exceptions rearguing her position. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID modified; Complaint dismissed.

• No valid CII or SCIC.
• Food stamps are not included in gross household income.

PM 3/15/18
F-2017-2597039

Complainant alleged reliability issues with service. Penelec denied allegations.

ALJ Hoyer dismissed the Complaint finding Complainant’s testimony not credible.

ID adopted; Final Order issued.

Parties informed PUC that they never received the ID. Eservice to the Complainant was unsuccessful.

Final order rescinded.

• ID will be re-served on both parties.
• Exceptions period established to satisfy due process.

PM 3/15/18
C-2016-2579564

Complainant objects to the installation of smart meter and seeks to postpone termination for failure to provide access for meter exchange. PECO asserts that it is required to install smart meter and no “opt out” provision. PECO filed PO that its actions were consistent with Act 129.

ALJ Heep granted PO noting that there is no “opt out” of smart meter installment.

Complainant filed Exceptions alleging insufficient service of PECO’s pleadings. PECO filed a Motion to file Reply Exceptions Nunc Pro Tunc with Replies to Exceptions contending insufficient service of Complainant’s Exceptions and denying improper service to the Complainant.

Motion: Sweet

• PUC did not serve ID on the Complainant.
• Remand to where the earliest disputed failure of service occurred, i.e., service of Answer and PO.
• ID reversed
• Complainant has 10 days to response to PO.

PM 3/1/18
C-2017-2599266

Complainant requests PUC PAR. PGW contends already defaulted on 2 PUC PAR

ALJ Pell found household income increased since last PUC PAR so no CII to permit 2nd PUC PAR. no evidence of SCIC to extend defaulted PUC PAR.

ID adopted.

PM 3/1/18
P-2017-2602601

Secretary’s Office revoked the Complainant’s e-filing privileges. He filed Petition for Reconsideration arguing his due process rights were being violated.

Petition denied.

• 25 Formals were filed in 15 months.
• 246 filings were rejected in 15 months as duplicate issue, already adjudicated or simply a copy.
• Section 1.32 permits PUC action if deemed abusive.
• Due process satisfied since he can still be heard by mailing his filings.
• No evidence Complainant cannot use mail option as he has done in past.

PM 3/1/18
F-2016-2548959

Complainant disputes responsibility of other person’s balance; request credit to her account and lien stricken. PGW contends balance of Calvin Johnson transferred as condition of service when her account was established.

ALJ Barnes dismissed for failure to appear at continued Hearing. Final Order entered.

Complainant filed Petition arguing due to health issue (hearing & sight), sending new hearing notice by certified mail was not appropriate.

Petition granted: ID reversed: removed

• Complainant attempted to comply.
• Remand for hearing on issues alleged.

PM 2/8/18
F-2016-2551964

Complainant requested PUC PAR and alleged PGW is responsible for loss of $1500 grant because PGW rescinded shut off notice.

ALJ Calvelli directed 36-month PAR and found PGW acted properly.

PM 2/8/18
C-2016-2532893

Complainant alleges PPL failed to perform adequate tree trimming which resulted in power surge. PPL contends damage caused by act of nature.

ALJ Buckley found tree that caused outage was not within PPL’s ROW and power surge was due to the displacement of a neutral bushing from the transformer that feeds the Complainant’s home when tree hit the customer service line.

Complainant filed Exceptions that PPL crew informed her that her property had a wrong reconnection. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• PPL credibly demonstrated that the power surge was responsible for damage when tree fell on line knocking neutral bushing from transformer.
• Complainant’s residence did not have a working neutral bushing or working ground, which is the Complainant’s responsibility.
• Power surge did not occur when service was restored but when neutral bushing was dislodged.

PM 1/18/18
F-2017-2606743

Complainant alleges incorrect charges and request PUC PAR on balance in excess of $30,515. PGW presented evidence last customer payment was April 2010 and a single intervening LIHEAP payment on January 2014.

ALJ denied request for PUC PAR based on almost non-existent payment history.

ID adopted.

Statement Brown

• No record explanation why PGW allowed arrearages to grow to such insurmountable amount.
• Encouraged utilities to step up marketing efforts on universal service programs, budget billing and energy efficiency to prevent customer arrears from becoming unmanageable.

Statement Sweet

When a balance for a low income family reaches this point, there are 3 points to be made:

• There are bigger issues than utility bills and unfortunately, beyond PUC ability or capacity to resolve;
• PUC PAR makes no sense since PAR payment alone would be $500.00 before budget/consumption factored in, and;
• PGW was asleep at the switch in allowing balance to climb so high.
• Utilities have affirmative duty to collect payment on overdue accounts under Chapter 14.
• Level of arrears is simply not acceptable.

PM 1/18/18
C-2016-2565671
C-2016-2565235
C-2016-2565236

Complainant filed 3 separate Complaints regarding 3 instances of momentary interruption seeking $150,000.00 penalty and forgiveness of outstanding balance. PPL presented evidence that protective devices operated as designed and interruption was no longer than 10 seconds.

ALJ Watson dismissed the Complaint finding 3 momentary interruptions did not constitute unreasonable or inadequate service. He found Company is not required to provide perfect service and momentary outage could not have been prevented and PPL timely addressed issues.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing he has been experiencing outages for 17 years and PPL admitted event but did provide reason. Complainant alleged PPL witness lied about tree trimming and animal guards. PPL filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaints dismissed.

• Section 1501 does not require perfect service;
• Interruption of service and variation in supply can occur and not every interruption, outage or variation is per se a violation of Code;
• No evidence that interruption was due to intentional actions by PPL or could have been prevented.

PM 1/18/18
F-2016-2537039

Complainant alleges foreign load on her meter and PECO provided inadequate service when investigating her billing concerns. PECO contends meter mix situation and account was corrected, noting 2nd meter mix confirmed in November 2015 and Complainant was not rebilled for the under billed usage.

ALJ Pell dismissed Complaint finding PECO properly investigated and while Complainant was dissatisfied since investigation failed to yield reduced bill she hoped for, actions did not constitute unreasonable service.

Complainant filed Exceptions disputing the finding that there was no shared metering. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Motion: Place
Exceptions granted in part; ID modified; Complaint sustained in part.

• PECO’s actions constitute unreasonable service when advised meter mix corrected in April only to be confirmed again in November 2015.
• AMR did not report data from May 2014 – February 2015 in violation of Section 56.12
• PECO should have immediately investigated and not issued 10 consecutive bills based on estimated readings.
• $500.00 fine imposed.

Oral Dissent Statement Sweet (Kennard associated)

PM 11/8/17
C-2016-2535479

Complainant requests subsequent PUC PAR on arrears of $4,476.63 arguing that her prior PUC PAR was “satisfied” when PECO debt of $10,401.35 was discharged by Bankruptcy Court.

ALJ Vero denied request for another PUC PAR finding PUC lacked authority under under Sections 1403 and 1405(d) to direct a subsequent Commission PAR since household income increased, not decreased as required.

Complainant filed Exceptions arguing she has better job (can now keep any PAR) and has paid current bills since filing the complaint. PECO filed Reply Exceptions in support of the ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.
Household income exceeds 300% of the FPL (Level 4).
The household income has increased, not decreased, since last PUC PAR directed.
SCII does not apply to Level 4 customers.

Statement Sweet
Customer had multiple PARs but only two were directed by PUC.
A discharge in bankruptcy does not have effect of erasing the customer’s default on prior PUC PAR.
PUC is barred from directing additional PARs if customer defaults on PUC PAR.

PM 10/26/17
C-2016-2559799

Complainant disputes his responsibility for his tenant’s balance due to shared metering arguing he depreciates half of the value of the detached shed in support that the tenants have “shared use” of the detached shed.

ALJ Cheskis found regardless of whether the Complainant depreciates half the detached shed because the tenants have shared use of the area, the two wires that ran from the tenants’ circuit breaker to the shared use shed created the foreign load and that PPL appropriately transferred the account to the Complainant’s name.

Complainant late-filed Exceptions, which were treated as a Petition for Reconsideration. PPL’s Reply Exceptions were treated as Answer to the Petition.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed
Under Duick, no new and novel argument or considerations that were overlooked or not addressed by the PUC in prior Order were presented.
Complainant reiterates the arguments he made throughout the proceeding.

PM 10/5/17
C-2016-2565864

Complainant disputes responsibility for tenant’s balance due to foreign load/ shared metering situation. Complainant alleged she lowered tenant’s rent to account for foreign wiring. PECO contends it followed Code once foreign load verified. PECO filed PO for legal insufficiency since no allegation that PECO violated Code, regs or PUC order.

ALJ Salapa granted PO for legal insufficiency since PECO followed Code noting that a lease cannot supersede the Code.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Landlord cannot have tenant, through lease, pay charges where foreign load exists.
• Complainant is responsible for balance due to foreign wiring being verified.
• Service can be placed in tenant’s name once foreign load is corrected and verified by PECO.

PM 10/5/17
C-2016-2548462

Complainant alleged inability to pay and requested a PAR. PGW admitted sending a termination notice and accessing Late Payment Charges.

Special Agent Waldemar sustained the Complaint to extent of granting Level 3 PUC PAR.

Complainant filed Exceptions expressing potential inability to pay PAR in winter months. PGW filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• Level 3 PAR consistent with Code.
• PGW encouraged to work with Complainant during winter months if Complainant demonstrates responsible payment pattern during PAR period.

PM 9/21/17
C-2016-2540645
F-2016-2545083

PGW appealed the BCS Decision that found the gas meter was not bypassed for the period November 29, 2011 to February 4, 2016 and that the Complainant was not responsible for the unbilled gas charges in the amount of $3,286.75. The Complainant filed a separate Complaint alleging his service was terminated in error and the account was not correctly billed.

ALJ Jones found the meter was tampered with prior to February 4, 2016 and determined the unauthorized usage began February 2015. She ordered PGW to calculate usage for the four appliances for the period February 2015 to February 2016.

Motion Sweet

• ID revised.
• Before PGW is required to restore service, the Complainant must pay the recalculated unbilled usage.

PM 8/31/17
C-2017-2600495

Complainant objects to Company’s installation of a smart meter at his residence. Penelec filed PO since customers cannot opt out and Penelec is required to install smart meters throughout its service territory per Act 129.

ALJ Salapa granted PO since no allegation of a violation of Code, regulation, or order. Penelec can terminate service if Complainant refuses access to exchange meter.

ID adopted.

PM 8/31/17
C-2016-2566493

Complainant dropped off call before hearing began. ALJ Buckley attempted to reach Complainant without success and dismissed matter for not prosecuting Complaint. Complainant called next business day to explain issue with her phone and requested new hearing.

Motion Brown

• Complainant made good faith attempt to appear at the hearing.
• Complaint dismissed without prejudice.

PM 8/31/17
C-2015-2476806

Complainant seeks PUC PAR. Prior to the ALJ bringing PPL on the call to begin telephonic hearing, the Complainant advised ALJ Buckley that an agreement had been reached and counsel for PPL did not need to be contacted and disconnected the call. ALJ contacted PPL counsel who stated no agreement was reached and moved to dismiss the Complaint.

ALJ Buckley dismissed Complaint for Complainant’s failure to appear and participate in hearing.

Motion Brown

• Complainant’s actions should be treated as withdrawal of Complaint.
• Grant of withdraw by tentative order to permit parties to file objection within 20 days.

Statement Coleman-Dissent

• Complainant is very familiar with PUC process (since 4/20/02, 7 formals and 45 defaulted PARs).
• ID should be adopted.

PM 8/31/17
C-2015-2513652

Complainant filed Petition for Reconsideration of Final Order dismissing Complaint that alleged discrimination by PECO.

ALJ Haas found that PECO’s refusal to enter into Company PAR for CAP arrears is not discrimination and the LIHEAP Crisis Grant would not have reduced balance to prevent termination.

Petition denied.

• Considering payment history (20 in 4 years) and apparent inability to comply with prior PARs (4 defaulted), ALJ properly declined to issue PUC PAR for non-CAP arrears.

PM 8/3/17
C-2016-2535253

Complainant disputes the transfer of the unpaid balance of his account for different address, contending the usage at previous address was higher when compared to usage at Service Location. Penelec contends prior address was all-electric and usage is irrelevant to Service Location usage, which is non-electric heat.

ALJ Haas dismissed Complaint for the Complainant’s failure to appear at the hearing.

Complainant filed Exceptions agreeing to pay balance for current Service Location but not the transferred balance for prior address. Penelec filed Reply Exceptions in support of ID.

Exceptions denied; ID adopted; Complaint dismissed.

• No good faith attempt to attend hearing.
• Complainant had adequate notice of hearing.

PM 7/12/17
C-2016-2553324

Complainant alleged incorrect charges and requested a PUC PAR. Met-Ed asserts that the bills are correct and Complainant is not entitled to a PAR per 1405(d).

ALJ found, due to active PFA, Complainant is entitled to Level 1 PUC PAR, despite defaulting on prior PUC PAR.

ALJ dismissed high bill complaint but directed 5-year PUC PAR based on household income.

Complaint dismissed in part; 10-year PUC PAR directed.

Motion Place

• Level 1 PAR per Chapter 14 is unaffordable and inappropriate in this case.
• 10-year PAR appropriate for Complainant.
• Met-Ed directed to conduct LIURP audit, weatherization and energy-efficiency services for Complainant.
• Met-Ed directed to connect Complainant with CARES representative and Hardship Fund.

PM 7/12/17
C-2016-2552834

Complainant filed a Petition objecting to the Secretary’s requirements that he must serve all parties with all filings as evidenced by a certificate of service.

Petition denied.

• Petition untimely since not filed within 20 days of staff’s action. 52 Pa. Code § 5.44.
• Petition considered Petition for Amendment or Rescission.
• Petition did not raise “new and novel” arguments not previously heard or considerations that were overlooked or not addressed by PUC.

PM 7/12/17
C-2015-2493094

Complainant alleged incorrect charges on his bill. PPL asserts that the Complainant was charged for actual usage consumed.

ALJ Cheskis dismissed Complaint finding that the increase in amount he paid, despite decreased usage, is directly related to his EGS variable rate during same period.

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

Exceptions denied; ID affirmed; Complaint dismissed.

• An EGS may charge variable rate so long as consistent with the terms of service.
• Complainant enrollment with two EGSs explains the discrepancy in his monthly bills, not any action of PPL

PM 7/12/17
C-2015-2472605

Complainant alleged that there were incorrect charges on his bill and that his smart meter was not recording usage accurately. PECO contends that a smart meter had not yet been installed at the Service Location. Complainant filed a Petition to proceed In Forma Pauperis and to be relieved of paying costs for a transcript that was dismissed in Interim Order.

Initial Hearing converted to Prehearing so Complainant could hire an independent engineer to advise him. ALJ Long found the Complainant did not prove his theory that PECO is manipulating the information from his meter to generate fraudulent or incorrect consumption data. ALJ found the AMR meter is only capable of sending info to PECO; not capable of receiving any info or instruction from PECO or any other source.

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

Exceptions denied; ID affirmed; Complaint dismissed.

• ALJ accorded proper consideration of the evidence.
• No record evidence that PECO manipulated his consumption data to create the allegedly high bills he received.
• Complainant agreed that PECO did not violate the permissible range of billing periods (26-35 days)
• Commission cannot authorize waiver of transcript costs.

PM 6/14/17
C-2016-2547322

Complainant objects to the use of herbicides on ROW across his property alleging herbicides are not safe and may contaminate his water supply and he has no access to municipal; or public water service. He requests PUC direct WPP not to use herbicides on ROW. WPP presented expert witness that use and method of application of EPA approved herbicides is safe and not a threat to his water supply.

ALJ Dunderdale dismissed the Complaint finding the opinion testimony of the Complainant was outweighed by WPP’s expert witness that the use of herbicides is safe and consistent with industry best practices and its PUC approved vegetation management plan. ALJ found that WPP did not violate the Code, regs or PUC order.

Joint Motion Brown and Sweet

ID reversed in part; Complaint sustained

• ID adopted to extent that WPP did not violate a statue, reg or order of PUC.
• A finding that the herbicides are consistent with WPP’s vegetation maintenance plan is insufficient to provide a fair result in present case.
• There are exceptions to a utility’s preferred method of keeping ROW clear.
• There is a point where the use of herbicides is simply not consistent with the landowner’s ability to fully utilize the property, especially where the source of water is shallow wells close to the ROW.
• Landowners should file petition for relief rather than a complaint and PUC has history of treating pleadings by what is reflected in their content instead of what they are labeled.
• Mattu Complaint treated as petition for relief.
• Due process satisfied since both parties were given notice and opportunity to be heard; burden does not change as a result of converting to petition.
• Use of herbicides is by their very nature hazardous and can be used in some circumstances.
• Complainant established that his circumstances require more care in choosing and applying vegetation management methods than many other landowners.
• Given unique fact patterns, use of herbicides would be unreasonable.
• Because treated as petition, order will be tentative to provide public advocates 30 days to intervene and request additional proceedings.

Joint Dissent Coleman and Powelson

• Agree that ALJ applied the appropriate PUC case precedent and committed no error of law or fact in reaching conclusion to dismiss the Complaint.
• WPP’s actions and proposed actions are consistent with PUC approved electric facilities Inspection and Maintenance Plan.
• No violation of Section 1501 which governs the safety and reliability of utility service which is the basis for PUC jurisdiction to hear dispute.
• Unaware of any existing statutory authority or case precedent that allows PUC to impose a higher standard than Section 1501 by which to decide such cases.
• PUC is not super board of directors and WPP has the discretion to provide service as it sees fit and PUC should not micromanage certain practices of WPP.
• Proper action would be for PUC to initiate rulemaking if it feels Section 1501 does not adequately delineate what a utility’s safety and reliability obligations may be consistent with Section 2802 of the Code.
• Complainant, who was represented by counsel, did not introduce any exhibits and merely testified as to his general concern that herbicides would leach into his well water and pond.
• WPP presented 2 expert witnesses to address the incompatible vegetation and herbicide application, modes of herbicide action, environmental impacts and safety.
• Proposed herbicides were approved by US EPA for use in vegetation management on utility ROWs.
• Stump cutting alone in the unmaintained area would result is more negative ecological impact to the ROW than an integrated program that uses both stump cutting and individual herbicide application.
• PUC less than a year ago held that the proposed methods of herbicide application were reasonable.
• New process to achieve a “fair result” based on totality of circumstances provides little if any certainty to an EDS and conflicts with General Assembly’s preference that EDCs adhere to recognized industry standards.
• Majority ruling is in direct conflict with long standing applicable Commonwealth Court case precedent that without a violation of Section 1501, the PUC does not have authority, when acting on a customer’s complaint, to require any action by the utility.
• Without addressing court and PUC precedents, questionable if order satisfied stare decisis and Section 703(e) of the Code.
• Majority changed the standard of review to be applied after record closed and ID issued and results in a procedural denial of WPP’s due process rights.
• New process affects all EDCs and Majority has done so with any consultation with stakeholders in an open and transparent process.

PM 5/18/17
C-2016-2562266

Complainant alleges PGW is requiring full payment before reconnecting service and requests 1407 PAR to restore service. PGW contends Complainant defaulted on 2 company PARs and Section 1407(c)(2)(i) permits it to require full payment of balance.

ALJ Meyers found that the 2nd company PAR (May 2015) defaulted when Complainant cancelled service in June 2015; Complainant did not “cancel 2nd PAR.” Based on Crawford, Complainant has not demonstrated good faith to pay his bills (only 2 payments in last 2 years).

ID adopted.

Statement Brown-dissent
Majority should remand to determine lump sum payment and PAR as preconditions to restoring service.
With increased income, more likely that Complainant will pay down arrears that will otherwise be borne by other ratepayers.