December 12, Ms. Ingrid Ferrell Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street PO Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Transcription

1 A FirstEnergy Company- John L. Munsch Attorney 800 Cabin Hill Dr. Greensburg, PA Telephone: Fax: December 12,20 13 Ms. Ingrid Ferrell Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street PO Box 812 Charleston, WV Re: Candice Magill v. Monongahela Power Company; Case No E-C Dear Ms. Ferrell: Enclosed for filing please finidtan original and twelve (12) copies of Monongahela Power Company's Response to Exceptions in the above-referenced matter. A copy has been served upon Complainant by First Class U.S. Mail. Sincerely, GAJ:dml Enclosures Gary A. Jack Senior Corporate Counsel WV State Bar No cc: Certificate of Service

2 ~ CANDICE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON I CASE NO E-C MAGILL I Complainant V. MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY Defendant RESPONSE OF MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY TO EXCEPTIONS Now comes the Defendant, Monongahela Power Company ( Mon Power ), and submits a response to the exceptions filed inthis matter. Additionally, Mon Power attaches its Initiamrief to this filing, attached as Exhibit A, as that sets forth the issues in the case, the evidence presented, and the appropriate conclusions. Mon Power sets forth the following response to the Exceptions. 1. Procedurally, the Exceptions do not set forth the actual errors of law and fact for a proper review by this Commission. Since Complainant is not represented by counsel, some leniency should be given to her and her presentation of exceptions. However, a reading of her Exceptions leaves one wondering what the alleged errors are --- other than she claims Mon Power did not test for electromagnetic frequencies other than 60 Hz at her residence. Exceptions P* 4

3 2. Complainant s main argument that Mon Power did not test for frequencies other than 60 hertz sounds is not accurate. The testimony provided by Mon Power s three witnesses explained the thorough testing that was conducted of her rented residence, including the test of a wide range of frequencies, Transcript at 87, 82, 89. The EMF measurements were taken by a magnetic field meter that measures 60 hertz and up to 300 hertz. With regard to higher order frequencies in the 1000s hertz level, these would be identified as radio waves. Mon Power would have detected radio interference but found no such interference. 3. The Complainant may have been aware of these findings had she stayed at the hearing to hear the evidence presented by the Company. However, she left the hearing before completion for a personal medical appointment. Had she stayed at the hearing to hear the full results of the Mon Power investigation, she may have realized the magnitude of all the Mon Power testing done over multiple visits to her residence. 4. Nevertheless, the testing frequencies which Complainant objects to in her Exceptions is irrelevant as sheyeadily concedes she heard no humming when the testing was being done, Tr at 34. So this is an odd situation where she faults Mon Power for its testing and then readily admits that we would not find anything because she could not hear the humming that day. But, as the order correctly points out, Complainant believes the noise would return with a vengeance soon after the testing because the power company would turn the noise on. Order at Page 2 5. Complainant unfortunately makes what Defendant believes to be wrongful and incorrect statements about the ALJ and the Staff. Defendant was present at the hearing and represents that the ALJ thoughtfully considered all of Complainant s evidence and at all times was thoroughly professional and courteous. The Judge s direction for the Complainant to 2

4 -~ ~ - ~ - ~~ proceed with evidence presentation -- even though he had concerns of relevancy -- was entirely appropriate in Mon Power s view. See Exceptions p. 3. The video she presented was of a - substation located in the State of Virginia, owned by Shenandoah Valley Electric Co-op, and which does not provide any service to Complainant. The Commission can decide for itself the relevancy of the video. Complainant s intended point was that Mon Power sells power to the coop and that Mon Power defective electricity was causing a hum at the Virginia Shenandoah substation. Again, the Commission can decide the relevancy and coherence of that argument. Additionally, Complainant states in her Exceptions that the Judge was incorrect by finding that Complainant stated that Mon Power was purposefully causing her physical harm. Exceptions p. 3. What the Recommended Decision states is She seemed to believe that Mon Power was intentionally trying to cause her harm turning on and off the pulsating noises. Rec Dec at p. 6. The judge cites to the record where Ms. Magill stated she believes that Mon Power did something to cause the noise to stop on the day that they came out with testing equipment. Tr 34, 35, 37 and Page 2 OFRecommended Decision. (Mon Power notes there were multiple days that various tests were made at Complainant s residence.) Complainant believes that Mon Power has an ability to turn on and off the humming. Tr at 34, 67, 71. The humming causes her physical health problems such as headaches, vomiting and seizures. Tr. 43, 29. Therefore, it is a reasonable deduction by the judge that Complainant seems to believe that Mon Power is intentionally trying to cause her to have noisy electric service and, as a consequence, causing her health problems. The conclusion stated in the Recommended Decision is entirely proper based on the testimony Complainant provided. 3

5 6. Defendant does not know the details of the communications between Staff and Complainant, but believes that Staff was honest, courteous and professional as well. Staffs Response to the Exceptions is credible. 7. Substantively to the Complaint, Defendant has conducted a thorough and complete investigation of this matter. It has found no problems (other than a small harmonics problem that was altered by the Company to the benefit of Complainant and the detriment of Mon Power s other local customers by reducing voltage support). It is not appropriate for Mon Power s other customers to bear the cost of any additional investigation in this matter, Mon Power suggested that Complainant might wish to have her internal electrical system inspected since the humming noise was emanating from inside her home. The Recommended Decision correctly noted there has been no internal electrical inspection performed. Rec Decision p. 3. As she states in her Exceptions, the landlord admits there has been no internal inspection but he is sure everything is fine. Exceptions at p. 3. It was also suggested that Complainant might want to be checked for tinnitfdue to the humming noise she hears. She has declined that medical review. Tr at Defendant is not disputing that Complainant hears humming. It is rather representing that it has fully inspected its facilities and they are in good condition and operating properly. A utility cannot fix humming unless it can find a problem, which neither Mon Power, Staff, or even Complainant can find. Complainant notes her statement in her Exceptions that Theophostic prayer she engages in is a tool utilized to help traumatized individuals to be able, amongst other things, hear the voice of God over their own. In using such theological tools, it is imperative to have a quiet environment so that the facilitator and the trauma victim can communicate effectively. Exceptions at p. 1. Mon Power asserts that while Complainant is free 4

6 to practice her theophostic prayer, she is not entitled to any different electric service than received by other customers. The evidence showed her service is no different than other customers service and that the power company is not aware of any additional work that could be performed at the residence. Tr 87, 89, 112, 120, Accordingly, the Exceptions should be denied and the Recommended Decision upheld. Respectfully submitted, MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY Date: December 12, NASA Boulevard Fainnont, WV

7 ~ ~ _- - Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO E-C CANDICE MAGILL Complainant V. MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY Defendant INITIAL BRIEF OF THE MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY Now comes the Defendant, Monongahela Power Company ( Mon Power ), and submits its initial brief in this matter. - STATEMENT OF ISSUES This case concerns two issues raised by Complainant: 1. Inadequate service provided by Mon Power causing an intermittent humming sound in and about her rented residence in Arbovale, WV; and 2. Damage to her appliances due to inadequate electric service. SUMMARY RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED: I, Defendant conducted an investigation of its electric service provided to Complainant and could find no inadequate service other than a voltage harmonic slightly above IEEE standards, which has been remedied. Defendant could find no cause of a humming sound nor any deficient service which could cause damage to her appliances.

8 EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND ARGUMENT Mon Power provided three witnesses at the hearing to support its investigation of the premises and the conclusion that there is no inadequate electric service being provided. First, Mr, Fred Frank testified of his presence and investigation at the site. He conducted various voltage tests which were within the proper guideline. Tr at 80. He checked amperage and it was fine. Id. He used a fluke power quality meter and an oscilloscope to measure harmonics. The only slight problem was a harmonic reading of 6%, which is slightly above the 5% IEEENon Power standard. (There is no PSC standard. Tr at 80) Neutral to earth voltage (i.e., stray voltage) using a fluke 87 multimeter was checked and found to be at very low levels. Mon Power disconnected several capacitors on the line to lower the harmonic voltage readings below IEEE standard of 5%. Complainant could tell no difference in the humming due to the remedial work. Defendant would note that while this effort was made to abate the concerns of Complainant and continues to remain in place, the capacitors provide voltage support and stability to the-system which other customers benefit. Tr at 117, 118. IW Frank believes there are no deficiencies in the electric facilities serving Complainant and was not aware of any further action that could be done by Mon Power for Complainant, Tr at 88,89 Since the gravamen of the complaint was a constant humming sound that was causing physical ailments to CompIainant and damaging appliances, Mon Power called into the investigation Mr. Rick Hefier, who is an expert in sound and noise levels monitoring, He conducted on site review in three places in and around the home and could find no sounds on point or similar to that complained of by Complainant. He used an octave band filter which segregates pitches, (Intensity is measured as decibel level, and the octave band filter measures tone.) Mr. Heffner did not hear anything nor did his instruments pick up anything unusual. Tr at 104. Page 5 of the full report submitted in this case shows the actual findings. Tr at 107. Co 2

9 Exhibit 1. He did not know of a way that Mon Power could turn a hum back on after leaving the premises as alleged by Complainant. Tr at 110. Mr. HefTner noted that he has not come across a situation like this before in his 30 years of utility experience. Tr at 111. The only such complaints he was aware of are Ms. Barton and Ms. Magill. Tr at 112. Finally, Mr. Mark Kasun explained his overall responsibility for the investigation and the efforts made by the Company to investigate. He explained that trouble men from the Operations field Dept. first went out to the premises and found no problems. A piece of equipment known as the Beast checked for loose neutrals but everything tested fine. Tr at 114. Later, on July 23, 2013 a PMI recording power quality meter was installed for a week and all was fine. Tr at 115. Finally, a comprehensive investigation was done at the premises on August 22,2013. Again, all service was found to be working properly, including the appliances. The only slight problem was a harmonics problem which was modified by removing capacitors and, additionally, found not to impact Complainant s perceived noise complaints. Finally, a volt meter was placed on site from Sept 5 72 and all harmonics were within BEE standards. Tr at IT. Mr. Kasun investigated her appliances and found one of her battery chargers to have incompatible batteries in them and that the stove was not producing a noise. Mr. Kasun mentioned he never has heard electricity to have the sound that was played on the tapes by the Complainant and questioned the accuracy of the recording equipment. Tr at 123. Likewise, this witness opined the Mon Power facilities are operating within guidelines and that the Company had exhausted its efforts. Tr at 124. On Staff questioning, Mr. Kasun noted he has not had this complaint before in 23 years experience as an engineer. COMPLAINANT S ARGUMENT Complainant provided tape recordings of a humming sound at Mon Power s substation, a substation located in Virginia and owned by a co-op, and sounds from homes. She used an 3

10 , amplifier for some of her recordings. Her complaint concerns intermittent humming sounds in her house, however, Mon Power is not arguing that Complainant does not hear humming sounds. She very well may hear such sounds, However, the issue before the PSC is whether inadequate electric service is being provided. Complainant provided no evidence of such inadequate service or facilities, how the service violates any rules or orders of the PSC, or any possible remediation measures. When Defendant suggested she investigate other options to remedy the problem - since Mon Power had conducted multiple tests without finding any problem - she seemed unwilling. Such options as an electrical inspection of the home s wiring and medical evaluation for tinnitus were rejected. Tr at 70. (Mon Power would not normally inspect the electrical system of Complainant electrica1 system but would check its own system. Tr at 67.) Her recordings were generally not from her house (they were for Barton s house, a Mon Power substation that does not serve her, and a Virginia co-op substation in Virginia recording.) The main recording from her house she admitted she did not record it herself. Tr at p. 69 Additionally, Mr. Frank warned that instrumentation can generate a beat or pulse fiequency. Tr at 92. She called no witnesses and even the owner of the premises never complained. Her appliances seemed to be operating properly the day of the hearing. Tr at 68. She noted in response to Staff questioning that she has not lost several appliances but they malfunction. Only the hot water heater and computer were lost. Tr at 75. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended at the hearing it had no reason to doubt or question the contents or final results of the Company investigation Tr at

11 Y CONCLUSION The Company respectfully submits that it has abided by all Commission rules and regulations as well as its tariffs. The electric facilities in and around the Complainant s residence have been fully investigated and are working correctly. The electric service is proper and in compliance with all standards. Mon Power does not dispute Complainant s hearing of a humming noise, but is not able to fix an electrical problem unless it knows what the problem is. Based on its investigation, no problem can be found. Based on the facts and the circumstances of this case, Mon Power requests its actions be upheld and this matter dismissed fkom the Commission s open docket. Respectfully submitted, MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY Date: November 1 1, i NASA Boulevard Fairmont, WV

12 Re: Case No E-C CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certiq that on this 12* day of December 2013, a copy of the foregoing Response to Exceptions was sent by U.S. Mail, First Class, to: Candice Magill Box 13F Pine Grove Road Arbovale, WV Chris Howard, Staff Attorney Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks St. PO Box 812 Charleston, WV ALJ Keith George Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks St. PO Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323