VIA HAND DELIVERY. P.S.C. Case No E-C. October 26,2009

Transcription

1 A unit ofamerican Electric Power Appalachian Power 707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1100 P 0 Box 1986 Charleston, WV % APCOcustorner.com October 26,2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks St. P.O. Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia :? c- 0 Charles E. Bayless Re: Mark Halburn v. Appalachian Power Company Attorney P.S.C. Case No E-C (P) (F) cebayless@aep.com Dear Mrs. Squire: Please find enclosed herewith for filing in the above-styled case, an original plus twelve (12) copies of the ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT APPALACHIAN COMPANY. A copy of the answer was mailed to Complainant on this date, and a copy was hand delivered to PSC Staff Attorney, John Auville, on this date. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Counsel for Appalachian Power CEB/dp cc: John Auville Wayne Perdue Mark Halburn

2 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CASE NO E-C MARK HALBURN, Complainant, V. APPALACHIAN POWER, Defendant. ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Defendant Appalachian Power Company (hereinafter referred to as APCo or the Company ), files the following as its answer to the complaint filed in this case on October 14,2009: 1. APCo denies that it has violated any provisions of West Virginia Code Chapter 24, the West Virginia Public Service Commission s Rules for the Government of Electric Utilities, or its own rules and regulations. 2. On October 14,2009, Mark Halburn, 194 Grace Drive, Hurricane, WV, 25526, filed a formal complaint against Appalachian Power Company alleging that since the time he filed his last complaint he has endured numerous power/electrical outages. His complaint further indicated that AEP s performance is abysmal and fails to meet its obligations to provide continuous, uninterrupted electrical power. In what appears to be his requested relief, he stated We need a rate reduction and a new electric company. 3. Mr. Halburn is served from a 7.2 kv tap line off the Hurricane Creek Circuit supplied out of APCo s Hurricane 69/12 kv substation. The tap line to Mr. Halburn is connected Mr. Halburn s reference to his last complaint relates to a complaint about frequent power outages filed with the Commission on March 11,2008, P.S.C. Case No E-C.

3 within the station breaker protective zone. In response to the allegation that he has endured numerous power/electrical outages since the time he filed his last complaint on March 11, 2008 (over 18 months ago), the Company reviewed its records of sustained outages. Upon review, the Company identified the following three events: 0 June 14, hour outage due to a conductor contact caused by a non- AEP, third party contractor that was working near APCo s facilities. 0 September 14, minute outage caused by a broken static wire on the Milton - Winfield 69 kv transmission line which temporarily interrupted transmission service to Hurricane Station. May 27, hour outage caused when an AEP line contractor was installing new distribution facilities and the safety strap on a wire roller came loose causing a contact with energized conductor. As the above information shows, over the 18 month-period since his last complaint, Mr. Halburn has incurred three sustained outages, one of which lasted only nine (9) minutes. Only one of the aforementioned outages has occurred in the past year, and that event occurred nearly five months prior to the filing of the instant complaint. 4. The Company also examined its records to determine if there had been momentary (non-sustained) interruptions affecting Mr. Halburn s residence. Based on a review of breaker operations over the past year on the Hurricane Creek Circuit, the Company found only one operation of the breaker due to a fault condition, and that event occurred at the same time as the sustained outage of May 27, Accordingly, over the past twelve months, Mr. Halburn has not experienced any momentary interruptions at his residence. 5. As a result of Mr. Halburn s previous complaint filed on March 11, 2008 in Case No E-C, the Company has undertaken specific reliability improvement actions on * The breaker lockout involved only one (1) breaker operation due to the breaker being set in one shot mode while the contractor was stringing new conductor on May 27,2009.

4 the Hurricane Creek Circuit, and filed periodic reports on these activities with the Staff as provided for in the Commission s final order of October 29, As noted by the Company in those periodic reports, the Company inspected its right-of-ways and has performed vegetation management efforts on all of the three-phase line of the Hurricane / Hurricane Creek circuit from the station through the breaker zone which serves Mr. Halburn, and also on Mr. Halburn s specific tap line. The Company has also performed both a visual inspection and EM1 (electromagnetic interference) analysis of the Hurricane Creek Circuit. The Company has also replaced various cutouts, arresters, and pin insulators identified as part of its inspection and its normal cutodarrester replacement program. 6. The Company represents that there is absolutely no basis for the Complainant s representation that he has endured numerous power/electrical outages since his last complaint. The Complainant s has experienced only one sustained outage and no momentary outages in the past 12 months. Moreover, the one outage that did occur was a result of an incident involving a contractor working on the Company s facilities, and not due to anything that could be attributed to a lack of maintenance. 7. In the instant complaint, the complainant also indicated that the Company had failed to meet its obligation to provide continuous, uninterrupted electric power, and also sought a rate reduction and a new electric company. With respect to these issues, APCo has a responsibility to provide reliable power at reasonable rates within its authorized service territory. Nothing in the Commission s rules requires a utility to provide continuous, uninterrupted, service. 8. Based on all the foregoing, the Company represents that (1) APCo has complied with the Commission Rules and the laws of the State of West Virginia and all the rules and regulations of its tariffs, (2) since his last complaint, service to the complainant has been

5 reliable and nearly void of any service interruptions and (3) there is no basis for issues involving rates other than those currently approved by the Commission for application in Hurricane area where APCo is authorized to provide service. Wherefore, APCo prays that the Complaint in this proceeding be denied in full and appropriately dismissed. Respectfully submitted, APPALACHIAN POWER Defendant By Counsel I Charles E. Bayless (WV State Bar I.D. No ) P.O. Box 1986 Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Appalachian Power Company Dated this 26th day of October, 2009.

6 VERIFICATION STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF KANAWHA, TO-WIT: Terry R. Eads, Director, Regulatory Services for Appalachian Power Company, after being duly sworn, states upon his information and belief that the facts and allegations contained in the foregoing Answer are true. Tedy R. gads Taken, subscribed and sworn to before me on the 26th day of October, My commission expires: &EcP?,.w dotary Public u (SEAL)

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Charles E. Bayless, Counsel for Appalachian Power Company, do hereby certify that a true copy of the ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, was served to the Complainant through the regular course of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, this 26th day of October, 2009 addressed as follows: Mark Halburn Route 4 Box 455 Hurricane, West Virginia and a copy of the ANSWER was hand delivered, addressed to: John Auville Public Service Commission of WV 201 Brooks St. Charleston, West Virginia and a copy of the ANSWER was hand delivered, addressed to: Wayne M. Perdue Technical Analyst, Engineering Division Public Service Commission of WV 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25323