Service om mission. f West Virginia. October 23,201 8

Transcription

1 Service om mission f West Virginia 201 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia Phone: (304) Fax: (304) October 23,201 8 Electronic Service Only Raymond Scott and Lorraine Ann McCleery 145 Village Drive Bridgeport, WV Christopher D. Negley, Esq. Counsel, Timberline Four Seasons Utilities Shuman, McCuskey & Slicer PLLC PO Box 3953 Charleston, WV RE: Case No WS-C Raymond Scott and Lorraine Ann McCleery V. Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. Mrs. McCleery and Gentlemen: The Staff Memorandum issued today was served via on the above-listed parties. Any responses must be submitted to the Executive Secretary's Office in writing within 10 days of this date, unless directed otherwise. You will not receive a copy of the Staff Memorandum by regular mail. Your failure to respond in writing to the utility's answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file, without further hearing or notice. When you provide an address, you will automatically receive electronic docket notifications as documents are filed in this proceeding. The notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the time the filing is processed. If you have not done so, you are encouraged to file the Electronic Mail Agreement, previously mailed to you, which allows the Commission to serve all orders issued in this matter via electronic docket notification. Please note - the Public Service Commission does not accept electronic filings. Sincerely, IF/tg Enc. - Memo Ingrid Ferrell, Director Executive Secretary Division

2 FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: INGRID FERRELL Executive Secretary DATE: October 23,2018 FROM: RE: LESLIE J. ANDERSON, Supervising Attornew& CASE NO WS-C RAYMOND SCOTT and LORRAINE ANN MCCLEERY V. TIMBERLINE FOUR SEASONS UTILITIES, INC. Based on the evidence presented, Staff cannot recommend that the Complainants bill be adjusted. The meter has been tested and is reading accurately. Staff did not find any errors in the calculation of the Complainant s bills, nor any anomalies in the recorded usages. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the hearing set for December 13, 2018, in this case be cancelled, and this case be dismissed. If the complainants object to Staffs recommendation, they should file a written objection within ten (10) days of the date of this memorandum. If no timely objection is filed, Staff recommends that its recommendations be adopted. B ackaround On July 25, 2018, Raymond Scott and Lorraine Ann McCleery (Complainants) filed a verified formal complaint against Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. (Timberline Utilities). The complainants asserted that their July 2018 bill has an inaccurate water usage charge. The Complainants believe the charge needs to be reduced. The Complainants stated that this has happened several times before during the past two years. The Complainants explained that they were only at the house for 15 days during the billing period in question. The Complainants further explained that in the past they have sought and received adjustments from Timberline Utilities in the past. But, the complainants have not been able to contact Timberline Utilities to seek relief this time because Timberline Utilities phones are not working and Timberline Utilities is not responding to his request to review the bill. The Complainants requested a supervised meter test and requested that their bill be adjusted since the charges are $54.94 above their normal usage. On August 6, 20 18, Timberline Utilities filed an answer. Timberline Utilities stated it was without sufficient information to admit or deny the Complainants allegations as of the date of the answer. Thus, Timberline Utilities was denying the allegations, Timberline Utilities noted its billing clerk would be returning to the office within a week of its answer and stated it would review the allegations then.

3 Case No WS-C October 23, Page 2 By a procedural order entered on September 4, 2018, this case was set for hearing on December 13, Staff Recommendation In the attached Initial and Final Internal Memorandum, Jonathan Fowler, P.E., Sr. Staff Engineer in the Commission s Engineering Division, witnessed the testing of the Complainants meter on October 17, Mr. Fowler stated the meter test revealed that the meter is accurately reporting the measured volume of water in accordance with Rule 6 of the Commission s Rules for the Government of Water Utilities (150 C.S.R. 7). In the attached Utilities Division Final Staff Recommendation, William S. Beller, Utilities Analyst, explained that Mr. Fowler informed him that the meter was tested and found to be accurately measuring the Complainants water usage. Mr. Beller reviewed the information submitted by Timberline Utilities and the Complainants and found no errors in the calculation of the Complainants bills, nor any anomalies in the recorded usages. Thus, based on the information provided, Mr. Beller could not recommend that Timberline Utilities be required to make an adjustment to the Complainants bills. The Legal Staff agrees with Mr. Fowler s and Mr. Beller s findings and recommendations. Based on the evidence presented, Staff cannot recommend that the Complainants bill be adjusted. The meter has been tested and is reading accurately. Staff did not find any errors in the calculation of the Complainant s bills, nor any anomalies in the recorded usages. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the hearing set for December 13, 201 8, in this case be cancelled, and this case be dismissed. If the Complainants object to Staffs recommendation, they should file a written objection within ten (10) days of the date of this memorandum. If no timely objection is filed, Staff recommends that its recommendations be adopted. LJNcs Attachment cws cwi H:\LANDERSOMwpdocs\l (McCleery v. Timberline Utilities)\final memo.docx

4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ENGINEERING DIVISION INITIAL AND FINAL INTERNAL MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUI3 JECT: October 19, Leslie Anderson, Esq., Staff Attorney Legal Division Jonathan Fowler, P.E., Sr. Staff Engineer Engineering Division Cases No WS-C Raymond Scott and Lorraine Ann McCleery (Complainant) V. Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. (Defendant) Pursuant to the request of the Complainant in the above matter, Engineering Staff has conducted a test of the Complainant s water meter and will hereby report the results of such test. The meter to be tested was removed from service on October 4,20 18 under the supervision of the above noted Engineer who immediately took custody of the meter and delivered it to a third party, certified meter test shop. In order to continue service to the customer, another water meter (Neptune, Serial Number , manufactured 08/06/20 15) was installed by the utility crew immediately following removal of the subject meter. A witnessed test of the subject meter was completed on October 17,201 8 and the results are reported on the attached meter test card. The results indicate that the subject meter is accurately reporting the measured volume of water (average accuracy was 99.65%) and is within the acceptable tolerances (&2%) for such devices as prescribed by the current edition of the Commission s Water Rules (1 50 CSR 07). The subject meter (Trident, Serial Number ) will be held in the custody of the Engineering Division until such time as this case is finally resolved after which it will be returned to the utility.

5 00SSb REASON FOR TEST OR REPAIR STOPPED NRNQFF NONPAYWATER FROZEN COMPLAINT NON PAY SEWER 0 LEAKING 0 PER.TEST INACTIVE ACCOUNT ELECTRICAL PROBLEM RADIO READ 0 MlUlERT # REQUEST TEST 1/4 I 10 1 I I I I

6 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA UTILITIES DIVISION FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION William S. Beller, Utilities Analyst &/p Utilities Division DATE: October 17,2018 *$ - SUBJECT: CASE NO WS-C Raymond Scott v Lorraine Ann McCleery V Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. On July 26, 2018, Raymond Scott and Lorraine Ann McCleery (Complainants) filed a complaint against Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. (Defendant, Timberline). The Complainants stated their July 2018 bill has an inaccurate water usage charge that needs to be reduced and that it has happened several times in the past two (2) years. The Complainants stated that in the past they have contacted Timberline and received adjustments because the billing charges don t match historical usage amounts, However, the complainants stated they cannot contact Timberline to seek relief or have a meter test performed because Timberline s phones are not working. The Complainants seek a remedy in the form of having their meter tested and an adjustment of $52.94, which is the amount in excess of their normal usage amounts. The Complainants also submitted some bills from bill statement date January through bill statement date July 10, Utility Staff noted averages ranging from 0 gallons to 9,100 gallons (usage Complainants want adjusted). There were two (2) months that Timberline recorded back to back estimated readings of 4,000 gallons. Utility Staff would note that month directly after the two 4,000 gallon readings, there was an actual reading and adjustment to the usage amount of (7,000) gallons. This adjustment tells Utility Staff that the actual usage for the three months was 1,000 gallons combined, and because the minimum bill for Timberline is based on 4,000 gallons, no monetary adjustment was needed, only a usage adjustment to reflect the actual metered amount. On August 20, 2018, Utility Staff filed its Initial Memorandum in this case requesting that Timberline supply a two (2) year payment history that was not supplied with its answer filed on August 6,2018. On August 24,2018, Timberline supplied a two (2) year billing history beginning with the invoice date September 30, 2016 and ending with invoice date August 31, Timberline also stated in its filing on August 24, 201 8, that it was having difficulties with its main number and supplied an alternate phone number with its bills, beginning with the August billing cycle. Utility Staff reviewed the billing information supplied by Timberline.

7 Utility Staffs Final Recommendation Case No WS-C October 1 7,20 18 Page 2 of 2 Utility Staff notes no abnormalities in the usage numbers flowing from period to period (last month s current usage becoming this month s previous usage) and no errors in the billed amounts for the two (2) year billing period. Utility Staff would note that the Complainants were billed a total amount of $3, with an adjustment of ($41.87) on June 30, 2017, which brings the net total billed amount to $3, compared to $2, had the Complainants been billed only minimum usage amounts for the two (2) year period. Utility Staff would also note that during the two (2) year period, there were only five (5) billing periods in which the Complainants were billed something other than the minimum usage amount. On October 4, 2018, Utility Staff spoke with the Complainants. The Complainants stated they understood about the negative usage adjustments, but believe that the five (5) billing periods in which usage exceeded the minimum usage amounts, are wrong. The Complainants based this conclusion on the records they kept of the number of times the home was occupied, the number of people in the home at those times, and by comparing the usage from the Timberline home to the usage amounts from their primary home. Utility Staff informed the Complainants at that time that the meter from the home was going to be tested for accuracy. On October 17, 2018, Utility Staff received the results from the Commission s Engineering Staff member assigned to this case that the meter had accuracy of 100% at a 2 gpm flow and 99.3% at 15 gpm (gpm = gallons per minute). The Engineering Staff concluded that the meter test results are comparable with results for a new meter and that there are no metering errors attributed to the device. Based on the information presented, Utility Staff cannot know how the Complainants, or guests at their Timberline home, consume water during the period in which they are there. However, Utility Staff has been given evidence that the Complainants meter has been tested to be accurate; there are no errors in the calculation of the Complainants bills, nor any anomalies in the recorded usages. Therefore, based on the information presented, Utility Staff cannot recommend an adjustment to the Complainants bill. Utility Staff recommends that the Parties be given ten (10) days to respond to this recommendation.