-.
L.
-
:"k.',I
;$
2"
.._
.I.)ili
2; &.,.._ ;-
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST
VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
Entered:
1
i
I
1
I
i
November 2, 1988
CASE NO. 87-864-E-C
FRAN AND ROY MINNICK, Route 5,
Box 55, Hedgesville, Berkeley
County,
Complainants,
V.
THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY,
a corporation,
Defendant.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DECISION
PROCEDURE
On December 9 , 1 9 8 7 , Fran and Roy Minnick, Route 5, Box 55,
Hedgesville, Berkeley County, filed a formal complaint, duly verified,
against The Potomac Edison Company, a corporation.
By order entered on December 9 , 1 9 8 7 , the Defendant, The Potomac
Edison Company, a corporation, was required to satisfy said complaint or
make answer thereto, in writing, within ten (10) days of the service upon
it by certified mail of a copy of said complaint and a copy of said order
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure. On December 2 1 , 1 9 8 7 , the Defendant filed its
answer to the allegations contained in said complaint.
By order entered on March 2 3 , 1 9 8 8 , this matter was set for hearing to
be held in the City Building in Charles Town, West Virginia, on Wednesday,
April 6 , 1 9 8 8 , at 11:OO a.m., EDST. The order required the Commission's
Executive Secretary to give notice of said hearing by mailing a copy of the
order to the Complainants and to the Defendant by United States Certified
Mail, return receipt requested.
No
The hearing was held as scheduled on Aqril 6 , 1 9 8 8 , at l l : @ O a,m.
one appeared for or on behalf o f the Complainants. Marlene R. Brooks,
Esq., Counsel, appeared on behalf of The Potomac Edison Company. The
Commission's Staff was represented by Daniel L. Frutchey, Esq., Counsel.
The proceeding was dismissed pending a determination as to whether the
Complainants received notice of said hearing.
*PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF W E S T VIRGINIA
By letter received April 2 4 , 1 9 8 8 , the Complainants notified the
Commission that they had not received notice of the hearing held on
April 6 , 1 9 8 8 .
By order entered on May 11, 1 9 8 8 , this matter was reset for hearing to
be held in the Martinsburg-Berkeley County Public Library in the City of
Martinsburg on Tuesday, June 7, 1 9 8 8 , at 9:30 a.m. By order entered on
May 2 3 , 1 9 8 8 , the hearing scheduled for June 7, 1 9 8 8 was cancelled, and
this matter was reset for hearing to be held in the Martinsburg-Berkeley
County Public Library in the City of Martinsburg on Tuesday, June 1 4 , 1 9 8 8 ,
at 1 1 : 3 0 a.m., EDST. The order further required the Commission's Executive
Secretary to give notice of said hearing by mailing a copy of the order to
the Complainants and to the Defendant by United States Certified Mail,
return receipt requested. The Postal Return Receipts contained in the
Commission's case file indicate that proper notice was given.
The hearing was held as scheduled on June 1 4 , 1 9 8 8 , at 1 1 : 3 0 a.m.,
EDST. The Complainants Fran and Roy Minnick appeared ro se without legal
counsel. Brent Tolbert-Smith, E s q . , appeared on behafkofthe Defendant,
The Potomac Edison Company. The Commission's Staff was represented by Mark
Thessin, E s q . , Counsel. There were no other appearances. At the conclusion of the hearing this matter was submitted for decision.
Fran Minnick testified on behalf of the Complainants. Vicki Clipp,
Residential Representative, offered testimony on behalf of The Potomac
Edison Company (P.E.) and wonsored P.E. Exhibit No. 1. Statement of
Account fo; RGy and Fran Minnikk for the period from April 20, 1983 through
May 3 , 1 9 8 8 .
DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE
INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT
The Complainants, Fran and Roy Minnick, Route 5, Box 55, Hedgesville,
Berkeley County, dispute a bill for electric service rendered by P.E. on
March 4 , 1 9 8 6 , in the amount of $ 3 9 8 . 4 9 , and they allege that they have not
been given credit for a payment on their account made in August 1 9 8 6 , in
the amount of $ 2 9 3 . 0 0 .
(Tr., pp. 7 , 8 , 1 4 ) .
The Complainants heat their home with a wood stove, a KeroSun heater
and an electric space heater, Their electrical appliances consist of a
refrigerator, range, electric hot water heater and washing machine. (Tr.,
pp. 9 - 1 1 ) .
Mrs. Minnick testified that her bimonthly bills normally range from
$ 8 0 . 0 0 to $200.00 and she contends that there was no way she could have
(Tr., pp. 8 - 9 ) .
used that much electricity to justify a bill of $ 3 9 8 . 4 9 .
Mrs. Minnick further testified that during the period her hot water tank
"busted" and that the hot water heater ran for three days before she called
an electrician to disconnect it. ( T r . , p. 10). She a l s o testified that
during the billing period she occasionally used an electric space heater.
(Tr., p. 1 0 ) .
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF W E S T V I R G I N I A
-3L
Mrs. Minnick got behind in paying her electric bill after her husband
was injured in a motorcycle wreck in 1 9 8 4 . (Tr., p. 6 ) . After the disputed bill was rendered on March 4 , 1 9 8 6 , her account balance was $ 1 , 6 6 1 . 2 0 .
(Tr., p. 6 ; P.E. Exh. No. 1). On March 13, 1 9 8 6 , P.E. extended to the
Complainants a Deferred Payment Plan whereby they would pay the current
bill plus $100.00 per month until the delinquent balance was paid. (Tr.,
pp. 1 5 - 1 6 ) . Mrs. Minnick has at time experienced difficulties in complying
with the terms of the Deferred Payment Plan, however, as of the date of the
hearing her account balance had been reduced to approximately $576.72.
(Tr., pp. 1 5 , 1 6 , 3 9 ) .
Mrs. Minnick contends that she was not given credit for a $293.00
payment on her account made in August, 1 9 8 6 . She stated that she only had
$ 1 9 3 . 0 0 , that she borrowed $50.00 from each of her two daughters, put the
cash in the billing envelope and deposited the envelope in P.E.'s night
deposit box. She testified that the next day she received a letter from
P.E. saying that there was no money in the envelope. (Tr., pp. 1 4 - 1 5 ) .
Attached to the complaint is a letter addressed to Roy A. and Fran Minnick
from The Potomac Edison Company dated August 11, 1 9 8 6 which states: "We
received in our night deposit box an envelope containing your bill for
$ 1 9 2 . 6 1 and your installment payment agreement for $100.00, but payment was
not enclosed." The letter was not signed. (Tr., p. 15). Mrs. Minnick
testified that her daughter was present when she put the money in the
envelope and placed it in the night deposit box. However, her daughter was
not present at the hearing and Mrs. Minnick explained that she did not know
the whereabouts of her daughter, since she had left town six months earlier. (Tr., p. 18).
Mrs. Minnick further testified that it was her customary practice to
place cash in the night deposit box, although she had been informed by P.E.
on more than one occasion not to do s o . (Tr., p. 25).
Vicki Clipp, Residential Representative for The Potomac Edison Company, testified that on March 12, 1 9 8 6 , she investigated Mrs. Minnick's
complaint concerning the bill rendered for the period from January 2 to
March 4 , 1 9 8 6 . The consumption for the period was 1 2 0 kilowatt hours per
day. On March 12, 1 9 8 6 , when Ms. Clipp checked the meter consumption was
down to 24 kilowatt hours per day. (Tr., pp. 2 9 - 3 1 ) . Ms. Clipp was of the
opinion that the faulty hot water heater alone could not account for the
high usage, however, she stated that in conjunction with the use of the
other appliances, including the electric space heater, it was plausible
that consumption would be that high. (Tr., pp. 3 1 , 3 5 - 3 6 ) .
Ms. Clipp testified that the bill prior to the contested bill for the
billing period from October 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 to January 2 , 1 9 8 6 was $ 1 9 0 . 9 1 plus a
$ 3 . 8 2 late charge. (Tr., pp. 47-48; P.E. Exh. No. 1). The bill for the
same period from January 4 , 1 9 8 8 to March 3 , 1 9 8 8 was $ 2 1 7 . 9 2 plus a late
(Tr., p. 4 9 ; P.E. Exh. N o . 1).
charge of $ 4 . 3 6 .
~-~~
-Conicerning the n i g l t -deposit payment o f $ 2 9 3 . 0 0 for which no credit
was given, Vicki Clipp testified that when the envelope was opened by
LaShaun Holmes, a new cashier, no money was found in the envelope. (Tr.,
pp. 3 2 - 3 3 , 4 4 ) .
The envelope contained the statement for $ 1 9 2 . 6 1 plus
$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 on the Deferred Payment Plan. (Tr., p. 4 3 ) . Ms. Holmes being a
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
-3 -
new employee had a n o t h e r employee t o t y p e t h e l e t t e r d a t e d August 11, 1986,
t o M r s . Minnick a d v i s i n g h e r t h a t t h e r e was no money i n t h e envelope.
( T r . , p p . 32-33, 4 0 - 4 1 ) .
M s . Clipp t e s t i f i e d t h a t when d i s c u s s i n g t h i s
m a t t e r w i t h M r s . Minnick, M r s . Minnick informed h e r t h a t s h e had p l a c e d
$100.00 i n t h e envelope, n o t $293.00.
M r . Clipp f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t
P.E. h a s n o t experienced any problems w i t h t h e honesty of i t s o f f i c e s t a f f .
( T r . , p. 3 2 ) .
F I N D I N G S OF FACT
The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judge ( A L J ) i s of t h e o p i n i o n and f i n d s t h a t :
1.
On December 9 , 1987, Fran and Roy Minnick f i l e d a formal comp l a i n t a g a i n s t The Potomac Edison Company d i s p u t i n g a b i l l rendered on
March 4 , 1986 f o r $398.49 p l u s a l a t e charge of $7.97, and a l l e g i n g t h a t
c r e d i t was n o t g i v e n f o r a payment on t h e i r account made i n August 1986, i n
t h e amount of $293.00.
( A p p l i c a t i o n ; T r . , pp. 7-8, 1 4 ) .
2.
The d i s p u t e d b i l l w a s f o r s e r v i c e r e n d e r e d f o r t h e p e r i o d from
January 2 , 1986 through March 4 , 1986. ( T r . , pp. 47-48; P . E . Exh. No. 1 ) .
A t t h e t i m e t h e d i s p u t e d b i l l was r e n d e r e d , t h e Complainants owed
3.
a b a l a n c e on t h e i r account of $1,254.74.
(P.E. Exh. No. 1 ) .
4.
The b i l l p r i o r t o t h e d i s p u t e d b i l l f o r service rendered from
October 30, 1985 through January 2 , 1986, w a s $190.91 p l u s a l a t e charge of
$3.82.
(P.E. Exh. No. 1 ) .
The b i l l rendered f o r t h e n e x t b i l l i n g p e r i o d , a f t e r t h e d i s p u t e d
5.
b i l l , f o r service rendered f o r March 4 , 1986 through May 5 , 1 9 8 6 , w a s
$ 6 9 . 4 0 p l u s $1.13 l a t e charge.
(P.E. Exh. No. 1 ) .
6.
The b i l l rendered f o r w i n t e r s e r v i c e f o r t h e months of January
and February of 1988, w a s $217.92 p l u s a l a t e charge of $4.36.
(Tr.,
pp. 48, 4 9 ; P.E. Exh. NO. 1 ) .
7.
On March 1 3 , 1986, P . E . extended t o t h e Complainants a Deferred
Payment Plan whereby t h e y would pay t h e c u r r e n t b i l l p l u s $100.00 p e r month
( T r . , pp. 15-16).
u n t i l t h e d e l i n q u e n t b a l a n c e was p a i d .
8.
The Complainants h e a t t h e i r home w i t h a wood s t o v e , a KeroSun
h e a t e r and an e l e c t r i c space h e a t e r .
( T r . , pp. 9 - 1 1 ) .
The d i s p u t e d b i l l w a s f o r service rendered f o r t h e h e a t i n g season
9.
of January and F e b r u a r y , 1986, d u r i n g which p e r i o d t h e Complainants e x p e r i enced problems w i t h t h e i r e l e c t r i c h o t water h e a t e r .
( T r . , pp. 9-11, 48;
P . E . Exh. No. 1 ) .
'f-6; -Mrs; T i n n T - i a l s o t e s t i - f i e d - t h a t h e r husband used an e l e c t r i c
space h e a t e r because h i s l e g would n e v e r g e t warm due t o i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d
i n a motorcycle a c c i d e n t .
( T r . , p. 49).
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF W E S T V I R G I N I A
-Ir-
.
11. On or about August 10, 1986, Mrs. Minnick placed an envelope in
P.E.'s night deposit box containing a bill of $192.61, plus $100.00 on the
Deferred Payment Plan. Mrs. Minnick testified that she had placed $293.00
in cash in the envelope. (Tr., pp. 14-15, 43).
12. P.E. found no money in the night deposit envelope and informed
(Tr.,
Mrs. Minnick of that fact by letter dated August 11, 1986.
pp. 14-15, 32-33).
13. Vicki Clipp, P.E.'s Residential Representative, testified that in
discussing the night deposit payment with Mrs. Minnick, Mrs. Minnick
informed her that she had placed $100.00 in cash in the envelope. (Tr.,
p. 33).
14. P.E. has not experienced problems with the honesty of its office
staff. (Tr., p . 32).
15.
that she
although
(Tr., pp.
Mrs. Minnick did not have any witnesses to testify to the fact
actually placed $293.00 in cash in P.E.'s night deposit box,
she stated that her two daughters were with her at the time.
14, 18).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The ALJ is of the opinion, finds and concludes that:
1.
The Complainants have failed t o present facts sufficient to show
that The Potomac Edison Company has violated the Rules and Regulations of
this Commission or the laws of the State of West Virginia, and that the
proceeding upon the complaint filed herein on December 9, 1987, should be
dismissed.
2.
A s to the disputed bill of $398.49, plus a late charge of $9.97,
for service rendered for the period from January 2, 1986 through March 4,
1986, no evidence was presented to show that the bill was improperly
calculated or that the meter was malfunctioning or improperly read. The
evidence does, however, show that the billing was for two of the coldest
months of the heating season, that the Complainants' home was partially
heated by an electric space heater and that during the billing period in
question the Complainants' electric hot water heater operated continuously
for a period of three days. Under such circumstances, it can reasonably be
expected that the electric bill would be higher than normal. There were no
billing problems before or after the bill in dispute.
3.
The Complainants have failed to show by clear and convincing
evidence that The Potomac Edison Company failed to credit her account for a
cash payment of $293.00 placed in the night deposit box. Mrs. Minnick's
testimony was not corroborated by any other wi.ness, altho-ugh-she- stated
that her- iiaughters were present at the -time of the transaction. The
evidence is also conflicting as to the amount of money supposedly placed in
the night deposit box.
PUBLIC S E R V I C E C O M M I S S I O N
OF W E S T V I R G I N I A
-5-
4.
Mrs. Clipp testified that when discussing the night deposit with
Mrs. Minnick, she was informed that $100.00 had been placed in the night
deposit box. At the time of the alleged payment, the Complainants' account
balance was $1,252.68. (P.E. Exh. No. 1 ) .
5.
There is not sufficient evidence in the record to indicate that
the Complainants actually made the alleged payment.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the proceeding upon the complaint filed
by Fran and Roy Minnick on December 9 , 1987, against The Potomac Edison
Company be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
The Executive Secretary is hereby ordered to serve a copy of this
order upon the Commission by hand delivery, and upon all parties of record
by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested.
Leave is hereby granted to the parties to file written exceptions
supported by a brief with the Executive Secretary of the Commission within
fifteen (15) days of the date this order is mailed. If exceptions are
filed, the parties filing exceptions shall certify to the Executive Secretary that all parties of record have been served said exceptions.
If no exceptions are s o filed this order shall become the order of the
Commission, without further action or order, five (5) days following the
expiration o f the aforesaid fifteen (15) day time period, unless it is
ordered stayed or postponed by the Commission.
Any party may request waiver of the right to file exceptions to an
Administrative Law Judge's Order by filing an appropriate petition in
writing with the Secretary. N o such waiver will be effective until approved by order of the Commission, nor shall any such waiver operate to
make any Administrative Law Judge's Order or Decision the order of the
Commission sooner than five ( 5 ) days after approval of such waiver by the
Commission.
d 0 L Ad
%zard
D. McDonnell
Administrative Law Judge
McD: dfs
PUBLIC S E R V I C E COMMISSION
OF W E S T VIRGINIA
-6-