DATE:

November 18, 2004

TO:

Director, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó)

FROM:

Office of the General Counsel (Brown)

Division of Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Assistance (Hicks)

Division of Economic Regulation (Kummer)

RE:

Docket No. 041169-EI – Complaint Nos. 445185E, 446514E, 446515E, and 446516E Filed by Mr. Jude Alcegueire against Florida Power and Light Company for High Bills and Other Alleged Violations of Commission Rules and Statutes.

AGENDA:

11/30/04 – Regular Agenda – Proposed Agency Action – Interested Persons May Participate

CRITICAL DATES:

None

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

None

FILE NAME AND LOCATION:

S:\PSC\ECR\WP\041169A.RCM.DOC

Nov 24, 1999

Customer established service at current address.  FPL informed customer that based on his Equifax report, he would be required to pay a $550 deposit prior to establishment of service in accordance with PSC rules.  Customer requested his deposit be reduced to $250 which was denied but payment arrangements were made for the balance of the deposit.

Dec. 6, 1999

Deposit was further reduced to $500, and the $50 credited to his account

Feb. 15, 2000

Account disconnected for non-payment.  Customer requested payment extension and again raised the deposit issue.  Deposit was further reduced to $250 with the outstanding credit applied to his account although his account indicated that the average two months bill was $350.

Mar. 26, 2000

Customer requested that his deposit be refunded, which FPL denied, explaining that the deposit balance was applied to the outstanding balance on his bill.

Oct. 6, 2000

Customer filed a high bill complaint.  FPL removed and tested customer’s meter and found it to be within allowed tolerance but issued a courtesy credit for the month of October 2000 to settle the complaint.

June 6,  2001

Customer again filed a high bill complaint.  Despite repeated attempts, FPL stated that it was unable to reach the customer to discuss the matter and service was disconnected for a past due amount of $278.

Aug. 20, 2001

Service was disconnected for a past due balance.  Customer again  contacted FPL and complained of high bills.

Aug. 22, 2001

FPL allowed reconnection for $115 payment on the outstanding balance and conducted another high bill investigation.  As part of this investigation, FPL again tested the meter and found it to be within tolerance.  FPL found a window air conditioner operating, and a pool pump with no operable timer.  A message was left explaining the meter test results.  Customer called FPL and asked to speak with a supervisor.  A supervisor returned the call but had to leave a message on the answering machine.  FPL records do not indicate that customer called the supervisor back. 

Aug. 30, 2001

Since the bills were determined to be accurate, final notice for service disconnection was again issued with a final due date of September 10, 2001. 

Sept. 12, 2001

Customer contacted FPL executive offices and said bill was based on speculation.  Test results were  reviewed with the customer who then indicated that a resident in his household was on medically essential equipment.  FPL mailed customer the MES application package but it was never returned.  A payment arrangement was made and completed for the past balance due on August 20.

Oct. 1, 2001

Because bills continued to accrue, final notice for disconnection was issued with a due date of October 9, 2001.  Customer contacted FPL on numerous occasions between  October 9 and November 5, requesting to speak with a ‘scientist’ about appliance electric usage.  When FPL informed him, there was no such person available and that he should contact the appliance manufacturer, he again filed a high bill complaint.  On November 5, customer agreed to another high bill investigation.

Nov. 6, 2001

Investigation was completed and FPL did not find any abnormal conditions with the customer’s equipment or FPL’s meter.

Jan. 26, 2002

Customer reported flickering lights.  FPL repaired  the service drop that same day.

Feb. 1, 2002

Final notice of disconnection was issued with a final due date of Feb. 11, 2002.  Customer contacted FPL about food spoilage from the Jan. 26 flickering, and indicated that he had experienced partial service outage from Jan 25 through Jan. 26.  He requested $900 in food loss, laundry service, a damaged light fixture, and the cost of minor electrical repairs.  The customer did not provide the required documentation, however, FPL offered a courtesy payment of $300 which was accepted by the customer.

Feb. 21, 2002

Customer again contacted FPL with a high bill complaint, alleging that the flickering condition repaired on Jan. 26 caused his electric bills to be high.  Several attempts were made to explain that the problem repaired was at the weather head, before the meter.

Mar. 15, 2002

Customer agreed to another high bill investigation, however, when FPL arrived on Mar. 19 to perform investigation, customer refused the investigation, stating that he only wanted his previous bills credited.  He spoke with a supervisor who reviewed the three previous high bill complaint investigations and two meter tests.  Customer  stated that the only way he would be satisfied was if his bills were no more than $80 -$90 per month.  Based upon the review, supervisor declined to adjust the bills but offered to have the meter tested again.

Mar. 25, 2002

Meter serviceman went to customer’s home to remove meter for testing, however customer denied access to meter, indicating that he had not requested the test.  He reiterated that he only wanted his bills adjusted.  Customer called FPL executive offices and spoke with the VP of Customer Services who again denied the requested relief.  According to FPL, the customer then attempted to contact FPL Group CEO approximately 80 times that same day after his request to speak to the CEO was denied.  FPL corporate security contacted the customer and informed him that any further contact with FPL’s executive offices would be considered harassment and a police report was filed.

Mar. 25, 2002

PSC/CAF records show that the customer contacted the PSC concerning an overbilling situation with FPL which he said has been going on for 2 years.  Complaint 446185E was opened.

April 1, 2002,

Customer again contacted CAF with additional complaints that FPL had run a credit check on him without his authorization and that the deposit requested by FPL to initiate service was too high.  Customer was also upset that a complaint had been opened on his initial call “since there was no agreement.”  He stated that he wanted the complaint reassigned to another analyst and that he would file a new complaint every time a different issue came up.  Case was reassigned.  Four different complaints were opened.  In addition to the original complaint 445185E, Complaint files 446514E (credit report run without his consent), 446515E (excessive deposit)  and 446516E  (request for policies and procedures for initiating service) were opened on 4/1/02.

April 15, 2002

Response received from FPL indicating that there was no record of a credit report on the customer’s account but that an inquiry was made to Equifax for a credit score to determine an appropriate deposit.  Further, Equifax does not show any inquiry from FPL in the last 24 months, saying that a utility inquiry  would not affect the customer’s credit report.  FPL also provided the account history as outlined above.

May 15, 2002

Staff responded by letter to the customer on all the open complaints, concluding that it did not appear that FPL had violated any PSC rules or its tariff and closing the complaints. 

Jun. 14, 2002

Customer faxes his request for an informal conference to PSC/CAF.  (Attachment A, Page 14)

July 15, 2002

PSC by letter acknowledged the request for informal conference and enclosed the  PSC/CAF Form X as specified by the then applicable Rule 25-22.032(8).  Customer was instructed to complete form and return it to the PSC by no later than July 30, 2002, or the request for informal conference would be denied.

July 25, 2002

Customer returned the Form X but it was incomplete.  The only information he provided was that he had talked with Dr. Bane and she had all the facts.  He did not identify specific issues in dispute or a dollar amount in dispute, or indicate a suggested resolution.  (Attachment A, Page 17)

Aug. 8, 2002

PSC General Counsel McLean sent a letter with a second Form X, indicating that the customer needed to respond to all the items in order to facilitate an informal conference and respond by no later than Aug. 16, 2002.  (Attachment A, Page 18)

Aug. 13, 2002

Customer returned the second Form X , listing the issues to be addressed, stating that all facts were in dispute, that he did not know the dollar amount in dispute, and did not provide a proposed resolution.  Again, he indicated that he had spoken with Dr. Bane on his concerns.  (Attachment A, Page 20)

Aug. 22, 2002

Legal requested copy of customer’s file, and responsibility for case was transferred to Legal Division.

Nov. 18, 2002

After review of file, Legal closes all complaints by letter to customer, explaining the findings on each issue raised.

Nov. 22, 2002

Customer sends fax addressed to Dr. Bane, providing more detail on the four original complaints and adding three new complaints alleging (1) FPL denied him access to documents that he needed to show that the meter stopped working and that he is therefore not responsible for the high bills; (2) that FPL did not follow Federal or state laws with regard to FPL’s request for a credit score; and (3) that he be provided with a copy of the meter test performed by FPL showing the reading was not accurate “in the transformer need to be changed with two line connection.” (Attachment A, Page 21)

Nov 2002 – Jun 2003

FPL and staff continue to work with customer to address his concerns and reach a mutually agreeable settlement.

July 22, 2003

Additional information received from FPL, providing a detailed response to each point raised by the customer as described in Nov. 22, 2002, fax from customer.

Aug 5, 2003

Copies of the Customer’s CATS forms along with information gathered in response to the Customer’s Nov. 21, 2002 letter forwarded to Legal.

Aug. 29, 2003

PSC sent letter to Customer establishing an informal conference by telephone on September 18, 2003.

Sept. 2, 2003

Customer indicated that he did not want a telephonic conference because he wanted to see PSC staff and company representatives.  He also objected to combining all his complaints into one informal conference – he wanted a separate conference for each one and said that his constitutional rights would be violated if separate conferences were not held.

Sept. 4, 2003

Customer was informed that he could either participate by telephone or come to Tallahassee for the informal conference.  Customer insisted that PSC staff would have to come to south Florida and that he did not have to come to Tallahassee.

Sept. 9, 2003

Customer was informed that PSC legal staff had determined that his four complaints could be addressed in one informal conference.  Customer again refused to participate in a telephonic informal conference.

Sept. 10, 2003

PSC General Counsel McLean confirmed by letter that the customer could participate telephonically or in person in Tallahassee on September 18, 2003, because due to limited resources staff could not travel to south Florida for the conference.  (Attachment A, Page 24)

Sept. 17, 2003

Customer was informed that informal conference was cancelled and that a new informal conference would be scheduled.  Customer requested that staff bring the PSC rules to the conference and that he had been told that staff would be coming down to Miami for the conference.  He also requested that the conference be recorded and transcribed.  He was informed that all informal conferences are recorded and that he could request a copy of the tape for transcription, but that the PSC did not transcribe the tape.

Nov. 19, 2003

Customer was sent a  letter by both regular and certified mail indicating that a second informal conference would be held at 1:00 pm in the PSC’s Miami office on December 12, 2003.  (Attachment A, Page 25)

Dec. 8, 2003

Customer called to confirm the date and time of the informal conference.

Dec. 10, 2003

Staff called the customer to remind him of the informal conference and again provided the office address and the time for the conference.

Dec. 12, 2003

PSC and FPL staff were available to participate in an informal conference in the Miami PSC office at 1:00 pm.  Customer called PSC General Counsel’s office to say he was lost and that his arrival would be delayed.  Customer arrived at 2:10 pm,  Customer refused to be recorded and objected to CAF staff person conducting the hearing, stating he would only participate if someone else conducted the conference.  The attending PSC attorney offered to conduct the conference but the customer refused to participate because the attorney was not a certified mediator.  He stated he would be willing to return in 3 to 4 months, once the attorney had received the training.  Customer also objected to conference being tape recorded, insisting on a court reporter because he believed the Florida Constitution mandated that an informal conference be recorded by a court reporter.  Further, the customer objected to the nine FPL representatives at the conference, saying that he was an FPL stockholder and that those FPL employees should be back at the office working.  FPL staff explained that the numerous FPL staff were present to be sure all his concerns were addressed.  The informal conference was not held because the customer refused to participate.

Mar 2, 2004

Closure letter was sent to customer, by regular and certified mail.  Letter detailed customer’s refusal to participate and noted that pursuant to Rule 25-22.032(8), if a customer refuses to participate in an informal conference, then the original resolution stands.  The letter states that all four complaints will be closed and no further action taken by the PSC.

Mar 9, 2004

Letter from General Counsel Melson to customer confirming telephone conversation with customer, reiterating the position that FPL had handled his complaint in full compliance with PSC informal complaint rules and that there had been no denial of his due process rights.  The letter also indicates that the customer may file a formal, written complaint since the informal process has been exhausted.  The letter described the procedure and rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.  The letter included a copy of the FAW rules on formal proceedings.  (Attachment A, Page 27)

April 14, 2004

After a telephone conversation with customer, Dr. Bane sent a letter to customer providing four dates for a third informal conference.  The letter also indicated that if the customer did not contact her by April 16, 2004, the conference would be scheduled for April 29, 2004.  (Attachment A, Page 37)

April 15, 2004

Letter from Dr. Bane clarifying that the renewed offer for informal conference in lieu of a formal complaint was in response to customer’s insistence that he had not abandoned the informal process.(Attachment A, Page 38)

April 16, 2004

Letter to Customer confirming April 29, 2004 date for third informal conference.  (Attachment A, Page 40 )

April 29, 2004

Third informal conference was attempted by telephone, pursuant to Dr. Bane’s conversation with customer.  Customer again refused to participate, stating that FPL had refused to provide him with the documents he had requested and that he could not proceed until he had those documents.  Staff requested that the Customer provide FPL with a written list of the documents he alleged FPL had failed to provide and staff would ensure that he received them.  Customer also raised issue of reliability, stating that FPL’s transformer must be the cause of his high bills.  Customer refused to talk to staff and insisted on speaking only to Dr. Bane.  Staff requested PSC staff engineer perform a site inspection to determine if there appeared to be any malfunction with FPL’s facilities  serving the customer’s home.

May 18, 2004

FPL representative hand delivered requested documents (53 pages) to customer’s home. 

May 24, 2004

A copy of the package of documents delivered to Customer pursuant to customer’s April 4, 2004 list was provided to staff who determined that all the requested information, to the extent it was available, was included in package delivered to customer.

June 1, 2004

Staff engineer reported that he visited the customer’s location on June 1 and that, apart from some tree trimming, he did not see anything that appeared to be malfunctioning.  He also noted that FPL was in the process of installing a second transformer serving the Customer, splitting the load on the current transformer, which should result in more reliable service.  The engineer noted that the customer apparently had refused to allow the FPL employees on his property to install the new transformer, and that the customer should be encouraged to do so, to improve his service reliability.  (Attachment A, Page 42)

June 23, 2004

A fourth informal conference was scheduled for July 14, 2004.

July 9, 2004

Staff called customer to remind him of informal conference on July 14.

July 13, 2004

Fax from customer to Dr. Bane, indicating that he is willing to participate in informal conference but FPL will not provide him with the documents he requested.  He insisted that Dr. Bane take charge and “make certain that no one at the public commission violate the law by (rushing) without applying the law of the state.”  (Attachment A, Page 56)

July 14, 2004

Staff attempted several times to contact customer to commence informal conference.  Customer contacted Dr. Bane and left a message saying FPL had not responded to his request for documents.  Dr. Bane returned the call and left a message informing the Customer that this was his last opportunity to  participate in an informal conference and that the next step would be to take a recommendation to the Commissioners.  Customer did not participate.

July 29, 2004

Dr. Bane sent letter to customer indicating that he had exhausted the informal conference proceedings and the next step would be a recommendation to the Commissioners.  (Attachment A, Page 58)

Sept. 21, 2004

Staff opened Docket No. 041169-EI to address the Customer’s complaints.

Oct. 21, 2004

Staff Recommendation was filed in Docket No. 041169-EI for the Nov. 2, 2004, Agenda Conference, recommending the Commission dismiss the complaints because it appeared that FPL’s actions had not violated any applicable PSC rules, regulations or its tariff.

Oct. 26, 2004

Staff filed a request for deferral of the complaints from the Nov. 2 to the Nov. 30 Agenda Conference, based on the customer’s assertion that an illness in his family prevented him from attending the Nov. 2 Agenda.

Oct. 27, 2004 

Customer contacted technical staff and indicated that the recommendation contained errors and that he had a right to have the errors corrected prior to going to Agenda.  Customer also asked who had conducted the investigation since he had never been contacted about an investigation.  He insisted that since none of the staff members on the docket were “investigators” by job title, no investigation had been conducted.  Customer was transferred to staff person’s supervisor who reviewed the file and spoke with the customer who then maintained that his side of the story had not been presented in the recommendation.  Supervisor sent a letter to customer, indicating that the customer’s correspondence describing his concerns would be added to the recommendation attachments.  The customer was further asked to respond in writing by Nov. 12 detailing any errors he saw in staff’s original recommendation.  (Attachment A, Page 61)

Nov. 2, 2004

The item was deferred to the Nov. 30, 2004 Agenda Conference.

Nov. 12, 2004

Customer did not respond to October 27 letter, however he contacted Dr. Bane on November 12 and said he never agreed to provide any comments as requested by the October 27 staff letter.  He reiterated his assertion that no investigation had taken place.  He also insisted that FPL did not have the authority to disconnect his service because FPL owed him approximately $4,000 in damages.  The customer was advised that the PSC has no jurisdiction over damage claims.  The customer then indicated he intended to file a civil suit against FPL for the damages.

Nov. 18, 2004

Revised recommendation filed for Nov. 30.  Agenda conference.