DATE:	February 21, 2013
TO:	Office of Commission Clerk (Cole)
FROM:	Office of the General Counsel (Brown) Office of Consumer Assistance and Outreach (Plescow) Division of Economics (King, Daniel)
RE:	Docket No. 060774-EI – Complaint of Frederick Smallakoff against Florida Power & Light Company concerning alleged improper bills, Case No. 696236E.
AGENDA:	03/05/13 – Regular Agenda – Proposed Agency Action - Interested Persons May Participate
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:			All Commissioners
PREHEARING OFFICER:			Brisé
CRITICAL DATES:			None
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:			Schedule immediately preceding Docket No. 120176-EI
FILE NAME AND LOCATION:			S:\PSC\GCL\WP\060774.RCM.DOC

 

 Case Background

This consumer complaint was initially filed informally with the Commission’s Office of Consumer Assistance and Outreach (CAO) on April 24, 2006.  In the complaint Mr. Smallakoff alleged that his electric bills for his account with Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) were unusually high for the months of July, August, and September of 2005, and his efforts to get FPL to reduce the bills had not been successful.  The amount in dispute was $300. CAO staff and technical staff investigated Mr. Smallakoff’s complaint and determined that the meter tests and voltage studies that FPL conducted at Mr. Smallakoff’s residence were correctly performed and indicated that the facilities were operating within acceptable limits.  The staff determined that FPL had not violated any Commission statutes, rules, or orders, and Mr. Smallakoff’s bills were likely due to increased usage in the summer months.  The staff indicated that the informal complaint should be closed.  Mr. Smallakoff disputed those findings and objected to closing his complaint.

Mr. Smallakoff contacted the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) for assistance in pursuing his complaint, and on November 30, 2006, OPC filed a letter on Mr. Smallakoff’s behalf requesting that the Commission open a formal docket to address his continuing concerns.  Accordingly this docket was opened on December 1, 2006, and the Commission clerk sent notice of the formal complaint to FPL on December 4, 2006.

On April 12, 2007, OPC sent Mr. Smallakoff a letter (Attachment A) in which it indicated that it had negotiated a settlement of the disputed amount in the complaint and FPL had credited Mr. Smallakoff’s account for $300 on April 2, 2007.  OPC declined to assign a lawyer from its office to conduct depositions or assist further in the case.  OPC suggested that Mr. Smallakoff could address the Commission himself when the Commission considered his complaint.  FPL confirmed that it had credited Mr. Smallakoff’s account for the $300 in a letter to him dated April 18, 2007 (Attachment B).

Staff initially scheduled a recommendation on the complaint for May 23, 2007, for consideration by the Commission at its June 5, 2007 Agenda Conference.  Mr. Smallakoff requested additional time to provide additional documentation in support of his continuing complaint against FPL, and on April 19, 2007, staff agreed to reschedule consideration of the complaint.  On September 20, 2007, staff again agreed to provide Mr. Smallakoff additional time to provide documentation.  Since then staff has revised the Docket schedule every 4 to 6 months, awaiting further documentation from Mr. Smallakoff to support his continuing complaint.  No further documentation or information from Mr. Smallakoff has been forthcoming.

Recently FPL contacted Mr. Smallakoff in a further effort to resolve this longstanding complaint and agreed to resolve Mr. Smallakoff’s continuing dispute over the timing of his bill payments and late payment charges FPL assessed against his account.  FPL again agreed to cancel all outstanding charges for service through June 4, 2012, which amounted to $406.13.  See, letters from Heidi Ellenberger, Regulatory Customer Relations Manager for FPL to Mr. F. Smallakoff, dated June 12, 2012 and September 17, 2012, and FPL’s Customer Inquiry Response relating FPL’s recent contacts with Mr. Smallakoff (Attachment C).

This recommendation addresses whether Mr. Smallakoff’s complaint has been adequately resolved by FPL and should, therefore, be denied.  The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Issues

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission deny Mr. Smallakoff’s complaint against FPL?

Recommendation:  Yes.  FPL has resolved this complaint by crediting Mr. Smallakoff’s account with the amount in dispute of $300 and a further amount of $406.13.  There is no credible evidence or documentation showing that FPL is currently in violation of any Commission statute, rule or order with respect to Mr. Smallakoff’s account, and therefore there is no relief that the Commission could grant in this matter.  (M. Brown, King, Plescow)

 

Staff Analysis: 

 Although Mr. Smallakoff has indicated that his recent communication with Ms. Ellenberger and FPL’s willingness to resolve what he perceived to be continuing billing discrepancies is a satisfactory resolution of his complaint, he has not been willing to withdraw it. The facts indicate, however, that the gravamen of the complaint has been resolved.  There are now no additional billing disputes between Mr. Smallakoff and FPL, and there are no outstanding overdue balances on the account.  Staff has not uncovered, and Mr. Smallakoff has not provided, any additional credible evidence that FPL has failed to comply with any applicable statute, rule, or order within the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding Mr. Smallakoff’s account.  There is, therefore, no further relief that the Commission could grant in this matter.  Staff recommends that the complaint should be denied.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected files a protest to the Commission’s proposed agency action order within 21 days, the docket may be closed upon issuance of a consummating order. (M. Brown)

Staff Analysis: 

  If no person whose substantial interests are affected files a protest to the Commission’s proposed agency order within 21 days, the docket may be closed upon issuance of a consummating order.