Case Background
Section 366.03,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), states that each public utility shall furnish to each
person applying for service, reasonably sufficient, adequate, and efficient
service. The Commission has jurisdiction
as set forth in Section 366.04, F.S., to regulate and supervise each public
utility with respect to its rates and service.
Rule 25-22.032,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), implements Chapter 366, F.S., and
establishes informal customer complaint procedures that are designed to address
disputes, subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, that occur between
regulated companies and individual customers.
Pursuant to this rule, any customer of a Commission regulated company
may file a complaint with the Commission’s Office of Consumer Assistance and
Outreach whenever the customer has an unresolved dispute with the company
regarding electric, gas, telephone, water, or wastewater service.
On
September 21, 2016, Richard Malcolm filed an informal complaint with the
Commission against Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). In his complaint, Mr. Malcolm stated that FPL
had wrongfully accused him of meter tampering and improperly backbilled his
account for unrecorded electric usage.
On
April 28, 2017, staff advised Mr. Malcolm that his informal complaint and FPL’s
backbilling calculations had been reviewed and that staff had determined that
Mr. Malcolm’s account was fairly and reasonably backbilled. Staff also advised Mr. Malcolm that FPL did
not violate any statute, rule, its company tariff, or orders in the
investigation of meter tampering or in the backbilling of electricity used by
Mr. Malcolm for which he did not pay due to unauthorized conditions. Staff advised Mr. Malcolm that he had an
opportunity to file a petition for formal proceedings.
On
May 1, 2017, Mr. Malcolm filed a petition for initiation of formal proceedings. In the formal complaint, Mr. Malcolm claims
that FPL has been “unjustly” awarded for allegedly “stolen” electric
services. Mr. Malcolm also states that
he is not responsible for the services because he has never opened an account
with FPL or conducted business with FPL on his own behalf.
This
recommendation addresses the appropriate disposition of Mr. Malcolm’s complaint
against FPL. The Commission has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate disposition of Mr. Malcolm’s
formal complaint?
Recommendation:
The appropriate disposition
of Mr. Malcolm’s formal complaint is to deny the complaint. Mr. Malcolm’s
account was properly billed in accordance with Commission statutes and rules
and FPL’s tariffs. FPL did not violate
any applicable statute, rule, company tariff or order of the Commission in the
processing of Mr. Malcolm’s account. (Page)
Staff Analysis:
Mr. Malcolm alleges
that FPL unjustly backbilled him for meter tampering. He also alleges that the amount
of the backbilling is unreasonable. These
allegations are discussed below.
Meter Tampering
Meter ACD5293 was located on Mr. Malcolm’s premises. On August 18, 2016, FPL determined that meter
ACD5293 should be replaced because it had stopped providing meter readings. On August 19, 2016, an FPL meter
electrician was dispatched to the location and meter ACD5293 was found in the
meter socket with no display and the outer seal missing. An unauthorized metal jumper was found in the
right side meter blocks. Meter ACD5293 was removed and a new smart meter,
ACD1656, was installed with a locking device on the metal enclosure.
On September 8, 2016,
the meter that was removed from Mr. Malcolm’s premises, meter ACD5293, was
tested by FPL in the field with the unauthorized metal jumper present. The test
results reflected that the meter was not registering within the acceptable
tolerance prescribed in Rule 25-6.052, F.A.C. The meter was found to have a Weighted
Average Registration of 73.98 percent.
On September 19, 2016,
FPL reviewed the kWh history for ACD5293 and its smart meter communications and
found a sustained drop in kWh from the billing period ending July 11, 2014 to that
ending August 11, 2016. There was a substantial
increase in kWh usage since the new smart meter, ACD1656, was installed.
On December 8, 2016,
a refereed meter test was conducted on the meter removed from Mr. Malcolm’s
premises, meter ACD5293. The meter test
results were below the acceptable tolerance with the jumper and within the
acceptable tolerance without the jumper.
FPL’s test showed a Weighted Average Registration of 83.33 percent with
the jumper and 99.62 percent without the metal jumper present. Commission staff
also tested the removed meter, with results showing a Weighted Average Registration
of 99.54 percent without the metal jumper.
Mr. Malcolm requested
that the removed meter, ACD5293, be tested at his premises. On December 19, 2016, meter ACD5293 was tested
by FPL and Commission staff at Mr. Malcolm’s premises. The test found that when the meter was tested
without the metal jumper, the meter recorded consumption accurately.
Evidence from the FPL
field investigation showed the meter removed from Mr. Malcolm’s premises, meter
ACD5293, had been tampered with. The meter test without the unauthorized
conditions reflected that the meter was operating within acceptable tolerances.
Staff believes that the unauthorized conditions found on August 19, 2016, at
meter ACD5293 and information obtained as a result of the FPL’s meter testing show that meter tampering
occurred with meter ACD5293.
Backbilling
Section 366.03, F.S., states that all rates and charges
made or received by any public utility for service rendered by it and each rule
and regulation of such public utility shall be fair and reasonable. Rule
25-6.104, F.A.C., authorizes electric utilities to backbill the customer for a
reasonable estimate of the electricity consumed but not metered due to meter
tampering or fraudulent use.
FPL’s tariff sets forth its fees, services and policies as
approved by the Commission. FPL’s Fourth
Revised Tariff Sheet No. 6.061, Section 8.3, Tampering with Meters, states:
Unauthorized
connections to, or tampering with the Company’s meter or meters, or meter
seals, or indications or evidence thereof, subjects the Customer to immediate
discontinuance of service, prosecution under the laws of Florida, adjustment of
prior bills for services rendered, and reimbursement to the Company for all
extra expenses incurred on this account.
A review of the kWh usage and
communication history for the meter removed from Mr. Malcolm’s premises, meter ACD5293,
revealed a sustained drop in usage from the billing period ending July 11, 2014
through the billing period ending August 11, 2016. Based on the Weighted Average Registration of
73.98 percent, FPL
backbilled Mr. Malcolm for the billing period ending July 11, 2014, through the
billing period ending August 11, 2016. Upon
notification by staff that the more appropriate Weighted Average Registration
was 83.33 percent, FPL adjusted the amount backbilled.
The adjusted amount backbilled
includes $1,319.15 for electric service and an additional $547.28 in
investigative charges for an adjusted total amount backbilled of $1,866.43. The
total amount Mr. Malcolm owes to FPL as of September 10, 2017, is $2,927.82.
This amount includes the $1,866.43 in backbilling and investigative charges,
and an additional $642.63 for two unpaid previous billing periods in 2016
(which originally was $710.05 and was partially offset by a payment made by Mr.
Malcolm for $67.42) and current charges of $418.76 for the September 10, 2017
billing period.
Staff believes that Mr. Malcolm’s
consumption history shows that he benefited from unauthorized conditions at his
meter by paying less for electricity than he would have with a properly working
meter without a jumper. Staff believes that Mr. Malcolm is responsible for
payment of a reasonable estimate of the electricity used but not originally
billed and that FPL may also recover the costs of its investigation of the
meter tampering.
Staff reviewed FPL’s back billing
calculations and determined that Mr. Malcolm’s account was fairly and
reasonably back billed. Staff believes
that FPL has violated no statute, rule, company tariff, or orders in the
investigation of meter tampering or in the backbilling of electricity used by
Mr. Malcolm for which he did not pay due to unauthorized conditions.
Conclusion
The appropriate disposition of Mr. Malcolm’s formal
complaint is to deny the complaint. Mr.
Malcolm’s account was properly billed in accordance with Commission statutes,
rules, orders, and FPL’s tariffs. FPL
did not violate any applicable statute, rule, company tariff or order of the
Commission in the handling of Mr. Malcolm’s account.
