Case Background
On June 22, 2018, Elizabeth Randle filed an informal complaint
with the Public Service Commission (Commission) against Duke Energy Florida,
LLC (Duke or Utility). In
her complaint, Ms. Randle stated that she was being charged for services not
rendered. Several Commission staff members worked with Ms. Randle and Duke to
resolve her informal complaint.
By letter dated March 20, 2019, staff advised Ms. Randle
that her informal complaint had been reviewed by the Commission’s Process
Review Team (PRT), in accordance with Rule 25-22.032, Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.), and it appeared that Duke had not violated any applicable
statutes, rules, company tariffs, or Commission orders. Staff advised Ms.
Randle that if she disagreed with staff’s complaint conclusion, she could file
a petition for initiation of formal proceedings for relief against Duke.
Ms. Randle filed a formal complaint against Duke on July
10, 2019, pursuant to Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C. In her complaint, Ms. Randle
stated that Duke is charging her for services not rendered and her meter is
reading inaccurately. She also stated that Duke incorrectly disconnected her
services while her informal complaint was pending.
On September 20, 2019, staff sent a letter to Ms. Randle
requesting any additional information or documentation that might assist the
Commission in addressing her complaint. On September 25, 2019, Ms. Randle told
staff she had no additional documentation.
Ms. Randle seeks for the Commission to find that Duke incorrectly
billed her account. She also requests an “updated accurate reading” of her
meter. This recommendation addresses the appropriate disposition of Ms.
Randle’s complaint against Duke. The Commission has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes.
Discussion of Issues
Issue
1: What is the appropriate disposition of Ms. Randle’s formal
complaint?
Recommendation:
Ms. Randle’s formal complaint should be denied. While it does appear that Duke
violated Rule 25-22.032(3), F.A.C., by disconnecting Ms. Randle’s electricity
while her informal complaint was pending, this violation is not related to the
relief sought by Ms. Randle. Duke did not violate any statute, rule, Utility
tariff, or order of the Commission applicable in the billing of Ms. Randle’s
account. (Simmons)
Staff
Analysis: Pursuant to Rule 25-22.036(2), F.A.C., a complaint is
appropriate when a person complains of an act or omission by a person subject
to Commission jurisdiction which affects the complainant’s substantial
interests and which is in violation of a statute enforced by the Commission, or
of any Commission rule or order. Ms. Randle’s petition fails to show that
Duke’s billing of Ms. Randle violates a statute, rule, or order as required by
Rule 25-22.036(2), F.A.C. Therefore, the Commission should deny Ms. Randle’s
petition for relief.
Ms. Randle enrolled in Duke’s Budget Billing (BB) program
on January 29, 2018. BB is an optional payment program designed to help
residential customers budget for their electric bills. The BB amount is based
on the average of a customer’s actual bills during the last 12 months. Every
three months, the BB amount is recalculated to reflect the average of the last
12 months’ actual bills and deferred balance. Ms. Randle’s BB amount for the individual
months of February, March, and April of 2018 was $129.00. Her actual usage
amount for those months totaled $635.68. This resulted in a deferred balance of
$248.68 over the three month period.
On April 5, 2018, Ms. Randle received a bill for $173.96.
This included $129.00 for BB, a $5.00 late payment charge, and a $39.96 past
due balance. On May 4, 2018, Ms. Randle was billed for $341.96. This amount
included $163.00 for BB, $173.96 for a past due balance, and a $5.00 late
payment charge. She made
a payment of $134.00 on May 15, 2018, and $120.00 on May 25, 2018, which went
towards her past due balance of $173.96, reflecting a line item credit of
$80.04 on her bill.
At the request of Ms. Randle, her account was removed from
the BB program on June 4, 2018. When her account was removed, she received a
revised May bill for $289.98. This included a deferred BB balance of $248.68, a
$5.00 late payment charge, a $5.00 balance forward, $111.34 reflecting actual
usage from April 5, 2018, to May 4, 2018, and a credit of $80.04. On
June 5, 2018, Ms. Randle received a bill for $398.36, which included $108.38
for the current bill and a $289.98 balance forward.
On June 22, 2018, Ms. Randle filed an informal complaint
with the Commission. In her complaint, she alleged that Duke overbilled her.
She also stated that they were charging her for services not rendered, that she
submitted payment twice in May, and had a credit reflected on her account.
Commission staff contacted Duke and requested a detailed report regarding Ms.
Randle’s concerns. Duke provided information on the BB program and the actions
the Utility took in regards to Ms. Randle’s billing.
On July 3, 2018, Commission staff requested that the
Utility test Ms. Randle’s meter. However, when the Utility attempted to test
Ms. Randle’s meter, she denied the meter technician access. When asked if she
would like to reschedule a test, she declined.
Staff conducted an analysis of the information received
from both Ms. Randle and Duke. Based on this analysis and discussions with both
parties, staff sent a letter to Ms. Randle on August 8, 2018, stating that it
appeared she had been billed and credited appropriately. On August 13, 2018,
Ms. Randle reiterated to Commission staff that she was being charged for
electricity that she did not use. Due to Ms. Randle’s dissatisfaction with the
disposition of her complaint, her complaint was forwarded to the PRT.
On February 11, 2019, Duke erroneously disconnected Ms.
Randle’s service. By doing so, it appears that Duke violated Rule 25-22.032(3),
F.A.C., by disconnecting Ms. Randle’s electricity while her informal complaint
was pending. However, the Utility restored Ms. Randle’s power within four hours.
After further investigation, the PRT concluded on March
20, 2019, that it appeared Duke had not violated any statutes, rules, Utility
tariffs, or Commission orders in regards to her informal complaint that Duke
overbilled her account. Ms. Randle did not agree with staff’s conclusion and filed
a formal complaint on July 10, 2019. In her formal complaint, Ms. Randle
reiterated that she was being overbilled. She also stated that her meter was
reading inaccurately and that Duke improperly disconnected her service.
In response to Ms. Randle’s formal complaint, the Utility,
accompanied by Commission staff, conducted a witnessed meter test at Ms.
Randle’s residence on October 14, 2019. The results of the meter test showed
that Ms. Randle’s meter was accurately reading her usage.
During the month of October, the Utility also offered Ms. Randle a credit
adjustment to her account in an attempt to settle the disagreement. However,
Ms. Randle declined the Utility’s offer.
Staff has conducted a thorough
and complete analysis of this matter, including participating in a witnessed
meter test. Based on the information and discussions with both the Utility and
Ms. Randle, there is no evidence that Duke billed Ms. Randle incorrectly. While
Ms. Randle did pay a total of $254 in May of 2018, that amount went towards her
past due balance of $173.96, shown as an $80.04 credit on her revised May bill.
However, the $80.04 credit was offset by the deferred balance accrued while
participating in the BB program and Ms. Randle’s actual usage amount. Commission
staff has addressed the apparent violation for the improper disconnection of
Ms. Randle’s electricity by issuing an apparent infraction
against Duke. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Commission deny
Ms. Randle’s petition as it does not demonstrate that Duke’s billing of her
account violates any statute, rule, or order.
