Case Background
On November
12, 2020, Mr. Richard Davis filed an informal complaint with the Commission’s
Office of Consumer Assistance & Outreach (CAO) regarding his electric
account with Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). In his informal complaint, Mr. Davis attached
a final notice of disconnection for nonpayment from FPL. He also included a
document titled UCC Financing Statement Addendum that he alleged constitutes
payment of his FPL account balance. In accordance with Rule 25-22.032, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the documentation Mr. Davis provided was
forwarded to the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel (GCL) for review. Staff
confirmed that the documentation provided did not constitute payment of his
account balance. Staff also did not identify a violation by FPL of any applicable
statutes, rules, or Commission orders. Accordingly, the informal complaint was
closed by letter to Mr. Davis dated December 8, 2020.
On February
17, February 19, and February 26, 2021, Mr. Davis sent additional e-mails
reiterating his contention that he should not be responsible for payment on his
FPL account. In response, CAO staff e-mailed him on February 19, February 22,
and February 26, 2021, stating that GCL had confirmed that the documentation he
provided does not constitute payment of his FPL account balance, and that if he
did not pay his account balance in a form of currency acceptable to FPL, his service
may be disconnected for nonpayment upon notice pursuant to Rule 25-6.105, F.A.C.
On June 30,
2021, staff received new correspondence from Mr. Davis. Since the previous
complaint had been closed longer than 30 days, staff opened information request
1373066C. Staff responded via e-mail on June 30, 2021, again stating that GCL confirmed
that the documentation Mr. Davis provided on June 30, 2021, does not constitute
payment of his account balance. Mr. Davis then telephoned staff requesting an
administrative hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Staff
responded with a letter dated July 29, 2021, informing Mr. Davis of the process
for a formal complaint per Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C.
On August 11,
2021, Mr. Davis filed a request for hearing. This recommendation addresses the
appropriate disposition of Mr. Davis’s August 11, 2021, filing. The Commission
has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes
(F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate disposition of Mr. Davis's request
for hearing?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Mr. Davis's request for
hearing be denied without prejudice. Mr. Davis’s request for hearing does not follow
the requirements of a formal complaint per Rule 25- 22.036, F.A.C. (Osborn,
Crawford)
Staff Analysis:
Staff sent correspondence dated July 29, 2021, to
Mr. Davis informing him of the process for filing a formal complaint pursuant
to Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C. The letter included copies of Rules 25-22.032 and
25-22.036, F.A.C., and Section 120.57, F.S.
Pursuant to Rule 25-22.036(3)(b), F.A.C., a complaint shall
contain the rule, order, or statute that has been violated; the actions that
constitute the violation; the name and address of the person against whom the
complaint is lodged; and the specific relief requested, including any penalty
sought.
Mr. Davis’s request does not meet these requirements. In
his request, he does state his FPL account number. He claims to be a non-legal
entity and that he has “been unknowingly complicit in a fraud perpetuated by
the local providers of utilities.” He then alleges that he is not the class of
user that is to be billed, he is not using the service in federally regulated
activity, and he is not using the service within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. He alleges that disconnecting his
service for inability to legally pay is cruel and unusual punishment and that
it is impossible to pay in Federal Reserve Notes because those are debt
obligations and not “money.”
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 that affects the complainant's substantial interests
and that is in violation of a statute enforced by the Commission, or of any
Commission rule or order. Mr. Davis's request fails to show that FPL' s disconnection
of his service violates a statute, rule, or order as required by Rule
25-22.036(2), F.A.C.
As Mr. Davis has been informed by correspondence dated
December 8, 2020; February 19, February 22, and February 26, 2021; and June 30,
2021, a UCC Financing Statement Addendum does not constitute payment of his
account balance and nonpayment of his account balance in a form of currency
acceptable to FPL may result in disconnection for nonpayment upon notice,
pursuant to Rule 25-6.105, F.A.C.
In the letter dated December 8, 2020, CAO staff informed
Mr. Davis that Rules 25-6.101 and 25-6.105, F.A.C., indicate that an electric
bill is considered past due if the payment has not been received within 20 days
from the date the utility mailed or delivered the bill. If the company does not
receive a payment by the end of the twentieth day, it has to mail a final
notice of at least five working days before it can disconnect the customer’s
service for nonpayment. Staff stated they had learned from FPL that on October
19, 2020, FPL had sent a regular monthly bill to Mr. Davis that included
current charges, a late payment charge, and a past due balance. On November 10,
2020, FPL mailed Mr. Davis a final notice requesting the past due balance by
November 18, 2020, to avoid a service interruption.
Mr. Davis did not identify any statutes, rules, or
orders that FPL violated in handling his account. His request for hearing also
did not comply with the other requirements of the applicable rule: the actions
that would constitute such a violation, or the specific relief requested,
including any penalty sought. Mr. Davis framed his filing as a request for
hearing. As has been previously explained to him, however, until such time as
the Commission makes a decision that affects his substantial interests (such as
deciding on a formal complaint), no opportunity to request an administrative
hearing is available to him.
Pursuant to Rule 25-22.036(2), F.A.C., a complaint is
dismissed with prejudice if no cause of action is stated and an amended
pleading will not cure the deficiency. Staff believes Mr. Davis should be
afforded the opportunity to amend his filing to comply with the requirements of
Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C. Staff therefore recommends that the Commission deny without
prejudice Mr. Davis’s request for hearing.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order. (Osborn, Crawford)
Staff Analysis:
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order.
