BEFORE THE



BEFORE THE

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Caroline Maitland :

:

v. : C-20078353

:

UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. :

INITIAL DECISION

Before

Eranda Vero

Special Agent

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING

On September 24, 2007, Caroline Maitland (Ms. Maitland or Complainant) filed a Formal Complaint (Complaint) against UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. (UGI or Respondent) alleging an inability to pay her gas bills and requesting a lower payment arrangement. On October 17, 2007, Respondent filed an Answer denying the material allegations of the Complaint.

An Initial Telephone Hearing Notice dated November 9, 2007, advised the parties that an initial telephonic hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2008, and that they could lose the case if they failed to appear for the hearing. The case was assigned to me, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code §56.174.

A Prehearing Order was issued on December 18, 2007, advising the parties of the date and time of the scheduled hearing, informing them of the procedures applicable to this proceeding and directing the submission of documents prior to the hearing. The Prehearing Order reminded the parties of their responsibility to advise the presiding officer of any change in the telephone number at which they were to be contacted.

In accordance with the provisions of the Prehearing Order, Respondent submitted three copies of four (4) proposed exhibits for possible use at the hearing.

The Telephone Hearing convened as scheduled on Thursday, January 17 2008, at 10:00 a.m.[1] Caroline Maitland appeared pro se and testified on behalf of the Complaint. Jeffery H. Sunday, Esq., represented the Respondent which sponsored four exhibits and presented the testimony of two witnesses, Teresa Entolak, a customer outreach services representative, and Ann Blaskiewicz, a supervisor of outreach and compliance for Respondent. During the hearing, Ms. Maitland stated that she had not received copies of Respondent’s proposed exhibits. After I advised Complainant of her rights, Ms. Maitland chose to continue with the hearing. I directed the attorney for Respondent to mail another copy of the proposed exhibits to Ms. Maitland and left the record open giving Complainant a chance to file any objections to the proposed exhibits and Respondent an opportunity to respond to the objections.

On January 28, 2008, I received Ms. Maitland’s written objection to Respondent’s Exhibit IV, BCS Case Summary Report for BCS Case No. 2271084, which stated that there were four individuals living in Complainant’s household. Ms. Maitland’s objection states that now that her daughter has moved out of the house there are only two people in her household. On February 12, 2008, I received Respondent’s written response to Complainant’s objection stating that the information regarding family size and income contained in Respondent’s Exhibit IV was correct and current as of August 31, 2007, the date BCS Case No. 2271084 was closed.

The record closed on February 12, 2008. Respondent’s Exhibits I-IV are admitted into the record in the ordering paragraphs below.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Complainant is Caroline Maitland, who resides at 17 Howard Street, Wilkes Barre PA, 18702.

2. Respondent is UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc.

3. On July 27, 2007, Complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS) alleging that her gas service had been terminated for nonpayment and requesting a payment arrangement. On August 31, 2007, the BCS issued its determination at BCS Case No. 2271084 directing the Complainant to pay $410.00 to restore gas service and establishing a payment arrangement. The payment arrangement established by the BCS required Complainant to pay a monthly special budget amount of $387.00 on her gas bill consisting of the regular budget amount of $242.00, plus $145.00 towards arrearages.

4. There were three individuals living in Complainant’s household at the time the BCS issued its determination at BCS Case No. 2271084.

5. On September 24, 2007, Ms. Maitland filed a formal Complaint against UGI alleging an inability to pay her gas bills and requesting a lower payment arrangement.[2]

6. Ms. Maitland currently lives at the 17 Howard Street address with her one-year old son.

7. Ms. Maitland testified that her adult daughter, who lived with her at the time when BCS issued the payment arrangement, is married and is no longer leaving in the same household as Complainant.

8. Complainant testified that she is employed full-time by Global Equipment Logistics working 40 hours per week at $13.00 per hour. She is the sole provider in her household.

9. UGI witness, Teresa Entolak, is a customer outreach services representative working with UGI’s Customer Assistance Program (CAP). Ms. Entolak testified that Complainant does not qualify for enrollment in the Respondent’s CAP program because her income is over the qualifying threshold.

10. UGI witness, Ann Blaskiewicz, is a supervisor of outreach and compliance for Respondent. Ms. Blaskiewicz testified on Complainant’s payment history, her gas consumption history and payment arrangement history for a two-year period covering the years 2006 and 2007.

11. In the years 2006 and 2007, Complainant has had four payment arrangements, three issued by Respondent and one issued by the Commission. Complainant has defaulted on all of these agreements.

12. Ms. Maitland made only six payments to Respondent in 2007 totaling $1,105.00. One of those payments was a CRISIS grant of $300.00 and another was a LIHEAP cash grant (Fuel grant) of $205.00, both applied to her account.

13. In 2006, Ms. Maitland made only five payments to her account for a total of $1,099.61. One of those payments was a grant of $200.00 applied to her account.

14. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Maitland had a balance of $3,837.96 in her account with Respondent.

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, I would like to address Ms. Maitland’s objection to Respondent’s Exhibit IV, BCS Case Summary Report for BCS Case No. 2271084. In her objection, Ms. Maitland alleges that Respondent’s Exhibit IV erroneously states that there are four people in her household. Respondent’s written response to Complainant’s objection maintains that the information regarding family size and income contained in Respondent’s Exhibit IV was correct and current as of August 31, 2007, the date BCS Case No 2271084 was closed. A careful review of Respondent’s Exhibit IV and of the Commission’s records for BCS Case No. 2271084 reveals that, indeed, there were only three individuals in Complainant’s household at the time of the BCS’ informal decision. This fact is also corroborated by Ms. Maitland’s testimony during the hearing. However, I find that the number of Complainant’s household members as included in Respondent’s Exhibit IV is irrelevant. Page 2 of Respondent’s Exhibit IV contains a summary report for BCS Case No. 2271084. It is clear from the report, as well as from the Commission’s record for BCS Case No. 2271084, that BCS applied 66 Pa. C.S. §1405 (d) to a family of three people, not four, when it issued its payment arrangement for Complainant.[3] For this reason, I will admit Respondent’s Exhibit IV into the record of this case, with a minor change on page 1 of the exhibit.

In her Formal Complaint, Complainant alleged an inability to pay her gas bills and requested a lower payment arrangement. As the party seeking affirmative relief from the Commission, Complainant bears the burden of proof. 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a).

To satisfy this burden, Complainant must show that the named utility is responsible or accountable for the problem described in the Complaint. Patterson v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa., 72 Pa. PUC 196 (1990); Feinstein v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co., 50 Pa. PUC 300 (1976). This must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, by presenting evidence more convincing, by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other party. Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. Public Utility Comm., 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Commw. 1990), alloc. den., 602 A.2d 863 (Pa. 1992); Se-Ling Hosiery v. Marqulies, 70 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1950). Additionally, any finding of fact necessary to support the Commission’s adjudication must be based upon substantial evidence. Mill v. Pa. Public Utility Comm., 447 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Commw. 1982); Edan Transportation Corp. v. Pa. Public Utility Comm., 623 A.2d 6 (Pa. Commw. 1993); 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. More is required than a mere trace of evidence or a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. Norfolk and Western Ry. v. Pa. Public Utility Comm., 413 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1980); Erie Resistor Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 166 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 1960); Murphy v. Dep’t. of Public Welfare, White Haven Center, 480 A.2d 382 (Pa. Commw. 1984).

The Responsible Utility Customer Protection Act, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1401, et seq. (the Act or Chapter 14) applies to this proceeding. This law provides strict guidelines that the Commission must follow in handling customer complaints. Section 1403 of the Public Utility Code defines “Payment Agreement” as follows:

An agreement whereby a customer who admits liability for billed service is permitted to amortize or pay the unpaid balance of the account in one or more payments.

66 Pa. C.S. § 1403 (Definition of “Payment Agreement”). Section 1405 of the Public Utility Code regarding payment arrangement reads in pertinent part:

 

   (b) LENGTH OF PAYMENT AGREEMENTS-- The length of time for a customer to resolve an unpaid balance on an account that is subject to a payment agreement that is investigated by the commission and is entered into by a public utility and a customer shall not extend beyond:

 

   (1) Five years for customers with a gross monthly household income level not exceeding 150% of the Federal poverty level.[4]

 

   (2) Two years for customers with a gross monthly household income level exceeding 150% and not more than 250% of the Federal poverty level.

 

   (3) One year for customers with a gross monthly household income level exceeding 250% of the Federal poverty level and not more than 300% of

the Federal poverty level.

 

   (4) Six months for customers with a gross monthly household income level exceeding 300% of the Federal poverty level.

* * *

(d) NUMBER OF PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS – Absent a change in income, the Commission shall not establish or order a public utility to establish a second or subsequent payment agreement if a customer has defaulted on a previous payment agreement. A public utility may, at its discretion, enter into a second or subsequent payment agreement with a customer.

66 Pa. C.S. § 1405 (b) and (d).

Ms. Maitland has already received one Commission-issued payment arrangement. According to the Commission’s records for BCS Case No. 2271084, on August 31, 2007, the BCS established a payment arrangement for Complainant requiring her to pay a monthly special budget amount of $387.00, consisting of the regular budget amount of $242.00 plus $145.00 towards arrearages. At the time, Ms. Maitland had reported a household income of $2,919.00[5] per month, with three people living in her household. Based on these figures, the BCS determined that Complainant was a level 2 income customer and issued a payment arrangement that, in accordance with 66 Pa. C.S. § 1405, required Ms. Maitland to retire her balance of $3,635.40 within two years or twenty-four months while continuing to pay her monthly budget bill. Ms. Maitland defaulted on this payment arrangement.

As stated above, while the Commission has the authority to review a payment arrangement to ensure compliance with Chapter 14 of the Public Utility Code, it lacks the authority to establish a second or subsequent payment arrangement, absent a change in a customer’s household income. A “Change in Income” is defined in Section 1403 of the Public Utility Code as follows:

A decrease in household income of 20% or more if the customer’s household income level exceeds 200% of the federal poverty level or a decrease in household income of 10% or more if the customer’s household income level is 200% or less of the federal poverty level.

66 Pa. C.S. § 1403 (Definition of “Change in Income”). “Household Income” is defined in Section 1403 as “[t]he combined gross income of all adults in a residential household who benefit from the public utility service.” (Emphasis added) 66 Pa. C.S. § 1403 (Definition of “Household Income”).

During the hearing, Ms. Maitland testified that, shortly after the BCS issued its informal decision in BCS Case No. 2271084, her daughter got married and moved out of Complainant’s house. Ms. Maitland testified that she now lives alone with her one-year old son at the 17 Howard Street address. She also testified that her current gross monthly income is $2,253.33[6], or $665.67 per month less than the income that she reported to BCS in August of 2007. This difference of $665.67 a month represents an almost 23% decrease in Ms. Maitland’s household income. Under these circumstances, I find that the Commission has the authority, pursuant to 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1403 and 1405(d) to establish a second payment arrangement for Complainant.

With a monthly income of $2,253.33 for a two-person household, Ms. Maitland is a level 2 income customer. Beginning with the first bill following the Commission’s final order in this case, Ms. Maitland is required to pay her monthly budget bill plus an amount equal to one twenty-fourth (1/24th) of the balance accrued on her account. See 66 Pa. C.S. § 1403(b)(2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. 66 Pa. C.S. § 701.

2. As the Complainant, Caroline Maitland had the burden of proof. 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a).

3. The Commission has the authority to review a payment arrangement to ensure compliance with Chapter 14 of the Public Utility Code.

4. Absent a change in income, the Commission shall not establish or order a public utility to establish a second or subsequent payment agreement, if a customer has defaulted on a previous payment arrangement. See 66 Pa. C.S. § 1405 (d).

5. Complainant has experienced a significant decrease in income, in excess of 20%, from the time of the first Commission-issued payment arrangement, and as a result this Commission may enter a subsequent payment arrangement. 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1403, 1405 (d).

ORDER

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. Exhibits I through IV will be admitted into the record of this case

2. That UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. Exhibit IV will be corrected to show that Caroline Maitland’s household was comprised of three individuals at the time the Bureau of Consumer Services determination issued its informal decision at BCS Case No. 2271084.

3. That the Formal Complaint filed by Caroline Maitland against UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. at Docket No. C-20078353 is sustained.

4. That Caroline Maitland shall make monthly payments consisting of the monthly budget amount plus one twenty-fourth (1/24th) of the balance accrued on her account, beginning with the first billing due date following the entry of a final Commission Order in this case.

5. That as long as Caroline Maitland keeps the payment schedule stated in this order, UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. shall not suspend or terminate her utility service except for valid safety or emergency reasons or assess late payments or finance charges against her account.

6. That, if Caroline Maitland does not keep the payment schedule stated in this order, UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. is authorized to suspend or terminate her utility service in accordance with the Commission’s statute and regulations.

Dated: April 8, 2008 _____________________________

Eranda Vero

Special Agent

-----------------------

[1] A tape recording of the hearing was made, no court reporter being present.

[2] The present Complaint appears to be an untimely appeal of the BCS’ informal decision at BCS Case No. 2271084.

[3] In 2007, the federal poverty level for a family of three was at $1,430.83. With a gross monthly income of $2,919.00, the BCS correctly found that Ms. Maitland was a level 2 income customer and issued a payment arrangement that required her to retire the entire $3,635.40 balance within 24 months.

[4] In January or February of each year the federal government releases an official income level for poverty called the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines, often informally referred to as the "Federal Poverty Level." The benefit levels of many low-income assistance programs are based on these poverty guidelines. For the year 2008, the federal poverty level for a family of two is at $14,000 gross annual income.

[5] This figure included both the monthly incomes of Ms. Maitland and her adult daughter then living with Complainant.

[6] 40 hours per week x $13.00 = $520.00 per week; $520.00 per week x 52 weeks = $27,040.00 per year; and $27,040.00 per year ÷ 12 months = $2,253.33 per month.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download