Www.puc.pa.gov



BEFORE THEPENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONJames Tromans:::C-2016-2535470:National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation:INITIAL DECISIONBeforeMark A. HoyerDeputy Chief Administrative Law JudgeThis Initial Decision grants the formal complaint because Complainant, James Tromans, proved the gas lines for utility service in the two-unit residential dwelling he owns were at all times individually metered and there was no foreign load on the gas lines. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGOn March 8, 2016, James Tromans filed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) against National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (NFGDC or Respondent) alleging that he was not responsible for his tenant’s bill for gas usage at a two-unit residential dwelling he owns. Mr. Tromans requests that the bill be removed from his name. On April 15, 2016, NFGDC filed an answer to the complaint. NFGDC avers that Mr. Tromans is responsible for the transferred gas bill of his tenant for his rental property. NFGDC further avers that on May 4, 2016, NFGDC discovered appliances associated with the tenant residing on the first floor of the property were connected to the water heater served by the meter for the second floor tenant. NFGDC requests that the complaint be dismissed.A Telephonic Hearing Notice was issued on June 30, 2016. A standard Prehearing Order was issued on July 5, 2016. A telephonic initial hearing was held as scheduled on Thursday, July 28, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Tromans appeared pro se and testified on his own behalf. He did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Kathleen A. Ryan, Esquire, represented NFGDC. NFGDC presented the testimony of one witnesses, Diane Konnerth. NFGDC offered 6 exhibits that were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 through and including Exhibit 6. No briefs were requested. The record consists of the aforementioned exhibits and a 35-page transcript of the initial telephonic hearing. The record closed by interim order on September 1, 2016. FINDINGS OF FACTComplainant, James Tromans, resides at 2251 Hannon Road, Erie, Pennsylvania, 16510 (Tr. 7). Complainant owns a rental property located at 251-253 East Tenth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania 16503 (Tr. 8). The dwelling located on East Tenth Street consists of two residential dwelling units, the second floor apartment is at 251 East Tenth Street, the first floor apartment is at 253 East Tenth Street (Tr. 8-9). The two residential dwellings on the property owned by Complainant on East Tenth Street share a common basement and both tenants have access to the basement (Tr. 14). NFGDC provides residential gas utility service to 251-253 East Tenth Street (Tr. 8). Gas service provided to each of the two units by NFGDC is individually metered (Tr. 11, 27). 7.On May 4, 2015, an NFGDC representative visited the property and determined that the first floor tenant’s washing machine, located in the basement, was hooked up to a hose bib that was connected to the gas hot water tank servicing the second floor dwelling unit (Tr. 12, 18-19; Ex. 1, 2, and 3). 8.There are separate laundry facility hook ups for each dwelling in the basement (Tr. 29-30). 9.There are two gas water heaters located in the basement of the property and each water heater is properly connected to the appropriate gas meter (Tr. 14, 27). 10.Water service to the property is not separately metered for each individual dwelling unit but the bill for water service is in Complainant’s name and he is responsible for all water usage (Tr. 30). 11.On May 26, 2015, Complainant accompanied a NFGDC representative to the property where Complainant discovered that the first floor tenant had hooked up her washing machine to a hose bib that was connected to the second floor tenant’s gas hot water heater. The situation was corrected at that time (Tr. 12, 19-12; Ex. 2 and 3). 12.The second floor tenant does not have a washing machine hooked up in the basement (Tr. 29-30). 13.NFGDC created an account for service in Complainant’s name after it discovered that the first floor tenant’s washing machine, which she owns and installed, was hooked up to a hose bib that was then connected to the second floor tenant’s hot water heater (Tr. 26, 29-30; Ex. 6). 14.NFGDC transferred the second floor tenant’s balance to an account created for Complainant and billed Complainant $355.56 (Tr. 18; Ex. 6). 15.NFGDC transferred the account for service back into the second floor tenant’s name after it verified that the washing machine for the first floor tenant was no longer connected to the second floor tenant’s gas hot water heater (Ex. 6). DISCUSSIONSection 701 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 701, provides that “…any person…may complain in writing, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility in violation, or claimed violation, of any law which the commission has jurisdiction to administer, or of any regulation or order of the commission.” Here, Mr. Tromans claims the two rental units on the property he owns at 251-253 East Tenth Street are individually metered or, in other words, no shared meter situation exists. Mr. Tromans claims NFGDC incorrectly transferred the second floor tenant’s account balance for gas service to a newly created account in his name after it incorrectly determined that a shared meter situation existed at the property. As the party seeking affirmative relief from this Commission, Mr. Tromans bears the burden of proof. 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(a).The term “burden of proof” means a duty to establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Se-Ling Hosiery v. Margulies, 364?Pa. 45, 70 A.2d 854 (1950); and Feinstein v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, 50 Pa. PUC 300 (1976). “Preponderance of the evidence” means one party must present evidence that is more convincing, by even the smallest amount, than the evidence presented by the other party. Id. Accordingly, one must review the record in this case to determine whether Complainant has satisfied his burden of proof. If the review indicates the burden has been satisfied, one must then determine whether Respondent has submitted evidence of co-equal value or weight to refute Complainant’s evidence. If this has occurred, the burden of proof cannot be satisfied, unless the party bearing the burden of proof presents additional evidence. Morissey v. Pa. Dept. of Highways, 424 Pa. 87, 225 A.2d 895 (1967); and Burleson v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 443 A.2d 1373 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1982).Furthermore, one must exercise care to ensure substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of the Commission. See, e.g., Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; and Yellow Cab Company v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 524 A.2d 1069 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1987). “Substantial evidence” means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Philadelphia Gas Works v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 898?A.2d?671 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006). The pertinent inquiry is whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commission’s findings. Elliot Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Shipley), 785?A.2d 480 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). More is required than a mere trace of evidence or a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Pa.?Pub. Util. Comm’n, 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 (1980); Erie Resistor Corp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 194 Pa.Super. 278, 166 A.2d 96 (1961); and Murphy v. Pa. Dept. of Public Welfare, White Haven Center, 480?A.2d 382 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1984). In addition, a complainant, to establish a sufficient case against a utility and satisfy the burden of proof, must show the utility is responsible or accountable for the problem described in the complaint. Feinstein, supra.Section 1529.1(a) of the Public Utility Code (the Code), 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1(a), provides that it is the duty of every owner of a residential building which contains one or more dwelling units, not individually metered, to notify each public utility from whom utility service is received of their ownership and the fact that the premises served are used for rental purposes. Section 1529.1(b) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1(b), provides in pertinent part that, “if the mobile home or residential building contains one or more dwelling units not individually metered, an affected public utility shall forthwith list the account for the premises in question in the name of the owner, and the owner shall thereafter be responsible for the payment for the utility services rendered thereunto.” (Emphasis added.) See also, Del Vecchio v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp., Docket No. Z-01464793 (Order entered September 13, 2005); Afshari v. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Docket No. C-20055547 (Order entered August 15, 2007). In Del Vecchio, the Commission found the utility violated 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1, because it failed to transfer complainant’s electric account to the landlord when it found foreign load on complainant’s meter.A plain reading of 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1 holds a property owner financially responsible for a tenant’s entire account, once foreign load is verified on the tenant’s utility service. Santos v. Metropolitan Edison, Docket No. C-00967757 (Order entered August 7, 1997). Upon finding foreign load, the utility must list the account, including any arrearage, in the name of the landlord. The landlord bears the responsibility of paying the utility bills until the foreign load is corrected. Once the foreign load is corrected by the landlord and verified by the utility, the utility may place the account back in the name of the tenant. However, the arrearage, if any, remains with the landlord. Ace Check Cashing Inc. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. C-2008-2056428, (Order entered May 21, 2010). There is no de minimus exception; any dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding the financial responsibilities of the parties is a matter to be resolved in the Court of Common Pleas and is outside this Commission’s jurisdiction. Id. In the case of individually metered dwelling units, unless notified to the contrary by the tenant or an authorized representative, an affected public utility shall list the account for the premises in question in the name of the owner, and the owner shall be responsible for the payment for utility services to the premises. 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1(b). I find that NFGDC incorrectly determined that Section 1529.1 applies to the unique set of facts presented here. There are two dwelling units on the property owned by Mr. Tromans at 251-253 East Tenth Street. Each of the dwelling units is individually metered for gas service. In other words, there is no shared gas service.A first floor tenant connected a washing machine she owns to a hose bib that was, in turn, connected to the gas hot water heater for the second floor tenant in the common basement area of the dwelling. There are two hot water tanks in the basement, one for each dwelling. These two hot water tanks are connected to the correct meters. There are separate gas meters for each dwelling. The first floor tenant simply connected her washing machine to the wrong hot water tank. Mr. Tromans, as a landlord, is not responsible for the second floor tenant’s gas service here and Section 1529.1 does not apply. Mr. Tromans has satisfied his burden of proof in this proceeding. See 66?Pa.C.S. § 332. There was never a shared meter situation in the instant case and Section 1529.1 does not apply. At all times, the two dwelling units owned by Complainant were separately metered for gas service. Accordingly, the complaint is granted in the ordering paragraphs to follow.CONCLUSIONS OF LAWThe Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. 66 Pa.C.S. § 701.A property owner is financially responsible for a tenant’s entire account, once foreign load is verified on the tenant’s utility service, including all arrearages. Ace Check Cashing Inc. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. C-2008-2056428, (Order entered May 21, 2010); 66 Pa.C.S. § 1529.1.3.Once foreign load is verified on a tenant’s utility service, any dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding the financial responsibilities of the parties is a matter to be resolved in the Court of Common Pleas and is outside this Commission’s jurisdiction. Ace Check Cashing Inc. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. C-2008-2056428, (Order entered May 21, 2010).plainant has met his burden of proving that he is entitled to the relief he seeks from this Commission. 66?Pa.C.S. § 332(a).5.The dwelling units at 251-253 East Tenth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania were at all times relevant hereto individually metered for gas utility service. ORDERTHEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED:1.That the complaint of James Tromans against National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation at Docket No. C-2016-2535470 is hereby granted.2.That National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation shall remove the entire balance of $355.56 and any late fees for gas utility service rendered to 253 East Tenth Street, Erie Pennsylvania, from the account of James Tromans within thirty (30) days of the Final Commission Order in this proceeding. 3.That after compliance with ordering paragraph no. 2 above, the Docket in this proceeding, Docket No. C-2016-2535470, be marked closed.Date: October 31, 2016/s/Mark A. HoyerDeputy Chief Administrative Law Judge ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download