Download PDF version - Public Service Commission of West Virginia

Pu6Gic Service Commission
Of West Virginia
Phone:
201 Brooks Street, P. 0. Box 812
Charleston, W e s t Virginia 25323
FJX:
(304)
(304)
340-0300
340-0325
September 11,2012
Timothy Fields
10724 Frame Road
Elkview, WV 25071
Gina E. Mazzei-Smith, Esq.
American Electric Power
PO Box 1986
Charleston, WV 25327-1986
RE:
Case No. 12-0828-E-C
Timothy Fields
V.
Appalachian Power Company,
dba American Electric Power
Dear Ms. Smith and Mr. Fields:
Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of the
Staff memorandum in this matter. If you wish to respond to the enclosed Staff memorandum, you may do so in
writing, within 10 days, unless directed otherwise, of this date.
Your failure to respond in writing to the utility’s answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents
may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file,
without further hearing or notice.
If you have provided an email address you will automatically receive notifications as documents are filed
in this proceeding. The email notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the time the
If you have not provided your email address, please send an email to
filing is processed.
caseiiifi3!~~2nsc.statc.\?~v.us
and state the case number in the email subject field.
General reminder - if you submit any additional documents - in addition to filing an original and 12
copies of all documents with the Commission, you are required to mail a copy to all other parties of record.
Please note - the Public Service Commission does not accept electronic filings.
Sincerely,
JJ&$VkA
Sandra Squire, Di ector
Executive Secretary Division
SSIcg
Enc.- Memo
FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO:
SANDRA SQUIRE
Executive Secretary
FROM:
LESLIE J. ANDERSON, Staff Attorney
RE:
CASE NO. 12-0828-E-C
TIMOTHY FIELDS
DATE: September 11,2012
V.
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, dba AMERICAN ELECTRIC
POWER
On June 19, 2012, Timothy Fields (Mr. Fields or Complainant) filed a verified
formal complaint against Appalachian Power Company, dba American Electric Power
(APCo). Mr. Fields explained that he is unable to afford to pay to have a pole relocated
and conductors installed in order to obtain electric service. Moreover, he is unable to
obtain signed easements from the heirs for certain property. Mr. Fields does not know
where to find the information needed to accomplish having the heirs sign easements. Mr.
Fields requested that APCo be required to set two poles and a transformer in order to
provide him with electric service.
On July 29, 2012, APCo filed an answer to the complaint. APCo explained that
the Complainant originally requested service to the location at issue in 2010. At that
time, APCo made multiple trips to the site in order to determine how best to provide
electric service. The Complainant has a single-room, wood building with no water or
sewer. The Complainant informed APCo that he intended to occupy the structure as a
permanent residence. APCo determined that the new service would require an extension
of approximately 450 feet and the installation of two poles.
APCo stated it informed the Complainant of its permanency requirements and
informed the Complainant that if those requirements were not satisfied, then APCo would
not serve the Complainant under ApCo’s Residential Extension Policy. Under this
policy, if the Complainant fails to satisfy the permanency requirements, then the
Complainant would be required to pay for the extension of service. APCo also informed
the Complainant that APCo needed valid easements signed by all of the legal heirs to the
property before APCo would set any poles.
At that time, the Complainant informed APCo that he did not want to pay for any
extension of electric service. The Complainant krther informed APCo that he would
make the required improvements to ensure his property would qualify for an extension of
electric service under APCo’s Residential Extension Policy.
Case Nos. 12-0828-E-C
September 11,2012
Page 2
The Complainant applied for electric service at 10724 Frame Road in Elkview,
West Virginia on September 29, 201 1. APCo again visited the location and found that
the Complainant had satisfied APCo’s Residential Extension Policy. However, APCo
informed the Complainant again that he would have to have the proper easements signed
by each of the 21 heirs of the property.
On November 16, 201 1, APCo received easements from some of the heirs. APCo
sent the Complainant a letter on December 9, 20 11, explaining what easements had been
received. There are a total of twenty-one (21) heirs. APCo has received easements from
seven (7) of the twenty-one (21) heirs. APCo is attempting to locate each of the heirs,
but has been unable to contact them all. The Complainant refuses to assist APCo in
locating the heirs. APCo will continue to attempt to locate the legal heirs to the property.
However, APCo encourages the complainant to assist APCo with contacting the heirs.
APCo proposed, as an alternative to obtaining signed easements from all twentyone (21) heirs, that the Complainant locate his service pole and equipment at an
acceptable location within 100 feet of APCo’s pole number 3981 1106C00027, which
eliminates APCo having to install any poles or obtain easements. If the Complainant
chooses this alternative, then APCo will install a service drop to the Complainant’s pole,
and the Complainant would be responsible for installing conductors from the service pole
to the structure on his premise. Based on all of the above, APCo requested that the
complaint be dismissed.
On July 18, 2012, Staff filed an Initial Joint Staff Memorandum in which Staff
recommended that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Law Judges.
By an order entered on August 2, 2012, the Commission referred this case to the
Division of Administrative Law Judges. The Commission directed the Administrative
Law Judge to render a decision in this case on or before January 15,2013.
Stafrs Final Recommendation
In the attached Utilities Division Final Recommendation, William S. Beller,
Utilities Analyst, stated he spoke with an APCo representative on September 5 , 2012,
who informed him that APCo is still pursuing easements from the twenty-one (21) heirs,
APCo fixther stated that the Complainant does not seem interested in APCo’s proposed
alternate plan. Mr. Beller noted that APCo’s tariff states that prospective customers are
to assist APCo with obtaining any needed private rights-of-way and/or permits. If APCo
is required to secure any needed rights-of-way and/or permits by purchase or
condemnation, then APCo and the prospective customer share equally in the costs. Mr.
Beller stated his review did not reveal that APCo has violated any Commission law or
rule. Mr. Beller deferred to the Engineering Division to address any other issues.
Case Nos. 12-0828-E-C
September 11,2012
Page 3
In the attached Final Internal Memorandum, Ralph Clark, PE in the Commission’s
Engineering Division stated his investigation revealed that APCo has made fair and
reasonable offers to provide service to the Complainant. Mr. Clark recommended that
the case be dismissed.
The Staff Attorney agrees with both Mr. Beller’s and Mr. Clark’s conclusions.
Thus, the Staff Attorney recommends that the Staffs conclusions be adopted and the case
be dismissed.
Based on the above, the Staff Attorney recommends that the parties be given ten
(10) days from the date of this memorandum to file a written objection with the
Commission to Staffs conclusions and recommendation that this case be dismissed.
If no party files a written objection within the required time frame, then Staff
recommends that a Recommended Decision be issued which adopts Staffs conclusions
and dismisses the case.
LJA/cm
Attachment
cws eL\iB,
H:\LANDERSON\wpdocs\l2-0828
(fields v. apco)\final memo.doc
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
UTILITIES DIVISION FINAL RECOMMENDATION
FROM:
William S. Beller, Utilities Analyst
Utilities Division
DATE:
September 6,20 12
&d
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 12-0828-E-C
Timothy Fields
V.
Appalachian Power Company,
dba American Electric Power
On June 19, 2012, Timothy Fields(Comp1ainant) filed a complaint against
Appalachian Power Company, dba American Electric Power (Defendant, APCo). The
Complainants stated that he is unable to obtain electric service without putting himself in
financial hardship to relocate the pole and conductor, or get the heirs to sign easement
papers, The Complainant is seeking a remedy in the form of having APCo set two(2)
poles and transformers to provide electrical service to his home.
On July 17, 2012, Utility Staff filed its Initial Memorandum in this case.
Utility Staff addressed APCo’s response to this complaint. APCo stated that they had
offered the Complainant a different avenue for receiving service, because APCo is having
trouble locating the heirs to the property to obtain easements (21 heirs total and only 7
have signed an easement).
On September 5, 2012, Utility Staff spoke with APCo. APCo stated that
they are still pursuing the easements from the 21 heirs and are yet to obtain all signatures,
APCo further stated that the Complainant does not seem interested in the alternate plan
APCo purposed, nor has he assisted APCo in trying to locate the remaining heirs to obtain
the easement needed. According to APCo’s tariff, particularly the section titled
“Residential Extensions of Service”, sub section number 6 (Right-of-way Easements and
Permits), “In cases where it is not feasible or practical to construct lines on public rightsof-way and it is necessary to secure private rights-of-way and/or other permits, the
Customer(s) shall secure the same or assist the Company in obtaining such private rightsof-way and/or permits, without cost to the Company, before construction shall commence.
The Company shall be under no obligation to commence construction of extensions until
such time as the necessary rights-of-way an/or permits have been obtained.”. It further
states “If the Customer and the Company are unable to obtain the best rights-of-way,
consistent with standard engineering practices, required in order to provide the requested
service and, it becomes necessary for the Company to secure rights-of-way and/or permits
Utility Staffs Final Recommendation
Case No. 12-0828-E-C
September 6,2012
Page 2 of 2
by purchase or condemnation, the Company and the Customer shall share equally in the
costs.”
According to the tariff information provided in the above paragraph, as a
term and condition of service, it is the Complainant’s responsibility to help APCo in the
pursuit of the remaining Heirs, and if the remaining Heirs can not be found to obtain the
easement, then the Complainant and APCo will share (equally) the cost necessary for
APCo to provide service to the Complainant.
Based on the information provided, Utility Staff can see no violation by
APCo of any Commission Rule in this case and defers all other remaining issues to the
Commission’s Engineering Staff assigned to this case.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
FINAL, INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
rzc
FROM:
Ralph Clark, PE
Engineering Division
DATE:
September 10, 20 12
SUBJECT: Case No. 12-0828-E-C
Timothy Fields v.
Appalachian Power Company dba American Electric Power (AEP)
Final Memorandum
Technical Staff has further discussed the two options available to him to get
electric service to his residence. His residence is an existing building that has never had
electric service. The first option is to extend his service line to within 100 feet of the
nearest AEP power pole. AEP has agreed to provide service on this option. The second
option is to provide a right of way for AEP to set poles and bring service to his house.
AEP has agreed to this option provided that they are provided with a right of way. The
problem with this option is that the Complainant must secure permission from the 21
heirs that own the property.
AEP’s answer was received on June 29,20 12. The Complainant originally
requested service in 2010. The house did not meet the Company’s Permanency
requirements at that time. The Complainant made improvements on his home necessary to
pass the Permanency Requirements. He still did not have right of way permission from
the 21 owners, AEP found seven of the owners. AEP requested assistance from the
Complainant to find the other 14 owners. The Complainant refused to help AEP.
The situation has not changed since the complaint has been filed. AEP has
made fair and reasonable offers to provide service. The next step resides with the
Complainant. The PSC can do nothing until the Complainant completes one of the two
options necessary for service, Technical Staff recommends that the case be dismissed,