Maryland Faults Utility for Irregular Meter Readings, Assesses Penalty

Finally reaching a decision on various consumer complaints that originated some five years ago, the Maryland Public Service Commission has admonished an electric utility, Potomac Edison Company (PE), for (1) its failure to adhere to regular meter reading cycles, (2) its overreliance on estimated bills, and (3) its inattention to necessary and proper bill reconciliations. In order to remedy the situation, the commission directed the utility to (a) amend its tariffs as to the maximum number of consecutive months that a customer can be sent an estimated bill, (b) offer more leniency to customers receiving large make-up bills after receiving inaccurate estimated bills, and (c) augment its contingency planning protocols. In addition, for PE's noncompliance with its tariffs governing its billing and meter reading processes, the commission imposed upon the company a civil penalty of $25,000. 

The commission first began receiving formal complaints from PE customers in 2012, although some of their petitions related to billing problems that initially arose in 2011. The vast majority of the complaints pertained to repeated estimated bills, which were followed by large bills once a true meter read was actually performed. The customers reported that there were periods when they went months at a time receiving only estimated billing statements. When a bill finally arrived showing actual usage based on a later meter read, the bills were so high as to be financially challenging for many consumers. 

When apprised of the billing complaints, the utility acknowledged that, due to extraordinarily stormy weather and an unusual rate of turnover among its meter reading personnel, it had not always been able to adhere to its tariffed policies on metering and billing. In that regard, the company admitted that its tariffs allowed for estimated billings no more frequently than every other month. 

However, PE also defended its metering and billing practices by pointing out that there had been a number of extreme weather events in the contested time frame, including tropical storms and a derecho, which had caused it to divert some of its meter readers to other duties associated with repairs and restorations of service. The utility contended that it had acted appropriately in turning its attention away from standard meter reading cycles to actual delivery of service instead. The company also stressed that it operates in a largely rural area with geographic and demographic characteristics that can complicate both meter reading and service restorations. Consequently, PE attested that notwithstanding its temporary failure to perform actual meter readings at least bi-monthly, it had at all times provided an overall satisfactory level of service to its customers. 

The commission, however, disagreed, observing that while the severe weather conditions encountered by the utility clearly had been beyond the company's ability to control, planning for such emergencies and foreseeing changes in staffing needs were not similarly beyond its control. Plus, the commission said, the utility appeared to have demonstrated a pattern of haphazard meter readings even before the associated billing problems were exacerbated by the weather events. 

Looking at the meter reading requirements set forth in the company's tariffs, and examining the unacceptable number of times that the utility had failed to comport with those meter reading requirements, the commission held that a significant civil penalty was called for. It therefore concurred with the public utility law judge (PULJ) who first heard the case that a fine of $25,000 was appropriate. 

But the commission stopped short of endorsing the PULJ's recommendation that the company modify its tariffs to institute mandatory monthly meter reads for all customers. Despite being cognizant that the West Virginia Public Service Commission had instructed PE to transition to monthly meter reading in that state, where PE faces equally difficult demographic and geographic conditions, the Maryland commission ruled that the utility's existing bi-monthly meter reading standard remained appropriate. 

At the same time, though, the commission did mandate certain changes to the company's tariffs, so as to protect customers from the utility getting off-track from its meter reading schedules. The commission added language to prohibit the company from letting a customer ever go more than 90 days at a time with only estimated bills. Moreover, the commission told the utility that it must highlight the word "estimated" when a bill is not premised on an actual meter read. 

The commission further said that should a customer's trued-up bill exceed the last estimated bill by more than 50%, PE must give the customer the option of paying off the bill under an installment payment plan, of up to 12 months in duration. The commission deemed such a clause expedient given testimony that at least one low-income PE customer had had service disconnected when a make-up bill that followed months of estimated bills was too large for the customer to handle. Re Potomac Edison Co., Case No. 9319, Order No. 88262, June 19, 2017 (Md.P.S.C.).