Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Pipeline
April - June 2015
In this issue:
Water & Sewer Leak
Adjustments……………1
Avoid Warm Weather
Health Risks…........…...4
Interest Rates on
Customer Deposits…….4
CWSRF Changes &
Updates…………….…..6
Fire Departments & Water Utilities……..…..7
Contact Information…..9
News and Views from the Public Service Commission of WV, WV Board of Risk and Insurance Management, WV
Dept. of Environmental Protection, and WV Dept. of Health and Human Services
Water and Sewer Leak
Adjustments By Sharon A. Godwin, Consumer Affairs Technician, Water &
Wastewater Division, Public Service Commission
As a Consumer Affairs Technician (CAT) in the Public Service Commission’s Water & Wastewater Division, I have seen an increase in customer calls regarding water and sewer leak adjustments. These inquiries and questions typically request information on how to make application for and/or how to receive a leak adjustment. Provided below is an overview for water and sewer utilities to help guide them and clarify the understanding between the utilities and the CATs regarding the leak adjustment process. The rules and regulations that govern water and sewer utilities provide the basis for the utility’s leak adjustment policy. Below are the applicable water and sewer rules that guide us in our response to a customer’s inquiry.
The Rules for the Government of Water Utilities, effective May 8, 2011, state the following:
4.4.c. Leaks on the customer’s side of the
meter
4.4.c.1. – Each utility shall develop and implement a written policy concerning the adjustment of customer bills where the bill reflects unusual usage which can be attributed to leakage on the customer’s side of the meter. Leaking commodes, dripping faucets, malfunctioning appliances and similar situations shall not
constitute leaks which entitle the customer to a recalculated bill. The policy shall be maintained in the utility’s office for inspection by the public and shall be applied in a non-discriminatory manner to all customers. The reasonableness of the utility’s policy or practice with respect to a policy shall be subject to Commission review in a formal complaint proceeding.
The CATs discuss the situation with the customer to determine whether the alleged leak may qualify, by rule, for an adjustment. The CATs will then contact the utility to obtain additional information
and inquire as to the utility’s leak adjustment policy. If the leak qualifies for an adjustment then staff can assist the utility in determining the appropriate adjustments and then will notify the customer of what is owed. In some instances the
The Pipeline
Published quarterly by the
Public Service
Commission
201 Brooks Street
P.O. Box 812
Charleston, WV 25323
Web: www.psc.state.wv.us
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 304-340-0440
Toll Free: 800-344-5113
Fax: 304-340-3759
Contributors
Sharon A. Godwin, PSC
Kimberly Hensley, BRIM
Laura Leport, PSC
Kimberly Henderson, DEP
John Mottesheard, PSC
Please note:
The information contained in this publication is based on the current laws, rules, regulations and policies of the PSC, DEP and DHHR, and reflects the personal or professional opinions of the individual contributors. Nothing contained in this publication should be con-strued as an adjudication on any specific factual situation or as a formal opinion of the PSC, DEP or DHHR unless it is clearly cited as such.
2
CATs and the utility’s staff may differ as to whether the leak qualifies for an adjustment. In those instances the CATS will provide the basis for their recommendation and then it is up to the utility as to whether they follow the informal recommendation. If the complaint can’t be resolved informally then
the customer will be advised of their right to file a formal complaint with the Commission for the Commission to determine whether the actions of the utility are reasonable or not. Other applicable Water Rules are:
4.4.c.2. – The policy shall provide for a recalculated bill to reflect the utility’s incremental cost of treating or purchasing the water, as contained in the utility’s tariff, for all amounts above the customer’s historic usage. Historic usage shall be defined as the average usage of the preceding twelve (12) months, or actual period of service if less than twelve (12) months. If using the historic usage would result in an unreasonable calculation, adjustments may be made. If
such adjustments are made, the utility should advise its customer that a dispute regarding such adjustments may be taken to the Commission in the form of an informal complaint.
4.4.c.3. – As an alternative to using the incremental cost of treating or purchasing the water, the utility may, at its option, use an adjustment, which allows it to recover the Commission’s estimate of
“typical incremental” cost per thousand gallons of water on usage above the historic usage. The Commission shall, from time to time, establish its estimate of “typical incremental cost” by order.
4.4.c.4. – However, in future rate cases the utility’s incremental cost of treating or purchasing the water shall be determined and the rate placed in an appropriate tariff as the leak adjustment rate. After a rate has been determined in a rate case, the utility shall not have the option to use the Commission’s estimate of “typical incremental cost” found in 4.4.c.3.
4.4.c.5. –The water utility shall, after determining that a leak adjustment must be made, notify the sewer utility of the amount of the adjustment in gallons and the reason for making the
adjustment.
Water utilities must ensure that notification is made to the appropriate sewer utility, of any adjustment given to a customer, so the sewer utility can determine an appropriate sewer adjustment. The Rules for the Government of Sewer Utilities, effective May 8, 2011, state the following:
4.4.c. Leaks on the customer’s side of the meter.
4.4.c.1. – Each utility shall develop and implement a written
policy concerning the adjustment of customer bills where they are based upon metered water consumption or are actually metered sewer lines, and the bill reflects unusual water usage,
which can be attributed to leakage on the customer’s side of the point of service. Leaking commodes, dripping faucets, malfunctioning appliances and similar situations shall not constitute leaks which entitle the customer to a recalculated bill. The policy shall be maintained in the utility’s office for inspection by the public and shall be applied in a non-
The Pipeline April / June 2015
3
discriminatory manner to all customers. The reasonableness of the utility’s policy or practice with respect to a policy shall be subject to Commission review in a formal
complaint proceeding.
4.4.c.2. – The policy shall provide for a recalculated bill to reflect the utility’s incremental cost of treating or purchasing the treatment of the sewage, as contained in the utility’s tariff, for all amounts above the customer’s historic usage. Historic usage shall be defined as the average usage of the preceding twelve (12) months or actual period of service if less than twelve (12) months. If using the historic usage would result in an unreasonable calculation, adjustments may be made. If such adjustments are made, the utility should advise its customer that a dispute regarding such adjustments may be taken to the Commission in the form of an informal complaint. Any amounts which the customer can prove did not enter the sanitary sewer system shall be
credited at full tariff rates.
4.4.c.3. – As an alternative to using the incremental cost of treating or purchasing the treatment of the sewage, the utility may, at its option, use an adjustment which allows it to recover the Commission’s estimate of “typical incremental cost” per thousand gallons of sewage on usage above the historic usage. The Commission shall, from time to time, establish its estimate of “typical incremental cost” by order.
4.4.c.4. – However, in future rate cases the utility’s
incremental cost of treating or purchasing the treatment of the sewage shall be determined and the rate placed in an appropriate tariff as the leak adjustment rate. After a rate has been determined in a rate case, the utility shall not have the option to use the Commission’s estimate of “typical incremental cost” found in paragraph 4.4.c.3.
So what does all of this mean? The utility is first required to develop and implement a written policy regarding leak adjustments. This policy should establish the parameters for when leak adjustments will be
made and establish reasonable proof requirements that the leak has been repaired. It should be noted that the Commission has historically not set a limit on the number of adjustments, as the Commission believed it unlikely for the same customer to need
frequent adjustments, and a leak adjustment policy that is only applicable to underground leaks would probably be considered unreasonable.
Be aware that the reasonableness of the leak adjustment policy is subject to Commission review in a formal complaint proceeding. The utility is required to use its leak adjustment increment, if it has one, in its Commission-approved tariff, or the default leak adjustment rate of $0.75 per 1,000 gallons for water and $1.00 per 1,000 gallons for sewer if it does not have a leak adjustment increment in its tariff. Please feel free to contact the staff of the Water and Wastewater Division for assistance in calculating a bill involving a leak adjustment,
to request a sample leak adjustment policy, or to request an informal review of your leak adjustment policy.
The Pipeline April / June 2015
4
The Pipeline April / June 2015
Calculating Interest on Customer Deposits By Laura Leport, Utilities Analyst, Water and Wastewater Division, Public Service Commission
Many times, the Public Service Commission receives inquiries related to customer security deposit refunds and the applicable annual interest rates established by the Commission. Security deposit interest must be calculated from the date the customer first receives service until the date that the security deposit is refunded, ei-ther upon discontinuance of service or at the end of the deposit period. A
Avoid Work-Related Health Risks in Warm
Weather By Kimberly Hensley, Safety and Loss Control Specialist, West Virginia Board of Risk and Insur-
ance Management
With summer weather upon us, it is time to reflect upon safety prac-tices and environmental circumstances that can increase the likelihood of heat stress. With warmer temperatures, we have to be aware of the associ-ated risks when performing any variety of prolonged or strenuous activi-ties. When planning activities for employees or preparing to undertake a task yourself, you must consider a number of factors that are related to the task. There are environ-mental factors, job situ-ational factors, personal protective equipment fac-
tors, physical health con-ditions and exertion fac-tors that all have to be considered. Each activity has its own hazards that must be evaluated. It is also important to note that the proper intake of cool fluids is necessary. The job environment may be the most significant factor when looking at heat stress. One must consider how the temperature will affect the work. Is the work being performed in an area that has low or no air movement? Are there factors in the immediate area that can cause the temperature to
elevate significantly higher? By making sure the work area is well venti-lated with fresh air, the risk can be reduced. Job situational factors may include things such as heat generating equipment and the intensity of the energy required to complete a task. When thinking of situational factors, one must look at ways to reduce these risks. Shielding may be required to protect from heat generating sources, such as boilers or motors. One also must consider how much en-ergy is required to perform the task. Longer task duration requires more breaks and longer breaks. An individual’s physical condition is another key factor in completing work. Each individual’s body type and health circumstances are different and must be considered when evaluating work that could result in heat stress. Every individual must know his or her limitations and address each
task accordingly. Recognizing the amount of exertion, additional heat sources, one’s own physical limitations and environmental factors are things everyone should consider, especially during the summer months, prior to performing any strenuous activities. Continual intake of water and/or other cool liq-uids is essential. These same considerations should be applied, not only at work, but with every activity we undertake at home. Heat stress and heat stroke are preventable as long as the necessary precautions are applied.
5
long-term customer’s deposit may span over several different interest rate periods. Therefore, the utility must refund the deposit and calculate related interest to be refunded based upon the Commission’s applicable General
Orders, which establish the annual interest rates to be used from one period to the next. Please contact a Utilities Analyst for prior interest rates and ap-plicable General Orders for both public service districts and municipalities if a refund is due on a deposit that was collected prior to May 8, 2011. Customer security deposits shall be refunded in accordance with the Wa-ter and Sewer Rules:
4.2.a.3. Return of deposit to customers – Except as otherwise provided in 4.2.a.4., after a customer has paid bills for service for twelve (12) consecutive months without a delinquency, the utility shall promptly and automatically refund the deposit plus accrued interest. Calculation of the above twelve (12) month period shall commence from the first regular payment or follow-ing the payment of a delinquent bill or bills.
4.2.a.4. Return of deposit by public service districts and mu-
nicipal systems only for a customer who is a tenant – By stat-
ute, districts and municipal water systems are not required to return a deposit to a customer who is a tenant until the time the tenant discontinues service with the district or municipal system. After a customer who is a tenant discontinues service with the district or municipal system, the utility shall promptly and auto-
matically refund the deposit plus accrued interest. The public service district or mu-nicipal system shall have a reasonable time, not to ex-ceed thirty (30) days, to read and remove meters and to ascertain that the obliga-tions of the customer have been fully performed before being required to return any deposit in the case where there has not been an auto-matic refund.
Prior to 2011, the Commission issued annual General Orders that set a simple interest rate applicable to customer security deposits for water and sewer utility customers. Effective May 8, 2011, the Commission revised its Rules for the Government of Sewer Utilities (Sewer Rules), 150 C.S.R. Se-ries 5 and its Rules for the Government of Water Utilities (Water Rules), 150 C.S.R. Series 7. As revised, Sewer Rule 4.2.a.5 and Water Rule 4.2.a.5
state:
4.2.a.5. Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission by gen-eral order, simple interest of 1% per year shall be paid from the date of deposit until the date of refund of the security deposit. All customer security deposits shall be placed in an interest bearing account at a local federally insured financial institution.
This simple interest rate of 1% remained in effect until General Orders No. 186.28 and 188.33 were issued on February 11, 2015, updating the in-terest rate to be paid on customer deposits by water/sewer utilities to 0.15%. The Commission noted that the downturn in the economy had created a disparity between the rates available in the market and the 1% requirement set forth in the Water and Sewer Rules. The 0.15% reflects the average paid on Treasury Bills during the last quarter of 2014.
The Commission set this rate to remain effective until the date of issuance of the 2016 annual Commission General Order, which may establish a new rate. The General Order also noted that water and sewer utilities will no longer be limited to holding their customer security deposits in an interest bearing account at a local federally insured financial institution as was pre-viously required by Sewer Rule 4.2.a.5 and Water Rule 4.2.a.5.
The Pipeline April / June 2015
6
The Pipeline April / June 2015
CWSRF Changes & Updates By Kimberly Henderson, Clean Water State Revolving Fund , West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection
As many of you probably already know, Rose Brodersen retired last fall. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself as the new man-ager of the CWSRF’s management section. I am very familiar with the fi-nancial side of the program since I was the CWSRF accountant/financial reporting specialist for seven years. I have met so many new people, and look forward to working with everyone for many years to come. The ad-dress and phone number have not changed, my email address is [email protected]. The fiscal year is nearly over and we have closed on some very large projects. The CWSRF share of the seven projects totaled over $87 million, which included over $2 million dollars in principal forgiveness funding. We continue to fund an additional 25 projects that are still under construction.
The CWSRF share of these projects totaled more than $143 million dollars, $13 million of which was principal forgiveness. The program is testing direct deposit payments rather checks for our sub recipients. One sub recipient is currently working through the E-Vendor reg-istration process. If all goes well, I will be contacting others soon to see who is interested in switching to direct deposit and leaving the hassle of paper checks behind. The registration process is fairly simple since you only need to complete one form for the auditor’s office to become an E-Vendor. This form is submitted to the Auditor’s Office with a voided check (counter checks are not acceptable) or a letter from the financial institution, on finan-cial institution letterhead, listing the account information, printed name and signature of financial institution representative, title and contact informa-tion. If you have an agency that you would still like to receive checks from, you can request they set check payments as the default. Here is the link to the Auditor’s website if you would like to review the process: https://www.wvsao.gov/ElectronicPayments/DirectDepositForms.aspx https://www.wvsao.gov/ElectronicPayments/files/Company_eVendor_Agreement_Setup7_7_2014.pdf The Intended Use Plan (IUP) for fiscal year 2016 has been drafted and sent to the EPA for review, and the final draft will be submitted for public comment in June. Some things to look for will be our adaptation of the new Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(WRRDA) requirements, funding amounts and, of course, the new Project Priority List (PPL) rank-ings. As funds become harder to find, your placement on the PPL becomes more and more impor-tant. As it states in the IUP, the list is developed using fact sheets re-ceived from the applicant, consult-ing engineer or other representa-tive, and should reflect current costs. It also states that the CWSRF will commit funds to projects in the order of their position on the priority list on a first come, first served basis. It
is very important that your priority list application is up to date, accurate and complete, with all of the required supporting documentation. Please review the funding opportunities that can be found in the IUP and feel free to contact us for more information. In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone a very safe and productive
summer!
7
The Pipeline April / June 2015
Fire Departments & Water Utilities:
Understanding Leads to Cooperation
By John Mottesheard, Engineering Technician, Engineering Division, Public Service Commission
Both the fire department and the water utility are vital players in any community that wants to grow and prosper. However, throughout my years with the Public Service Commission, I have received many questions and comments concerning the issues surrounding the working relationship between these two kinds of organizations and how fire departments are billed for their water usage. Some fire departments seem to harbor a misconception about who is responsible for the upkeep of fire hydrants. I have researched this issue with the State Fire Marshall’s office and the Bureau for Public Health. The water utility’s water plant operator is in charge of and responsible for the fire hydrants in all non-firefighting situations. The operator is responsible
for flushing the hydrants at least once a year – preferably twice a year – and for keeping proper records concerning maintenance of the hydrants. A second misconception by some fire departments is that a firehouse can have free water service. The fire department is a regular water cus-
tomer, just like any other business. It must be billed for all water used, with the exception of water used for firefighting purposes. Even water used for firefighters’ training exercises should be billed to the fire department. The main reason water utilities are so concerned about this issue is be-cause the Public Service Commission requires them to keep records of un-accounted for water. Utilities must communicate to their fire department customers that co-operation is necessary so the utilities can file an accurate report with the Commis-sion. When the fire de-
partment fails to report the amount of water used to fight fires, then the unaccounted for wa-ter percentage that the utility must file appears to be disproportionate or incorrect. This can make it appear that the utility has major undetected leaks in its system. The utility should approach the fire chief or board of directors and ex-plain that their co-operation is needed in order to properly report this infor-mation. Most people are willing to co-operate if they understand the reason
for the request. I suggest that the utility’s board of directors invite the fire department’s board of directors to a meeting to explain the process and why their co-operation is necessary to achieve this goal. The water utility can encourage this process by developing a policy and a reporting form to account for the amount of water used for firefighting. The fire department should fill out the form and file it with the utility each month. One way facilitate this is to install a tap with a meter at the fire sta-tion, so when the fire trucks’ tanks are filled the meter will register the number of gallons that pass thru the meter. However, it is important to note that the size of meter installed provides the basis for the applicable minimum bill should consumptions not exceed the equivalent gallons asso-ciated with the meter size installed. Another method is to estimate the length of time firefighters use a fire hydrant to either fill the truck or to fight the fire directly from the hydrant. Fire departments historically have to raise funds to keep their opera-tions financially solvent. Some fire departments have been known to haul water taken from a fire hydrant and transport it to fill a citizen’s swimming pool. The fire department did not pay for the water, but received a dona-tion from the citizen for this service. The proper method to handle this situation is for the citizen to go to the utility’s office and pay for the
8
The Pipeline April / June 2015
amount of water needed to fill the pool. The utility will issue a receipt to the citizen, who will then present the receipt to the fire department. Then the firefighters will take the tanker truck to the utility’s plant and fill up the
tanker. After the tanker has transferred the water and emptied it into the pool, the citizen can offer a donation to the fire department for the trans-portation of the water. Also be aware that the fire department must have a county health de-partment permit to haul water for private swimming pools. If a fire depart-ment neglects to secure a permit, the utility and the fire department may be held liable if they transport harmful bacteria in the water supply that winds up in the pool. Another serious problem that occasionally arises is when a fire depart-ment takes water from a hydrant without notifying the utility. Less com-mon, but more serious, is when a tanker goes into another utility’s territory and raids the hydrants. That is an unacceptable practice and should not be tolerated. If firefighters believe this is happening in their territory, they should alert the utility so that it can investigate. Tampering with fire hydrants can be very costly, from stripping the threads on the caps to placing the hydrants out of service, which could be disastrous in the event of a fire. The question of who is responsible for the repairs often comes up. Obviously, the party who caused the damage should be held responsible for repairs, but that rarely happens. If it is not possible to prove who caused the damage, the utility is ultimately responsi-ble for the repairs.
Fire departments and water utilities are both service organiza-tions dedicated to helping and improving their communities. They should strive to work together rather than working against each other. When power struggles crop up between these entities, nei-ther can serve their community effectively. Understanding the
proper division of responsibility can make for a more productive and cooperative working relationship.
Tapper Says:
Seminars for 2015 are set up a little
differently than in the past years. Ini-
tially, you will be required to set up your
own account. You will only have to do
this once. By doing this, you will be able
to register online for any seminar you
choose and you will also receive a confir-
mation for that registration. If you
cancel, you will be able to do that as well, and again, you will receive a
confirmation.
For more information, see the article “Changes in Water & Waste-
water Seminar Registration for Regulated Utilities” in our spring issue
of this newsletter. If you still have questions, you may contact Nancy
Tincher at 1-800-344-5113 ext. 440 or 304-340-0440.
Have a Great Summer!
9
The Pipeline April / June 2015
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
Water and Wastewater Division
Dave Acord, Director [email protected] 340-0366
Lisa Coleman, Administrative Secretary [email protected] 340-0459
Nancy Tincher, Secretary [email protected] 340-0440
Grants & Funding, Finance, Administrative, Office Operations
Bill Nelson, Manager [email protected] 340-0445
Jim Boggess, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0769
Bonnie Boston, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0479
Conrad Bramlee, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0471
Versie Hill, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0870
Laura Leport, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0473
Informal Complaints
Tammy Tabor, Supervisor [email protected] 340-0826
Markita Black, Consumer Affairs Tech [email protected] 340-0321
Rhonda Boothe, Consumer Affairs Tech [email protected] 340-0467
Sharon Godwin, Consumer Affairs Tech [email protected] 340-0494
Vicki Lemley, Consumer Affairs Tech [email protected] 340-0379
Fax 304-340-3759
Engineering Division
Earl Melton, Director [email protected] 340-0392
Victoria Trent, Secretary [email protected] 340-0370
Case Control
Dave Dove, Manager [email protected] 340-0436
Lisa Bailey, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0499
Jonathan Fowler, Engineer [email protected] 340-0491
David Holley, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0328
Kristopher Huff, Technical Trainee [email protected] 340-0443
Mansour Mashayekhi, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0428
Jim Spurlock, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0357
Sylvie Steranka, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0466
Jim Weimer, Engineer [email protected] 340-0476
Case Assistance
Jeff Bennett, Utility Inspector [email protected] 340-0313
Ralph Clark, Engineer [email protected] 340-0455
Eric DeGruyter, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0388
Karen McClure, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0335
Craig Miller, Utility Inspector [email protected] 340-0353
John Mottesheard, Engineering Tech. [email protected] 340-0399
Wayne Perdue, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0493
Don Walker, Technical Analyst [email protected] 340-0434
Fax: 304-340-0452
10
The Pipeline April / June 2015
Utilities Division
Terry Eads, Director [email protected] 340-0421
Lynn Scott, Administrative Secretary [email protected] 340-0350
Mike Dailey, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0495
Mandy VanMeter, Secretary [email protected] 340-0833
Brandi Barnett, Office Assistant [email protected] 340-0365
Carrier & Consumer Operations
Carla Nelson, Supervisor [email protected] 340-0424
Motor Carrier & Formal Complaints
Steve Kaz, Supervisor [email protected] 340-0760
Stacy Beller, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0444
Dwayne Bevins, Utility Inspector [email protected] 340-0449
Bob Cadle, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0419
Bill Flenner, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0496
Jennifer Moore, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0837
Audits, Finance & Rates
Diane Davis, Deputy Director [email protected] 340-0369
Case Processing 1
Ed Oxley, Manager [email protected] 340-0360
Ronald Ash, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0869
Erin Deegan, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0768
Troy Eggleton, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0397
Alex Kovarik, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0358
Case Processing 2
Dave Pauley, Manager [email protected] 340-0439
Juan Arboleda, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0352
Errol Griebel, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0773
Pam Latocha , Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0422
Revenue Requirements
Dixie Kellmeyer, Manager [email protected] 340-0762
Josh Allen, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0771
Jonathan Beeman, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0868
Karen Buckley, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0470
Pete Lopez, Utilities Analyst [email protected] 340-0823
Fax: 340-340-0326
