76976Board Decision
8 passages
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION of RIVER PORT ELECTRIC LIGHT COMMISSION for a decision to settle a Rate Group dispute with one of its customers BEFORE: Murray E. Daehler, CA, P. Eng., Membe...
AI summary This decision addresses a Rate Group dispute between Riverport Electric Light Commission and Dean Schmeisser. The hearing was held on July 16, 2008, and the decision was issued on September 15, 2008. The decision affirms the billings as issued by the Utility.
INTRODUCTION - [1] The Riverport Electric Light Commission (the "Utility"), in a letter dated March 25, 2008, requested the Board's assistance in settling a rate group dispute with Dean Schmeisser (the "Customer"). - [2] The Utility was re...
AI summary The Riverport Electric Light Commission (the 'Utility') requested the Board's assistance in resolving a rate group dispute with Dean Schmeisser. The dispute centered on whether the Customer was placed in the correct rate group and whether he was overcharged. An oral hearing was scheduled after the Customer requested one.
BACKGROUND [5] Mr. Schmeisser is a carpenter, resident in the Riverport area, who produces various wood products for sale, including moldings and floorings. He applied to the Utility for a single phase electric service for his shop and was...
AI summary Mr. Schmeisser, a carpenter, installed a 1-phase to 3-phase converter for his woodworking machine and was connected to single-phase electric service. He argues he should be classified under the 'Small General Service' rate due to low energy use, but billing errors occurred due to incorrect multiplier and rate application by the Utility.
Period Error June/00 to Aug/03 wrong rate Sept/03 to March/05 wrong multiplier wrong rate March/05 to Oct/05 wrong multiplier [11] The customer states that the Small General Service Rate (correctly calculated) should be applied to all his...
AI summary The customer is disputing incorrect billing rates and multipliers applied between June 2000 and October 2005, requesting the correct Small General Service Rate be applied or the accurate charges for the period.
IS THE CORRECT RATE GROUP BEING APPLIED TO THE CUSTOMER? [12] The Utility's evidence is that the customer's usage indicates his service class should be "General Service" because his service is not eligible for another class, specifically "...
AI summary The proceeding examines whether a customer is correctly classified under the 'General Service' rate group. The Utility argues that both energy consumption below 10,000 kWh/year and demand below 6 kW are required for 'Small General Service' classification. The customer disputes this, arguing that the interpretation of 'and' as 'or' in the regulations is incorrect and that demand readings may be inaccurate due to metering delays.
he customer can exceed 6 KW during a billing period. The Board also finds, based on the balance of probabilities, that the demand usage as recorded in the billing history for this customer is correct. [20] As to the rate class to which thi...
AI summary The Board determines that a customer's demand usage of over 6 KW during a billing period is correctly recorded. The rate classification debate centers on the interpretation of the logical 'and' operator in the definition of the small general service rate, with the Board concluding that the Utility's interpretation is correct.
HAS MR. SCHMEISSER BEEN OVERCHARGED? [26] Mr. Hirtle, on behalf of his client, Mr. Schmeisser, recalculated all the bills that have been issued by the Utility using three different assumptions. The first assumption was that the small gener...
AI summary Mr. Hirtle recalculated Mr. Schmeisser's utility bills using three assumptions, concluding that Mr. Schmeisser was overbilled by approximately $561.68. The Board acknowledges the discrepancies in the recalculations and confirms the overcharge amount.
Findings [35] The Board finds that the Utility had incorrectly charged Mr. Schmeisser for both demand and energy usage for the period from June 2000 to October 2005. In the evidence filed, the Utility only acknowledges the under-billing fo...
AI summary The Board found that the Utility incorrectly charged Mr. Schmeisser for energy and demand usage from June 2000 to October 2005, with under-billing for energy usage potentially exceeding 3,000 kW hours. The Utility will not pursue the under-billed demand charges, and the Board ordered Mr. Schmeisser to pay the issued bills in full.
76976Board Decision
7 passages
INTRODUCTION - [1] The Riverport Electric Light Commission (the "Utility"), in a letter dated March 25, 2008, requested the Board's assistance in settling a rate group dispute with Dean Schmeisser (the "Customer"). - [2] The Utility was re...
AI summary The Riverport Electric Light Commission requested the Board's assistance in resolving a rate group dispute with Dean Schmeisser. The dispute centers on whether Schmeisser was placed in the correct rate group and whether he was overcharged. An oral hearing was scheduled after the Customer requested one and the Board directed both parties to submit evidence and respond to information requests.
BACKGROUND [5] Mr. Schmeisser is a carpenter, resident in the Riverport area, who produces various wood products for sale, including moldings and floorings. He applied to the Utility for a single phase electric service for his shop and was...
AI summary Mr. Schmeisser, a carpenter, installed a 1-phase to 3-phase converter for his woodworking machine and was connected to single-phase electric service. He disputes his classification under the General Service rate, arguing he should be in the Small General Service class. Billing errors occurred due to incorrect multiplier and rate application by the Utility.
Period Error June/00 to Aug/03 wrong rate Sept/03 to March/05 wrong multiplier wrong rate March/05 to Oct/05 wrong multiplier [11] The customer states that the Small General Service Rate (correctly calculated) should be applied to all his...
AI summary The customer is pointing out that billing errors occurred between June 2000 and October 2005 due to incorrect rates and multipliers. He is requesting the correct amounts that should have been charged, emphasizing that the Small General Service Rate was calculated correctly and should be applied to all his bills.
IS THE CORRECT RATE GROUP BEING APPLIED TO THE CUSTOMER? [12] The Utility's evidence is that the customer's usage indicates his service class should be "General Service" because his service is not eligible for another class, specifically "...
AI summary The Utility argues that a customer should be classified under the 'General Service' rate group because their demand exceeds 6 kW, even though their annual energy consumption is below 10,000 kWh. The customer's representative disputes this, claiming that the demand readings may be inaccurate due to the nature of the machinery and that the interpretation of the 'and' in the regulation should not be treated as 'or'.
he customer can exceed 6 KW during a billing period. The Board also finds, based on the balance of probabilities, that the demand usage as recorded in the billing history for this customer is correct. [20] As to the rate class to which thi...
AI summary The Board confirms that the customer's demand usage is correctly recorded and evaluates the interpretation of the rate classification. The discussion centers on whether the logical 'and' in the rate criteria was misinterpreted as 'or' by the customer, which would affect eligibility for the Small General Service Rate. The Board concludes that the customer does not meet the criteria for this rate class.
HAS MR. SCHMEISSER BEEN OVERCHARGED? [26] Mr. Hirtle, on behalf of his client, Mr. Schmeisser, recalculated all the bills that have been issued by the Utility using three different assumptions. The first assumption was that the small gener...
AI summary Mr. Hirtle recalculated Mr. Schmeisser's utility bills using different assumptions, finding that he was overbilled by approximately $561.68. The Board notes discrepancies in the recalculations for bills from June 2000 to March 2005, but not for more recent bills. The Utility had previously informed Mr. Hirtle of the correct billing methodology.
Findings [35] The Board finds that the Utility had incorrectly charged Mr. Schmeisser for both demand and energy usage for the period from June 2000 to October 2005. In the evidence filed, the Utility only acknowledges the under-billing fo...
AI summary The Board found that Nova Scotia Power incorrectly charged Mr. Schmeisser for energy and demand usage from June 2000 to October 2005, with under-billing for energy usage potentially exceeding 3,000 kW hours. The Utility acknowledges under-billing for demand but not for energy. The Board orders Mr. Schmeisser to pay all issued bills.