I had someone ask me why I’ve been so hard on City Utilities when I’m usually more even handed reporting on things with other City related entities. The only answer I could give is that I’m not really being heavy handed (although I’ve heard that’s not the view at CU) but rather that I’m just posting the information I receive and it doesn’t always show CU in a favorable light.
That’s about to happen again with this post.
First, though, let me recap my coverage of City Utilities and why when I saw what I read today I became very skeptical again of City Utilities.
On April 7th, City Utilities General Manager John Twitty appeared before City Council as they requested a gas rate increase. This was part of that live blog from that night:
Councilman Deaver’s last question revolved about how some citizens felt they were being penalized for conservation. (Editor’s note: like me…) Mr. Twitty said they don’t see it as a penalty to customers. “The bottom line is if you use less your bill is going to be less.” (Editor’s Note: However…a CU press statement said the rate increase was because people were using less gas. That means the rate is higher because people were using less gas. The “if a customer uses less…” excuse doesn’t really answer the question about people being punished for conserving and using less gas overall that is resulting in CU asking for a higher rate.)
Now I asked Mr. Twitty the same question during a session of Municipal Government Academy and received the same answer. As I mentioned in the liveblog, Mr. Twitty’s answer doesn’t answer the question as to whether customers are being punished for conserving and using less gas.
For example, let’s take three months where you use gas at a hypothetical rate of $2 a therm.
Month 1: 200 therms at $2 each = $400 bill
Month 2: You conserve and cut down to 120 therms at $2 each = $240 bill
Now, you keep the levels of month two and other customers do the same thing. Conservation brings about lower usage across the system. As a result, the utility announces they need to rate rates 40 cents a therm because people are using less gas.
Month 3: After the increase….120 therms at $2.40 each = $288 bill
How is that not punishing the customers with higher bills because they were conserving when the rate was lower? Of course if they only use 100 therms instead of 120 it’s going to be a smaller bill but that’s not the point.
We still haven’t received a straight answer from CU on that.
Then in this post I examined City Utilities claim made both to City Council and at Municipal Government Academy that CU’s rates were 20% below the state and national average. In it, I took the question asked by City Councilwoman Mary Collette and looked at our area’s average income versus the state and national average (quote taken from that post):
“The average median income for a Springfield area household is $34,631. The average for the state of Missouri is $44,651. The national average is $48,201.
That means on average a Springfield household is making 22.4% less than the average median household income in Missouri. It’s making 28.1% less than the national average. So if we’re paying 20% less for utilities than the average we’re still paying more on average than other areas if it’s based on income.”
It was in the wrap up that I said many citizens don’t trust City Utilities right now that we’re being told the plain truth and not a glossed over spin of the situation. It’s because of that feeling that a post made by Brad Haller (producer of Ozarks Fox in the Morning on KSFX and personal hair poofer to Rob Evans) made on his blog Haller.4.Me:
“Earlier this year, we got a really high utility bill. Really high. So, starting in March, we shut off the heater, which is the main gas guzzler in our townhouse. The only other thing that uses gas is our water heater. But we’re not cutting back on showers, so that’ll just have to stay put. Alright, so Springfield City Utilities sends us a bill a month later, which wasn’t terrible, and I thought that was an indication of headway. Nope. Today, we got a $245 bill!!!! Why? After several phone calls and bitch fests with the people at CU, we learn that a technician saw a HUGE drop in our gas usage, so he hiked our bill, thinking it was a mess-up on the meter. Big NO-NO. You’d think they would just adjust the $150 in question. Nope. We got an apology and were told there was nothing else they could do. CU has a monopoly on Springfield, so there’s nowhere to turn. They DID say our next bill will be back to normal… well, it better be! Otherwise, I’m calling to shut off my utilities entirely and I’ll just live like a caveman. I pretty much already do, you bastards!” (Bolded section was bolded by me for emphasis.)
Well, let’s just say that more than piqued my curiosity. As someone who spent the better part of February and March and April having his thermostat set on 58 degrees to try and keep the huge gas bill down it seemed really interesting to me that someone at CU could just arbitrarily raise someone’s reported usage because they thought there might be a mess up on the meter.
So I sent an e-mail to Joel Alexander, the press guy for City Utilties and asked him about it. First, I asked if he would confirm or deny the report made by Brad on his blog. Joel’s response was that City Utilities does not talk about a customer’s account with anyone but the customer. OK, I can certainly understand taking that position although in this case they’re being called out by a customer publicly on that account. In a sense, Mr. Haller’s opening himself up to rebuttal but Joel has to stick by CU policy so I can’t fault him on that.
Then I asked Joel “why is it even legal for a technician to adjust what is reported on the meter? How can we as customers believe in the integrity of our utility if workers can adjust the usage numbers at will?”
Joel’s answer was “As to your question about adjusting a meter: If a meter is suspected to be defective it is replaced. They are never adjusted in the field. Meters are read monthly, unless weather or other conditions prevent the reading, and in that case the bill would be estimated by previous account history and trued-up with the next reading. Those readings are then transferred to the account history and billed.”
I’m guessing my question wasn’t really clear because I wasn’t asking about a technician fixing the meter itself on location but rather Brad’s claim that a tech at CU saw his usage was significantly less and made the call it had to be a defective meter and therefore raised the amount on the meter.
Even if Joel was trying to address that in his comment about estimated usage for the month, that seems to contradict Brad’s claim that he was told “a technician saw a HUGE drop in our gas usage, so he hiked our bill, thinking it was a mess-up on the meter.” That means it was read by a human being…not an estimate…and that human being made the call to raise the amount on the meter when it came time for the billing cycle.
Is that legal? If so, why? If someone reads a meter and it says someone has used X amount of gas can you really conclusively prove it was a defective meter without taking it into the shop and having it examined? Shouldn’t they also inform the customer of the potential metering problem and that a replacement has had to be made?
I asked Joel for some clairification and I’ll post that here once I receive it.
I then asked Joel “If this really was a case of the technician changing the value for his bill, why can’t the difference be either credited to his account or refunded to him?”
Joel’s answer was “If a credit is due to any customer it can be applied to their account, or a refund may be requested.” That contradicts what Brad posted regarding just receiving an apology and being told nothing else could be done. So, Brad, you might want to make another few calls to the Customer Service department at CU or perhaps contact Joel to see who you need to speak with to get that credit or refund.
Now, I mentioned that I have questions about my bill now because if someone did that to Brad, how can I know if they did it to me? Or you, who’s reading this…how can you be sure it wasn’t done to you? There’s no real way to know. However, in Joel’s response he included some good information regarding conservation that I thought I should pass along:
“Regarding your account, if you have any questions or concerns about your usage, or billing, a customer service representative would be happy to assist you with those questions.
Our Energy Management and Conservation department can provide information on ways to help reduce the monthly bill. Information can be found on www.cuenergywise.com or by calling 874-8200. At CU we strive everyday to provide reliable and affordable utility service to every customer. However with today’s rising costs, the best thing anyone can do save money is to conserve.”
Now, I don’t blame Joel for not being able to really clear up what seems like a really muddy situation for CU. He’s handcuffed by the fact he can’t talk about Brad’s account to either confirm or refute the claims Brad made within his blog. Unfortunately for Joel and for City Utilities, this claim from Brad Haller comes on the heels of other situations where the harsh, critical light on CU is getting brighter and hotter.
If what Brad Haller said was true…and being that he’s a member of the media and his credibility would be damaged if not destroyed if that post is a lie…then it’s possible this has happened to other customers as well. Unless City Utilities can refute Mr. Haller’s claims it might be time for some kind of state investigation into the practices at CU to make sure that people are not being charged more than they should be when the meters are read by human beings.
I am more than willing to consider this was a mistake made by a lone employee and not an overall problem at City Utilities. The only thing that leads me to wonder if it’s not is the fact that Joel said a refund or credit could be offered to someone if a credit is due a customer and Brad is claiming that one is due but was told nothing could be done. There’s a miscommunication somewhere in this system.
I’m sure this post isn’t going to win me any friends in the halls of power at CU. I hate having to raise these questions but as a homeowner who has seen extremely high gas bills and had to wear two layers of clothing on the coldest days inside my own home to try and keep the gas bill at a managable level it concerns me that someone can make the claim their bill was essentially doctored by a CU staff member.
If Joel can’t talk about a customer’s account then Mr. Twitty or another member of the management team needs to come out and either refute Mr. Haller’s claims or provide an explanation for why this situation happened in the manner Mr. Haller reported on his blog. If not, this is just another blow to City Utilities at a time where confidence in the operations is not high among customers and residents.
Recent Comments