MSR 2002-2 - Public Service Commission of West Virginia

Public Service Commission — Management Summary Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Message From the Commission .................................................................................................3 

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................5 

Divisions 

1. Office of the Commissioners ..........................................................................................7 

2. Executive Secretary ....................................................................................................19 

— Case Load.............................................................................................................21 

— Hearings ................................................................................................................21 

— Informal Meetings ..................................................................................................21 

— Generic Information Proceedings ............................................................................21 

3. Administrative Division ................................................................................................23 

4. Water and Wastewater Division ...................................................................................29 

5. Utilities Division ..........................................................................................................37 

6. Transportation Administration Division .........................................................................55 

7. Transportation Enforcement Division ............................................................................67 

7. Engineering Division ....................................................................................................77 

8. Legal Division .............................................................................................................81 

State and Federal Court Cases Involving the Public Service Commission 

— State Circuit Court Cases.......................................................................................85 

— Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ............................................................87 

— Federal District Court ............................................................................................92 

— Federal Bankruptcy Court ......................................................................................95 

— Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ..................................................................95 

9. Division of Administrative Law Judges .........................................................................97 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Rate Comparison Studies .............................................................................. 101 

Appendix B Rate of Return .............................................................................................. 115 

Appendix C Summary of Senate Bill 110 .......................................................................... 121 

Appendix D Summary of the Tel-Assistance Service Telephone Rate Discount Program .... 135 

Page 1


Page 2

Jon W. McKinney 

PSC Chairman 

R. Michael Shaw 

PSC Commissioner 

Edward H. Staats 

PSC Commissioner 


Message From The Commission 

It is our pleasure to present the Management Summary Report for 2006 

of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. The Commission’s 

role is vital to the public safety and economic well-being of everyone who 

lives in, works in, visits or does business in our state. 

The mission of the Commission is to support and promote a utility and 

transportation safety environment that balances the interests of all parties 

and pursues excellence through quality. We do so to ensure that reasonably 

priced and reliable utility services are available to all customers, and to 

increase business investment, job creation/retention and the state’s overall 

economic competitiveness. 

Our vision remains a guiding image of success formed in terms of a 

contribution to society. To continue to be a nationally recognized leader in 

utilities regulation and transportation, we work tirelessly to assure: 

1. Impartial and efficient resolution of all jurisdictional issues; 

2. Public safety through inspections of motor carriers, railroads 

and natural gas pipelines; 

3. An increase in business investment, job creation/retention and 

the state’s overall competitiveness; 

4. An improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for 

the people of West Virginia; 

5. That consumers receive the best value in utility service from 

financially viable and technically competent companies; and, 

6. That utilities receive an opportunity to earn a fair return on their 

investment in regulated services. 

As noted in the Mission Statement, the Public Service Commission is a key player in the 

economic development of the state of West Virginia. The Commission is currently considering 

energy projects that are $7 billion in construction cost and represent 3,000 construction 

employees and more than 300 permanent jobs. The Commission has also disbursed more 

than $78 million in E-911 revenue to county commissions, Offices of Emergency Programs, 

the West Virginia State Police and the Cellular Tower Assistance Fund. 

Page 3


The purpose of this Management Summary Report is to convey to our stakeholders how the 

Public Service Commission has met our mission during 2006 — a year in which several 

daunting challenges were met as part of our effort to properly regulate utilities that account 

for a fifth of the state’s economy, employ thousands of people and generate tax revenues vital 

to the operation of essential services provided by state and local government. 

Issues this Commission faced in 2006 include the sale of West Virginia-American Water 

Company, wind turbine certificate cases, the failing water and sewer systems, the cost of 

natural gas, performance measures for water and sewer utilities, Allegheny securitization plan 

for scrubbers, the 911 rulemaking regarding the Tower Fund and on prepaid phone cards, and 

the Federal District Court case on the constitutionality of the state statute regulating solid 

waste. Issues we will tackle in 2007 include competitive pressures on the telecommunications 

industry, Allegheny 500kv transmission line, AEP 765kv transmission line, and AEP 600MV 

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant. 

These and other challenges can only be met by skilled, knowledgeable, professional people 

whose expertise in utility regulation and the other functions charged to the Commission by 

the Legislature would be unequaled. The performance of these functions will have to be 

accomplished through the use of well-designed, constantly improving, measured processes 

that focus on the delivery of the highest quality and most timely services to all customers, 

including regulatory compliers. The continued creation of this capacity at the Public Service 

Commission is the ultimate challenge. 

Page 4

Introduction 


During the 1979 regular session, the West Virginia Legislature declared that it was 

“legislative policy to ensure that the legislature and the general public become better informed 

regarding the regulation of public utilities in this State and the conduct of the business of the 

public service commission”. West Virginia Code §24-2-2(d). In order to further this policy, 

the Public Service Commission presents annually to the Joint Committee on Government and 

Finance, or a Subcommittee designated by the Joint Committee, a Management Summary 

Report, describing in a concise manner the major activities of the Commission for the year 

especially as such activities relate to the implementation of the provisions of the Public Service 

Commission law, important policy decisions reached and initiatives undertaken during the 

year, the current balance of supply and demand for natural gas and electric utility services in 

the State and forecast of the probable balance for the next ten years, and other information 

considered by the Commission to be important including recommendations for statutory reform 

and the reasons for such recommendations. 

Because nearly all the actions taken by the Commission express policy, it is impossible to 

separately state major activities of the Commission on the one hand and important policy 

decisions reached on the other. Accordingly, the text which follows combines major activities 

of the Commission and important policy decisions reached. 

The Commission’s studies on gas and electric supply and demand balances for the next ten 

years are submitted to the Joint Committee under separate cover. 

The major concerns and activities of the Commission and the important policy decisions 

reached and initiatives undertaken during the year are set out in the complete text of this 

report. 

Page 5


Page 6

Commission 


Meet The PSC 

Division Responsibilities 

• Decides cases. 

• Sets statewide policies for utility regulation through 

rulemaking proceedings. 

• Reports to the Legislature and Governor on issues as 

requested. 

• Communicates the PSC’s work to the public and 

regulated utilities. 

• Recommends statutory changes which affect utilities and 

the agency. 

• Sets the administrative policies for the agency. 

Page 7 

Office Office of of the 

the 

Commissioners 

Commissioners


Office of the Commissioners 

2006 Accomplishments 

1. Eastern Panhandle meetings on growth issues. On June 21st and 22nd, West 

Virginia Public Service Commission Chairman Jon McKinney and 

Commissioner Michael Shaw, along with members of the PSC Staff, visited 

the Eastern Panhandle, including the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson. 

2. Strategy to Address Gas Rate Spikes. In the fall of 2005 the entire nation was 

faced with unprecedented natural gas price spikes. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

wiped out a large portion of the natural gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico 

and caused already high prices to escalate to over $15 per million Btus by 

December. The full impact of these high prices would have increased West 

Virginia natural gas rates by 40 percent - 50 percent. 

3. New Software Case Tracking System. In coordination with the Commission’s 

Information Technology personnel, instituted a new on-line software system 

for tracking cases, staff responsibilities, and case progress to ensure that the 

Commissioners render timely decisions. 

4. Commenced the Scanning of all Commission filings and Posting on Website. 

In 2006, the Commission implemented a scanning process whereby all public 

filings are now available on-line to the general public. The Commission sees 

this as a teaching tool by which legal practitioners, utilities personnel, and 

members of the public, and educators can easily research Commission case 

law, as well as become familiar with Commission procedures. 

***The Commission notes that these accomplishments were brought about by the 

combined effort of employees throughout the Commission’s various divisions, as 

well as by the Commissioners and their staff. 

Page 8


Office of Commissioners Staff 

The Commissioners’ staff is composed of a Lead Law Clerk, five Law Clerks, a Paralegal 

and five Secretaries. Among other duties, these staff members are responsible for preparing 

materials for Commission consideration at the meetings described below. 

The Commissioners meet each week to consider the initial disposition of new cases – that 

is, whether the case will be handled by the Commission or by the Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) Division. Hence, this meeting is commonly referred to as the Assignment Conference. 

The average number of cases to be considered at an Assignment Conference is approximately 

29. Several times a year, nearly 50 cases are considered during one Assignment conference. 

The Commissioners also meet each week to discuss substantive issues and resolve the cases 

which are pending before them. Issue summaries are prepared for the Agenda of this meeting. 

This meeting is commonly referred to as the Decision Conference. The number of cases 

considered each week varies, depends upon whether any statutory deadline is approaching, the 

complexity of the issues, and so forth. In addition to the Dispositions and Agenda meetings, 

the Commission conducts a Division Directors’ meeting once a week. At this meeting, the 

Commissioners and Division Directors discuss emerging issues and work to generate 

cooperative approaches. The Commission meets at other times, as circumstances require. 

Between the regularly scheduled meetings, the Commissioners and their staff prepare for 

hearings, review upcoming cases, and prepare the written decisions for cases that the 

Commission has decided, among other things. 


1. Eastern Panhandle meetings on growth issues. On June 21st and 22nd, West Virginia 

Public Service Commission Chairman Jon McKinney and Commissioner Michael Shaw, along 

with members of the PSC Staff, visited the Eastern Panhandle, including the counties of 

Berkeley and Jefferson. 

The purpose of the visit was to create a dialogue to try to help the residents of the Eastern 

Panhandle address the growing issues of water and sewer services as they pertain to the growth 

within the area. Home builders, power company officials and other developers met with state, 

county and local officials, as well as the general public to discuss the various issues. 

The Eastern Panhandle meetings were the first in a series of such meetings being planned 

throughout the State by the Commission. 

2. Strategy to Address Gas Rate Spikes. In the fall of 2005 the entire nation was faced 

with unprecedented natural gas price spikes. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wiped out a large 

Page 9


portion of the natural gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico and caused already high prices 

to escalate to over $15 per million Btus by December. The full impact of these high prices 

would have increased West Virginia natural gas rates by 40 percent - 50 percent. 

In response to this crisis, the West Virginia PSC used its authority over gas rates to soften 

the impact on customers. The PSC worked out agreements with natural gas utilities to limit 

customer rate increases during the winter of 2005/2006 to between 20 percent and 30 percent. 

When the winter heating season ended, the PSC allowed most utilities to raise their rates to 

eliminate unrecovered gas costs that had built up during the winter. 

This strategy was successful in mitigating extreme swings in gas bills, limiting the impact 

of high prices during the coldest part of the year, and in allowing utilities to recover all of 

their gas costs. Entering the winter of 2006/2007 most West Virginia gas utilities have been 

able to reduce their rates from the high levels of last winter. For example, rates for customers 

of Mountaineer Gas, the largest gas utility in the state, will be 15 percent lower than last 

winter. 

During the Fall of 2006, the Commission held a public meeting in Raleigh County for 

customers of Mountaineer Gas Company and Bluefield Gas Company, to address concerns 

regarding the recent gas rate increases. 

2. New Software Case Tracking System. In coordination with the Commission’s 

Information Technology personnel, instituted a new on-line software system for tracking cases, 

staff responsibilities, and case progress to ensure that the Commissioners render timely 

decisions. 

3. Commenced the Scanning of all Commission filings and Posting on Website. In 2006, 

the Commission implemented a scanning process whereby all public filings are now available 

on-line to the general public. The Commission sees this as a teaching tool by which legal 

practitioners, utilities personnel, and members of the public, and educators can easily research 

Commission case law, as well as become familiar with Commission procedures. 

6. Case determinations. The majority of the Commission’s efforts are devoted to deciding 

cases which have been filed by utilities or their customers. The Commissioners - 

� Review every new case that is filed, as well as every reopened case, and decide whether 

the matter will be retained by the Commissioners or referred to the Division of 

Administrative Law Judges. 

Page 10


� Resolve the cases which the Commission retains. As needed, the Commissioners conduct 

hearings. However, most cases can be decided by reviewing the pleadings. 

� Decide all cases in which a party objects, or excepts, to an ALJ’s Recommended Decision. 

The Commission conducts a hearing, if needed, but most cases are decided upon the 

written documents. 

� Set procedures to process cases. 

During the period January 1, 2006, through November 20, 2006, the Commissioners’ staff 

prepared 1,180 orders which either referred cases to the ALJ or contained the Commission’s 

decision. The Executive Secretary, on behalf of the Commissioners, prepared another 1,035 

form orders, such as requiring notice to be filed of a certificate application, requiring a 

defendant to answer a formal complaint, or extend an ALJ’s decision due date. In total, the 

Commission issued 2,215, non-coal truck related orders in 2006. The Division of 

Administrative Law Judges issued 877 non coal truck related orders during the same period. 

Orders issued pursuant to the Commission’s jurisdiction over coal truck weight enforcement 

are tallied separately and are not included in the above totals. The Commission and ALJ Division 

combined closed 696 such cases during 2006. 

Rulemakings 

The following rulemaking proceedings were instituted in 2006 which affect utilities and 

their West Virginia customers: 

Net Metering Standards - 06-0708-E-GI: This proceeding is an investigation into 

Commission policy and proposed rules regarding Net Metering, Smart Metering and 

Interconnection Standards set forth in the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Federal 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding Smart Metering requires each state regulatory authority 

to decide whether or not it is appropriate to implement certain Section 1252 including offering 

each customer class a time-based rate schedule where the rate charged varies during different 

time periods and reflects the variance in the utility’s cost of service. 

Net Metering allows an electric utility customer to provide to the local distribution utility 

electricity the customer generates using certain facilities on the customer’s site. The electricity 

would offset the electricity provided by the electric utility to the customer. 

Initiated by Commission general investigation in May of 2006, the Commission heard 

evidence and accepted a stipulation from the majority of the parties on October 10, 2006. The 

Commission voiced approval of the stipulation during the hearing and an order will issue 

before the end of 2006. 

Page 11


E911 fees, General Order 187.32. State law requires wireless telecommunications carriers 

to collect an E911 fee each month from their subscribers. The carriers remit those collected 

fees to the PSC, and the PSC distributes those fees to emergency service providers around the 

state, as well as to the state police, homeland security and a fund to encourage cell tower 

construction. Several prepaid carriers asserted that the E911 fee statute did not apply to them, 

and they did not collect and remit the E911 fees. The Commission disagreed with that 

interpretation and held that the E911 fee statute applies, regardless of the technology used to 

provide service. This year, the Legislature clarified the E911 fee statute, by expressly stating 

that it applies to prepaid providers. The Commission adopted final rules with provisions for 

prepaid service on November 27, 2006. 

Revised Water and Sewer Rules - Rules and Regulations for the Government of Sewer 

Utilities, 150 C.S.R. 5, and Rules and Regulations for the Government of Water Utilities, 

150 C.S.R. 7. The Commission is currently drafting proposed rules in response to changes in 

legislation and new policy formulated in Commission orders. The new rules will also propose 

clarifications and stylistic changes. The proposed rules should issue for comment in the near 

future. 

Significant Issues 

Each year, the Commission considers significant or novel issues. A few of such matters 

from 2006 are summarized below. 

Base Rate Cases - The Commission approved revised base rates for the following three, 

large, utilities during 2006: Union Oil and Gas Inc.; Consumers Gas Utility Company; and 

Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company, both doing business as American 

Electric Power. 

Scrubber Financing - The Commission addressed restructuring of the ownership of 

Allegheny generating facilities as between Mon Power and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, 

LLC. in Case Nos. 00-0801-E-PC, 00-1246-E-PC, 00-1616-E-PC, and 03-0695-E-PC. 

The Commission considered and granted a request for a certificate of convenience and 

necessity for a “wet scrubber” on the Fort Martin plant (one of the generating assets transferred 

in the above cases) in Case No. 05-0402-E-CN. 

The Commission approved financing for construction of the scrubber in the form of a 

securitization financing plan permitted under West Virginia Code § 24-2-4e in Case No. 05- 

0750-E-PC. 

Page 12


The Commission issued two orders on April 7, 2006 approving stipulations filed in the 

respective cases. The Commission approved the asset swap in the first four cases and approved 

the certificate and securitization financing in the remaining two. 

Case Nos. 05-0402-E-CN and 05-0750-E-PC were reopened in October for consideration 

of increased project costs. 

Electric Generation Projects - During 2006, the Commission granted, with extensive 

conditions, a siting certificate to locate a 186 MW windmill facility in Greenbrier County, on 

a 100,000-acre tract owned by MeadWestvaco, which had previously been timbered and mined. 

More than 100 1.5 MW wind turbines were approved, and the total cost was projected to be 

$300 million. The project will create more than 200 temporary construction jobs and 15-20 

permanent jobs with a $35,000 average annual salary. Further, it will result in $400,000 yearly 

in tax revenue to Greenbrier County for 20 years and $200,000 yearly in tax revenue to the 

state, as well as contribute to a growth in tourism. There was extensive public participation in 

this case, and the Commission conducted two public comment hearings in Lewisburg and six 

days of evidentiary hearings in Charleston. At year’s end, the Commission was deliberating 

petitions to reconsider that decision. 

The Commission held a hearing in December 2006 on another windmill project proposed 

for construction in Pendleton County. If a siting certificate is granted, the facility would be 

comprised of 50 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of between 1,500 and 3,000 kilowatts, 

and certain ancillary facilities, and an approximate 17.25 mile, 138 kV overhead transmission 

line to interconnect the facility to the Allegheny Power System (APS) electric transmission 

system. The total output of the Facility would be up to 125 megawatts. The general location of 

the Facility is on the Jack Mountain ridge top approximately ten miles outside of Franklin in 

Pendleton County, West Virginia. The Commission anticipates issuing its final decision on 

the application in March 2007. This application is docketed as Case No. 05-1740-CS-CN and 

the applicant is Liberty Gap Wind Force, LLC . 

The Commission is currently considering Appalachian Power Company’s application for a 

certificate of convenience and necessity to construct a 600 MW Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle electric generating unit in Mason County in Case No. 06-0033-E-CN. A 

hearing in this case scheduled for March 2007. 

By a Commission Order entered June 26, 2006 the Commission granted the applications 

of Longview Power, LLC for a Siting Certificate to authorize the construction and operation 

of a 600 MW coal-fired electric power plant Wholesale Electric Generating Facility and for 

a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and installation of a 

Page 13


500 kV electric transmission line, subject to Longview meeting a number of conditions. 

The Commission’s Order was appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals by 

an Intervenor to the case. The appeal was denied by the Court. 

On November 8, 2006 Longview petitioned to reopen the case to obtain the necessary 

permission to increase the generation capacity of the plant to 695 MW. The reopened 

certificate is before the Commission. 

Capacity Improvement Fees - In Case No. 06-0016-PSD-T, Berkeley Co. PSSD the 

Commission approved request to increase CIFs as applicable to Developers; required the 

District to obtain prior approval before it withdraws, commits, or disburses any collection 

system CIFs for any normal course of business District construction and/or upgrades of its 

facilities; required the District to file, along with a request for expedited approval, a detailed 

report, by January 1 st of each year, which sets forth the District’s anticipated improvement 

projects and the estimated cost of each project; if a project is subsequently added, the District 

is required to file a further request for expedited approval of the additional project(s). Likewise, 

if changes are made during the year to the District’s anticipated projects and estimated costs, 

as initially filed with the Commission, a further filing shall be required by the District for 

Commission approval of the changes. The District is required to include in such filing a yearend 

report of each project which was completed during the previous year and the cost of each 

such project. 

Telecommunications - In Case No. 04-0102-T-GI Frontier Communications of West 

Virginia et al, General Investigation into the provision of Data Base Management Services 

(DBMS) for E911 services and into who pays the costs of such services. The Commission has 

ordered further filings and a hearing is to be held in January 2007. 

Also of note is the Commission’s TRS certificate proceeding, General Order No. 187.31. 

Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) assists the deaf, hearing-impaired and speechimpaired 

communities to communicate via the telecommunications network, through the use 

of specialized equipment and with the services of trained Communication Assistants who 

relay and/or interpret both typed text and spoken word to and between the called and calling 

parties. For several years, AT&T Communications has provided this service for West Virginians, 

but AT&T asked the Commission to seek applications from other providers, so that AT&T 

could stop providing the service in early 2007. 

The Commission opened General Order 187.31 on June 9, 2006, receive competing 

applications to provide TRS service. On September 25, 2006, after considering proposals by 

Page 14


Hamilton Telephone Company, dba Hamilton Telecommunications, Sprint Communications 

Company, LP; and A.V. Lauttamus Communications, Inc., and comments from representatives 

of the deaf community, an ALJ recommended that Hamilton be awarded the TRS certificate. 

Sprint and Lauttamus asked the Commission to reject the ALJ’s recommendation. On November 

27, 2006, the Commission awarded an 18-month certificate to Hamilton. 

Logan County Water Service consolidation - In Elmore v. Holden Water Co., 05-0900- 

W-C, the Commission addressed numerous past and current complaints regarding poor water 

service provided by Holden Water Company which served approximately 700 customers in 

Logan County. In Logan Co. PSD, 06-0701-PWD-PC, on September 14, 2006, the 

Commission approved Logan County PSD’s purchase of Holden’s system. The Commission 

required progress reports every six months on Logan County PSD’s work to upgrade the former 

Holden system. A $500,000 grant from the Governor’s Office was used to pay for connecting 

the two systems. 

Emergency Certificate Projects - In City of Ravenswood, 05-1339-S-ECN, the 

Commission granted an emergency application for approval of revised financing in the amount 

of $4.2 million, for upgrades to the lagoon system and mechanical type wastewater treatment 

plant alternatives, Jackson County. In a separate City of Ravenswood, 06-0257-S-ECN, the 

Commission approved a $2 million sewer extension for Jackson Crossing, Jackson County. 

Interstate Motor Carrier Jurisdiction - On October 21, 2002, the PSC ordered James 

Allen Harper, doing business as Southern Ohio Disposal, to cease and desist from collecting 

solid waste in West Virginia until he obtained a certificate of convenience and necessity, 

pursuant to W. Va. Code § 24A-2-5. Mr. Harper had asserted he did not need a certificate from 

the Commission because the waste he collected in West Virginia was disposed of in Ohio, and 

therefore, he was operating in interstate commerce, which was outside of the Commission’s 

jurisdiction. On May 30, 2003, the Commission denied Mr. Harper’s petition to reconsider. 

Thereafter, Mr. Harper challenged the PSC in federal court. On April 11, 2006, Magistrate 

Judge Mary E. Stanley ruled that W. Va. Code § 24A-2-5 violates Mr. Harper’s rights under the 

commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The federal Court determined that the 

PSC could not require Mr. Harper to obtain a certificate under W. Va. Code § 24A-2-5 because 

it would place a impermissible burden on interstate commerce. 

The Commission sought clarification as to whether the federal Court intended to only limit 

its decision to the certificate requirements, or if the Court intended by its rulings, to affect all 

Commission regulation of solid waste transporters involved in interstate commerce. By order 

issued May 10, 2006, the Court declined to clarify or amend its previous judgment. 

Page 15


As a result of the federal Court’s orders, on June 7, 2006, the PSC concluded that the 

federal Court only intended its ruling to apply to the certificate requirements contained in W. 

Va. Code § 24A-2-5. Therefore, although the Commission cannot require a solid waste collector 

engaged in interstate commerce to obtain a certificate from the PSC before entering the 

market in West Virginia, the PSC can apply other statutes and Commission regulations 

concerning the regulation of motor carriers engaged in such business. 

The Commission also said that the federal Court’s decision creates different statutory 

standards for market entry if an entity is engaged in interstate commerce, and it believed that 

the Legislature must address and correct the market entry issue. Harper v. PSC, MC Case No. 

30564-00-FC; U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, Case No. 2:03-cv-00516. 

Motor Carrier Guidance, 06-0722-MC-GI. As a result of the federal court order in Harper, 

and as an interim measure until the Legislature can perform a comprehensive review of the 

issues, the Commission opened this case to address those code provisions and regulations 

applicable to carriers who collect and transport solid waste in West Virginia even though they 

are not required to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity. The Commission said 

that its oversight would include the economic regulation of the rates charged to the public, 

safety, and quality of service. 

Staff suggested a checklist of items for the Commission to consider. In October, the 

Commission conducted public hearings in Beckley, Parkersburg, Martinsburg, Wheeling and 

Morgantown, seeking input on how to regulate solid waste collectors, in the wake of the 

federal court decision in Harper. At year end, the Commission was deliberating upon the 

comments received. 

Cable Television - In Case No. 01-0646-CTV-C, Community Antenna Services, Inc. v. 

Charter Communications, VI, LLC, the Commission, in 2004, denied a formal complaint filed 

by Community Antenna Service (CAS), which alleged that certain pricing practices of Charter 

Communications VI, LLC, were improper. CAS appealed the Commission’s decision to the 

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal. 

On June 30, 2006, the WV Supreme Court reversed in part and sustained in part, the PSC’s 

order, concluding that Charter’s pricing plans were improper and that advance notice was not 

required for certain types of discounts. Thereafter, the Commission required Charter and 

CAS to comment upon the Supreme Court order. Late in 2006, the Commission required 

Charter and Suddenlink to provide verified statements about whether they continue to offer 

pricing plans such the Supreme Court found improper. As of this report, the Commission is 

deliberating upon those filings. 

Page 16


West Virginia-American Water Company - American Water Works, Inc. is the parent 

company of West Virginia-American Water Company. In late 2002, the PSC granted its consent 

for Thames Water Aqua Holdings GmbH to acquire all of American Water’s stock. On May 8, 

2006, in Case No. 06-0597-W-PC. Thames Gmbh asked the PSC’s consent to sell American 

Water’s stock on the New York Stock Exchange, which would result in American Water 

becoming the largest publicly-traded water company in the United States. In early December, 

the Commission conducted a hearing on this request. As of this report, the parties are filing 

briefs for the Commission’s consideration. 

Pocahontas County Public Service District - In Case No. 05-0103-PSD-CN, the District 

filed an application for a certificate of convenience and necessity for the construction, 

acquisition, operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment and collection system to 

service approximately 1,981 customers in Linwood, Slaty Fork, Snowshoe, Silver Creek and 

Hawthorne Valley areas of Pocahontas County. A Recommended Decision granting the 

application contingent upon the receipt of all necessary local, state and federal permits was 

entered in the matter on December 12, 2005.Two intervenors filed exceptions to the 

Recommended Decision. The Commission entered a final order adopting the Recommended 

Decision on February 21, 2006. Intervenor Thomas Shipley filed an appeal with the Supreme 

Court of Appeals on March 23 ,2006. The Court refused to hear the petition for appeal on 

September 6, 2006. 

Page 17


Page 18

Executive Secretary 



• All formal cases, applications and complaints requiring 

Commission action are filed here. 

• Issues notices required for processing cases including 

certificate applications, suspension orders, setting for 

hearing orders, subpoenas, etc. 

• Electronically enter all actions taken on formal cases, from 

the date of filing to conclusion, into the official docket. 

• Mails all orders entered by the Commission and Division of 

Administrative Law Judges. 

• Responsible for the safe custody and preservation of all 

documents on file. 

• Control of all annual reports and tariffs. 

Meet The PSC 

Page 19


Executive Secretary Division 


1. This Division moved originals of Administrative Law Judge and 

Commission Orders from an off-site storage facility to a secure 

location owned by the PSC, thereby creating an annual budget savings 

of $35,000. 

2. In June, 2006, this Division, with assistance from the Data Processing 

Section, developed a data base capable of tracking the location of 

archived closed case files, thus eliminating the need for a paper 

record. 

3. Several upgrades have been implemented to the PSC’s Web Docket to 

provide detailed tracking of all activities in Formal Cases, Notices of 

Intent, Tower Access Assistance Fund applications, and Ordinances. 

4. In 2006, this Division issued and released 4,740 Commission and/or 

Administrative Law Judge Orders. 

5. In 2006, the Annual Reports and Tariff Offices were transferred to 

this Division. Working together with the Data Processing Section and 

Water/Wastewater Division, we have completed a significant project 

that provides the ability to all regulated utilities to file their annual 

reports online using the PSC web site. 

Page 20


I. CASE LOAD 

Utility Cases 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Pending at beginning 529 560 585 655 569 439 

Opened during year 1,870 2,035 1,953 1,962 1,645 1,954 

Closed during year 1,839 2,010 1,883 2,048 1,971 1,853 

Pending December 31 560 585 655 569 439 540 

Motor Carrier Cases 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Pending at beginning 137 175 149 195 129 105 

Opened during year 189 248 356 233 194 213 

Closed during year 268 274 310 299 218 203 

Pending December 31 175 149 195 129 105 115 

Coal Cases 2004 2005 2006 

Pending at beginning 0 22 293 

Opened during year 37 728 502 

Closed during year 15 536 741 

Pending December 31 22 214 54 

II. HEARINGS 

Commission at PSC Building ..................................................................................66 

Commission out of town ...........................................................................................7 

Administrative Law Judge at PSC Building..............................................................76 

Administrative Law Judge out of town...................................................................141 

Coal Hearings - Hearing Examiner, Administrative Law Judge Division, at PSC .......0 

Total .....................................................................................................................266 

III. INFORMAL MEETINGS 

Small Public Utilities Association .................................................. January 26, 2006 

Allegheny Energy .................................................................................. June 6, 2006 

IV. GENERIC INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS 

GENERAL ORDERS 

G.O. 184.21 

February 1, 2006 In the matter of interest to be paid on customer deposits by electric 

utilities. 

Page 21


G.O. 185.26 

February 1, 2006 In the matter of interest to be paid on customer deposits by gas utilities. 

G.O. 186.19 

February 1, 2006 In the matter of interest to be paid on customer deposits by sewer utilities. 

G.O. 187.30 In the matter of interest to be paid on customer deposits by telephone 

February 1, 2006 utilities. 

G.O. 188.24 In the matter of interest to be paid on customer deposits by water utilities. 

February 1, 2006 

G.O. 185.27 In the matter of ameneding the Rules for the Government of Gas Utilities 

April 5, 2006 and Gas Pipeline Safety, 150 C.S.R. Series 4, relating to maintenance 

responsibilities on service piping. 

G.O. 187.31 In the matter of inviting applications for a certificate of conveneience 

June 9, 2006 and necessity to provide telecommunication relay service in West 

Virginia. 

G.O. 187.32 In the matter of Rules Governing E911 Fees, 150 C.S.R. Series 31, to provide 

June 30, 2006 further guidance regarding E911 fee requirements. 

G.O. 182.08 Informal Resolution of Formal Complaints and Interim Relief Procedure 

July 19, 2006 

G.O. 239.01 In the matter of Transfer of records to Archives and History Division. 

September 15, 2006 

REOPENED GENERAL ORDERS 

MC G.O. 56.4 In the matter of emergency fuel surcharge for certificated common carriers 

April 20, 2006 of passengers and property of motor vehicles (Final June 19, 2006). 

Page 22

Administrative Division 



• Provides a variety of services to the agency including: 

o Human Resources 

o Budget/Finance 

o Training 

o Building/grounds management 

o Fleet management 

o Data processing 

o Public Relations 

Meet The PSC 

Page 23

Administrative Public Division Service Commission — Management Summary Report 


1. Financial accountability was delegated to the Director level within the PSC in 

2006. The Budget & Finance team developed reporting processes to the Division 

level, educated Directors on spending in their areas, and trained key Division 

personnel on how to monitor and manage their Division’s spending. 

2. Implemented cost savings initiatives with annualized savings over $175,000. Cost 

savings efforts reduced vault storage cost, decreased the number of leased vehicles 

and related costs, and reduced our maintenance contractor’s costs by better 

scheduling & changing job frequencies. Other projects included canceling 

unnecessary pagers and telephone lines, eliminating an office lease in Beckley, 

and promoting increased use of the PSC’s pool vehicles. 

3. Implemented a new accounts receivable program to improve the reporting of 

revenue and past due accounts for the PSC. This new program has dramatically 

improved the PSC’s ability to monitor and collect current and past due accounts. 

4. An “IT Steering Committee” was initiated in 2006 responsible for setting overall 

IT direction, recommending and prioritizing projects, reviewing and approving 

IT policies, new technology, resource requirements and software/hardware 

acquisitions. 

5. A new centralized tracking system was implemented allowing the PSC to have an 

accurate list of utilities operating in the state. The system also eliminates duplicate 

entry and provides better reporting of individual utility case activity. 

6. Implemented document imaging of docket activities that makes all information 

on the docket available to PSC Staff and other interested parties. 

7. Developed a system to allow Water & Sewer utilities operating in West Virginia 

to electronically register, complete and submit their Annual Reports to the PSC. 

8. Implemented a revised “Smoking” policy and a new “Security & Loss Prevention” 

policy. The “Smoking” policy incorporated changes to comply with the “Clean 

Indoor Air Regulation of 2003. In conjunction with this policy a smokers’ shelter 

was also constructed on-site. The “Security & Loss Prevention improved access 

control and put other measures in place to secure PSC assets and facilities. 

9. Implemented an intensive behavioral panel interviewing process that helped hire 

better and more qualified new employees to the PSC. 

Page 24


The Administrative Division is comprised of 21 employees that oversee the finance, human 

resources, information technology, public relations, purchasing, training and facilities 

management functions for the Public Service Commission. 

Key responsibilities of the Administrative Division includes providing agency-wide 

personnel, payroll and travel services; budget preparation and oversight; fiscal control; 

acquisition of funding through assessment of public utilities; and securing funds from 

government grants and funding programs. This Division is also responsible for the purchasing 

and inventorying of supplies; building and grounds maintenance and upkeep; assignment of 

fleet vehicles; equipment leasing; and purchase contracts. Another Division responsibility is 

to oversee public relations activities for the PSC including communicating with outside media, 

preparing press releases, coordinating annual reports and assisting other Divisions within the 

PSC with various efforts such as providing information to the general public for educational 

purposes. The Division also coordinates and provides educational training opportunities and 

maintains training related records for all PSC employees. Finally, the Administration Division 

handles all information technology and computer needs for the Public Service Commission. 

Duties include providing agency-wide installation and setup of computer hardware and software 

as well as the implementation of network security, backup and restoration procedures. Other 

information technology duties include upgrades to installed software and hardware, 

programming, database design, scanning, web design and maintenance as well as providing 

implementation, training, support and technical assistance for all hardware and software. 

The Budget and Finance Section has the responsibility for managing the PSC’s annual budget 

of almost $21 million dollars. It also collects and distributes E-911 fees for the State of West 

Virginia totaling more than $22 million dollars a year. This section led several initiatives in 

2006 including a major effort to move financial management and control responsibility further 

down into the organization, to the Director level. Key tasks to accomplish this included 

developing budget and monthly financial reports to the Division level, giving Directors an 

orientation explaining why the change was so important, and training Directors and key 

individuals how to monitor and manage their Division’s spending. This section also led a cost 

savings initiative for the PSC that resulted in over $175,000 in annualized savings in 2006. 

Major savings projects included eliminating vault storage $35,000; reducing maintenance 

contractor’s costs by better scheduling & changing job frequencies $40,000; increasing use 

of pool vehicles $10,000; reducing number of leased vehicles and related operating costs 

$60,000; eliminating unnecessary pagers and telephone lines $16,000; and eliminating the 

Beckley office lease $12,000. 

Page 25


Another accomplishment of this Section was implementing a new accounts receivable 

program to improve the reporting of revenue and past due accounts for the PSC. This reporting 

program added several new capabilities including the ability to track the aging of receivables. 

This program has also dramatically improved the PSC’s ability to monitor and collect current 

and past due accounts. Also during 2006, a full audit of all assets valued at $1,000 and more 

was completed and reconciled to the assets recorded in the WVFIM financial system. Finally 

this Section continued to be a leader in moving the PSC from a paper based to a scanned 

documents system. Virtually all information such as invoices, travel expense account forms 

and other financial documents are now scanned allowing for almost instantaneous electronic 

retrieval of these documents. 

The Information Technology Section has the responsibility for managing the PSC’s broad 

information technology hardware and software base both at PSC facilities and in the field. In 

recent years the IT function has helped the PSC make significant improvements in the 

availability of information and in productivity. To help make sure this trend continues an “IT 

Steering Committee” was organized in 2006. The Committee has responsibility to help set 

the overall IT direction, recommend and prioritize projects, review and approve IT policies & 

new technology, and evaluate resource requirements and software/hardware acquisitions. 

In 2006 the Information Technology Section continued to implement projects to improve 

the availability of information and productivity of the PSC. One such project was the 

implementation of a new centralized tracking system that enables the PSC to maintain an 

accurate list of utilities operating in the state. The system also eliminates duplicate entry and 

provides better reporting of individual utility case activity. The Section also implemented 

document imaging of docket activities which makes all information on the docket available to 

PSC Staff and other interested parties. Previously, only short summaries were available for 

each activity entry in the Docket System. The imaging component allows staff and the public 

to access complete documents associated with each activity. Other areas where imaging has 

been implemented during the year include Annual Reports, Infrastructure Council Filings, 

Finance and Human Resources. Additionally, the Section developed and implemented several 

improvements to the PSC’s online presence. Improvements include a new Hot Topic section 

on the PSC’s internet site that informs visitors of new or important activities of the agency. 

Also, a system was developed that allows Water & Sewer Utilities that operate in West Virginia 

to electronically register, complete and submit their Annual Reports to the PSC. Electronic 

submittal of Request for Assistance was also added during the year to allow visitors to contact 

the Commission on a variety of issues. In addition to the projects discussed above, the IT 

Section developed a new helpdesk tracking report, continued to effectively support existing 

Page 26


systems, developed numerous new reports for existing systems, and efficiently rolled out 

new computer equipment required to keep the PSC running effectively. 

The Human Resources Section is responsible for administering a $13.6 million personnel 

budget. The Section is also responsible for processing payroll, tax, benefits and other human 

resources related directives for currently 298 permanent employees, to a potential maximum 

of 335 permanent employees. In 2006 the Human Resources Section developed several new 

policies for the PSC. One of these policies successfully implemented by the agency was a 

revised Smoking Policy, incorporating changes to comply with the Clean Indoor Air Regulation 

of 2003. The Section was also involved with the development of a new “Security and Loss 

Prevention” policy. Other key policies are still in development. Also in 2006 close to 30 new 

hires were necessary to fill positions left vacant by employee separations. A behavioral based 

panel interview process implemented in 2006 by this Section made the hiring of new employees 

a more challenging and time intensive process; however, we believe that this interviewing 

process has helped bring better and more qualified new employees to the PSC. As a tool for 

the hiring process and also a move toward electronic record retention, scanning of applications 

and position posting materials allow these materials to be made available to hiring management 

via a webpage. This internal accomplishment, coupled with the WV Division of Personnel’s 

new register system and online application filing capability allow access and review of candidate 

qualifications in a more efficient and timely fashion. 

During 2006, the Public Information Section continued its efforts to disseminate the Public 

Service Commission’s message and pertinent case information to members of the public, 

media and government. The Section also maintained its presence at certain fairs, festivals and 

public meetings throughout the state, and continued to send press releases regarding 

Commission disposition of cases, information on new applications filed, public hearings 

conducted and many other subjects. These releases were not only forwarded to statewide 

media outlets, but also to trade magazines throughout the United States. In addition, the Section 

fielded more than 900 media telephone inquiries and 275 email inquiries. 

The Public Information Section also works closely with other Divisions in efforts to better 

inform and educate the public. In coordination with the PSC’s Transportation Division, media 

attention was facilitated for “Click-It-or-Ticket” and “Be Ready, Be Buckled” blitzes. 

Additionally, a “Hot Topics” section was added to the PSC website as a result of the combined 

efforts of the Public Information Section, Information Technology Section and the Executive 

Secretary outlining current issues with widespread impact. Those individuals plus the Director 

of the Water and Wastewater Division form the committee charged with the soon-to-be 

launched Kid’s Corner of the PSC website. Included in this effort have been research, graphic 

Page 27


design and a statewide art contest open to all West Virginia high school students to determine 

the face of the Kid’s Corner mascot, Utility Billy. Finally this Section resurrected the employee 

newsletter, The Regulator, this year after no publication the past few years. Two editions were 

issued in the second half of 2006. The newsletter is a way to tell PSC employees about their 

co-workers, the Public Service Commission’s leadership team, recognize new and long-time 

employees, educate employees on wellness and other issues, and at times just share some fun 

information. The hope is that the newsletter will be issued at least quarterly in the coming 

year. 

The Training Section develops and coordinates internal and external training programs for 

the PSC. Total documented mandatory and skills training taken by PSC employees in 2006 

approached 7000 hours. Training ranged from skills training to improve computer and financial 

capabilities of our employees to mandatory training for areas such as DOP workplace safety, 

FMCFA, weapon and driving seminars for our field employees, and policy and procedure 

training for all of our employees. The Training Section also brought in optional training to 

benefit our employees such as certified Red Cross adult CPR training. 

The Facilities Management/Fleet Section oversees the maintenance and upkeep of two 

buildings and a parking garage. The Section also maintains and manages a fleet of 111 vehicles 

for the PSC. Key accomplishments of this Section included developing a “Security & Loss 

Prevention” policy that improved access control and put measures in place to better secure 

PSC assets and facilities. In 2006 this Section also added security cameras to better monitor 

the Transportation building, renovated the atrium sections of the Main building to improve 

facility utilization and installed a smoker’s shelter in conjunction with the new PSC “Smoking 

Policy”. 

The Administrative Division also oversees the PSC’s Wellness Program. Several Wellness 

Programs were offered for all employees at the PSC in 2006 including the Annual PEIA Health 

Screening and flu vaccinations. There were several wellness programs offered for interested 

employees including the “10 Week 10,000 Steps a Day Challenge”, the “Weigh to Go” program 

and the “Lunch and Learn Program” to educate employees on skin cancer. 

The Administrative Division provides vital services to all divisions within the PSC. These 

services ensure a smooth, efficient and productive operation for the Public Service Commission 

of West Virginia. 

Page 28

Water & Wastewater Division 



Meet The PSC 

• Processes all types of cases involving Class B, C and D 

water and sewer public service districts, municipalities and 

associations. 

• Renders assistance to all classes and ownerships of water 

and sewer utilities. 

• Processes informal complaints involving all classes and 

ownerships of water and sewer utilities. 

Page 29


Water & Wastewater Division 


1. Designed and implemented a performance measures system for water and sewer 

utilities. During the design phase, both utilities and our regulatory partners were 

consulted in the development of the measures. 

2. Completed work on the electronic (Excel) Annual Report for water and sewer 

utilities. Conducted seminars to train utility staff in how to properly complete the 

electronic annual report and the performance measures. 

3. Helped in design and Implementation of Compass in our Assistance Section to 

track informal complaints and assistance requests and make this information 

accessible on the PSC website. This database has now been adopted by other 

divisions of the PSC. 

4. All financial water and sewer cases and Infrastructure application reviews are now 

performed by the Water and Wastewater Division which has led to more 

consistency in recommendations. 

5. Began the process of scanning Infrastructure applications into electronic format. 

Once completed, this Commission’s Infrastructure data base will contain not only 

Staff comments but the applications themselves. This will provide all the 

information on a particular application to the public we serve as well as 

Commission Staff. 

Page 30


The Water and Wastewater Division, formerly the Public Service District Division, was 

renamed on September 6, 1996, by Commission General Order No. 195.30. The Division 

was renamed to meet the directives of Senate Bill 568, enacted during the 1996 regular 

legislative session, which required the Commission to provide advice and assistance to Class 

III cities and Class IV towns or villages upon their request. By General Order No. 195.30 the 

Commission also delegated the Public Service District Division the responsibility for 

processing cases for municipalities and homeowner associations. The Public Service District 

Division, in the same General Order, was renamed the Water and Wastewater Division. 

Engineers were also removed from the Division and assigned to the newly created Engineering 

Division in 1999. 

On December 2, 2005, the Commission issued General Order 195.53 which gave the 

Division responsibility for the financial processing of all classes and ownership types of 

water and wastewater utilities. Present Division employees include a director, two managers, 

two secretaries and 21 staff members with various technical and educational backgrounds. 

These employees are assigned to two operating sections: Case Control and Assistance. 

A delineation of the Water and Wastewater Division’s current responsibilities with respect 

to all water and wastewater utilities is as follows: 

1. Investigating formal cases and making recommendations to the Commission 

from financial perspective. 

2. Conducting seminars to provide training to utility personnel, managers and 

board/council members. 

3. Participating in hearings before the Commission and offering evidence and 

testimony regarding revenue requirements, operating performance, quality of 

service and construction activities. 

4. Investigating informal complaints and responding to customer requests for 

information about the Commission and the utilities we regulate. 

5. Responding to water and wastewater utility inquiries for technical, operational, 

financial and regulatory assistance. 

6. Reviewing, from the financial perspective, all water and sewer applications 

from the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council. 

Page 31

Case Processing 


During the first eleven months of the year 2005, the Water and Wastewater Division processed 

cases submitted by Class B, C, and D water and wastewater public service districts, 

municipalities, and homeowner associations. These cases were processed by the Case Control 

Section. As discussed previously, the Commission gave the Water and Wastewater Division 

responsibility for processing cases involving all classes and ownership types of utilities. The 

Case Control Section consists of a chief utilities manager, a utilities analyst supervisor and 

twelve utility analysts. These personnel are responsible for the processing of all formal cases 

involving the aforementioned privately owned utilities, public service districts, municipalities, 

and homeowners associations. During the twelve month period beginning December 1, 2005, 

and ending November 30, 2006, the Water and Wastewater Division case load can be summarized 

as follows: 

Total cases at December 1, 2005 108 

Cases assigned during the period 403 

Cases reopened during the period 65 

Cases closed during the period 376 

Active cases at November 30, 2006 198 

A total of 576 cases were processed through the Water and Wastewater Division during the 

twelve months ending November 30, 2006. These cases were categorized as follows: 

Pre-filings, Certificates .................................. 93 

Complaints .................................................... 203 

Rate Cases ...................................................... 75 

30B & Tariff Filings.................................... 39 

Show Cause/General Investigations .............. 0 

Miscellaneous (Petitions for consent, .......... 164 

for waiver, for abandonment, and 

authority to purchase sell or lease) 

In addition, the Legislature passed House Bill 3508 which reduced the amount of time the 

commission has to process water and sewer cases reviewed by the West Virginia Infrastructure 

and Jobs Development council from 270 days to 180 days. As a result of this change, Staff 

continues to aggressively insure that all information needed to review the Certificate cases 

involving water and wastewater utilities is timely provided to the Commission by the utility 

and its consultants. 

Page 32

Assistance 2006 


The Assistance function was established in accordance with West Virginia Code §16-13A- 

1, 1a, and §24-1-1b. The Division is charged with providing assistance to Public Service Districts 

and municipalities in technological, operational, regulatory and financial matters. Although 

homeowner associations and small privately owned utilities are not specifically included in 

the statute, we do provide assistance to both. In this Division, assistance is provided by one 

administrative assistant, two consumer affairs technicians, four utility analysts (UA), one 

utilities analyst supervisor and a chief utilities manager. 

Assistance is routinely provided to water and sewer utilities in a variety of ways. Assistance 

is most often provided in response to phone calls and written requests. For the twelve months 

ending November 30, 2006, approximately 4,300 written petitions and telephone requests 

were recorded. We also provide mandatory and optional training seminars, make field visits, 

and publish a newsletter, the Pipeline. Informal customer complaints are processed by consumer 

affairs technicians for all private and publicly owned water and wastewater utilities in this 

state. The assistance staff is also charged with reviewing the Preliminary Applications to the 

Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council. 

We perform class cost of service studies for municipalities that request assistance in setting 

adequate rates. These studies include the cost of maintaining the utility=s system, proposed 

construction, or economic development projects. During this year we completed five rate 

studies, while another six reports are pending. One study is in process. There is an increasing 

interest by municipalities in having Public Service Commission staff prepare these studies as 

an assistance function. Smaller municipalities do not have the resources to perform these 

studies and our recommendation provides assurance to the council before passing higher tariff 

rates to their constituents. Because of the backlog of requests, we will try to convince some 

municipalities to pass rate ordinances before we do a study so their operations do not suffer 

in the meantime. 

We also do many cash flow financial reviews to determine the water or sewer rates necessary 

to sustain utility operations. These reviews are generally less cumbersome than the class cost 

of service studies and allow us to give our recommendation faster. Our impartial rate 

recommendation often helps the Town Council to pass a rate ordinance more rapidly. Other 

assistance commonly sought includes matters such as accounting, billing, delinquency 

collection, security deposits, funding, field operations problems, service extensions, long 

service lines, leak detection, budgeting, general rule and law interpretation, and conflict 

negotiations. In order to provide assistance, Commission staff attends utility board meetings, 

Page 33


reviews technical and financial records, and consequently reports the results of an investigation 

and recommendation to the utility management. 

For the eleven and one half months ending November 19, 2006, 1,333 informal complaints 

were received and processed. The average completion time for resolving an informal complaint 

during 2006 was approximately 11 days. The proficiency with which informal complaints are 

resolved reduces administrative requirements and travel expenses of case staff, administrative 

law judges and support personnel, while we are able to address the complaints in a comfortable, 

one-on-one manner. These informal complaints covered many areas of utility operations, 

including billing, construction, delinquency collection and termination of service, requests 

for service, meter reading, new services, dirty water, sewer odor, outages, high and low pressure, 

tenant/owner responsibilities, and rates and charges. Once the complaint has been resolved 

one way or another, we aim to send every caller a written response that outlines the complaint 

and the resolution. The letter may indicate other actions the caller may take to protect his or 

her interests. When we provide customers with information, rather than settle a dispute, we 

log the call only. 

SUMMARY OF INFORMAL COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2006 

Type Sewer Water Total 

Billing 106 519 625 

Termination 9 48 57 

Security Deposits 3 6 9 

Technical 3 9 12 

Extensions 29 69 98 

Fire Protection 0 0 0 

Meter Reading 48 132 180 

Meter Testing 0 0 0 

New Service 18 103 121 

Administrative 46 185 231 

Total 262 1,071 1,333 

Chapter 16, Article 13A, of the West Virginia Code requires newly appointed public service 

district board members to attend and complete, within six months of taking office, the Board 

Members= Mandatory Training Program established and administered by the Public Service 

Commission in conjunction with the Division of Environmental Protection and the Division 

of Health. Two seminars, attended by a total of 66 board members, were held at Black Waterfalls 

State Park and in Charleston at the Civic Center. Basic areas of responsibility for a District 

Page 34


board member in administering a Public Service District, such as administrative, legal, technical, 

and financial information are discussed during the seminar. 

In addition to the Board Members= Mandatory Training Seminars, we also organized 14 

other seminars with more focused subjects: 

Title Length Taught Locations No. of Attendees 

Board Members 2.5 Days 2 Charleston 34 

Blackwater Falls SP 27 

Main Extension 1 Day 2 Parkersburg 29 

Morgantown 32 

Termination 1 Day 2 Parkersburg 36 

Morgantown 51 

Municipal 2 Days 1 Beckley 44 

Bookkeeping/AR 2 Days 2 Charleston 35 

Advanced Board- 

Members 

1 Day 1 Charleston 22 

Management 1 Day 1 Morgantown 24 

Safety 2 Days 2 Parkersburg 13 

Morgantown 17 

Utility CON 1 Day 1 Charleston 29 

(Convenience & Necessity) 

Cases 1 Day 1 Morgantown 35 

The total of 418 attendees at the special topics seminars is a decrease from the 470 attendees 

in 2005. There have been no water or sewer rule changes in the past two years, which is one 

possible explanation for the reduced numbers. The CON seminar targeted consultants 

(engineers, accountants and attorneys) and addressed various procedural issues when filing 

for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. The two safety seminars generated stimulating 

comments. People in attendance are able to earn an OSHA safety card, while water and sewer 

plant operators can earn Continuing Education Credit Hours. The Division continues to review 

the feedback received on the seminars and has introduced a new seminar about PSC cases this 

year. In addition, the Division will be rolling out a new seminar in 2007 dealing solely with 

financial issues and strategic planning. The Division is also reviewing and modifying the format 

of some of its seminars along with introducing new methods of learning geared toward the 

adult learner. 

Page 35


The bi-monthly newsletter, The Pipeline disseminates a wealth of information to Public 

Service Districts, associations, municipalities, private water and sewer utilities, and 

professionals. Since January 2001, the publication of The Pipeline is coordinated with the 

Division of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health and Human Resources. 

The three agencies contribute articles for each publication relating to their particular 

jurisdiction. This has worked very well because the audience of water and sewer utilities= 

management must adhere to regulations of all three agencies. In 2007 the Bureau for Risk and 

Insurance Management (BRIM) will become a regular contributor to the newsletter as well as 

an occasional article submitted by the Infrastructure Council. At the end of November 2006, 

the distribution list of the newsletter is approximately 2,000 utilities, firms and individuals. 

The newsletter is an important medium for the agencies involved because it links the many 

functions of State Government and allows us to pass on legal and regulatory changes quickly 

to the utilities= management and professionals. In addition, the news letter is on the internet 

and people in other states read it, which results in interesting contacts for the authors of the 

Pipeline content. 

Page 36

Utilities Division 



� To ensure safe, reliable and reasonably priced utility service to all 

customers by providing the Commission with fair, accurate and 

balanced recommendations with which to fulfill the Public Service 

Commission’s statutory requirements. 

� To facilitate reasonable solutions to disputes between utilities and 

their customers by listening, gathering information, applying 

appropriate rules and making timely recommendations to the 

Public Service Commission. 

Meet The PSC 

Page 37


Utilities Division 


1. The Utilities Division completed its own internal reorganization and 

restructuring permitting the effective use of its staff resources. 

2. Developed a process and database for tracking informal complaints related 

to regulated motor carriers and solid waste facilities. 

3. Successfully negotiated with other parties to achieve a rate settlement with 

the state’s second largest combined electric utility which resulted in 

reasonable rate levels. 

4. The Customer Assistance Section of the Utilities Division continues to 

exceed its goals for handling and resolving customer requests for assistance 

in solving utility problems. 

5. The Utilities Division continues to meet and/or exceed its internal and 

external deadlines for case processing. 

Page 38


Effective December 2, 2005, the Commission entered General Order No. 195.53 in the 

matter of internal reorganization of the Public Service Commission. By this order the 

Commission stated that because public utility tariffs and annual reports are public documents 

and are utilized by a wide variety of individuals and entities beyond the Utilities Division that 

it would be more efficient to have those documents maintained by the Executive Secretary’s 

Office. This represents a logical extension of the document retention functions of the Executive 

Secretary’s Office. Within this same order the Commission also moved responsibility for the 

processing of Class A publicly operated water and sewer utilities as well as investor owned 

water and sewer entities from the Utilities Division to the Water and Waste Water Division. 

The latter reorganization step was made in order to diminish the possibility of inconsistent 

recommendations on similar issues related to water and wastewater utilities coming from two 

separate divisions. These two movements of functions and responsibilities have been made in 

order to utilize more effectively the personnel resources of the agency. By the end of 2006 

these transitions has been completed while customer services continued to be provided 

seamlessly to those outside the agency. 

During 2006, the Utilities Division completed its own internal reorganization and 

restructuring. This restructuring resulted in the formation of specialized units within the division 

which are responsible for the processing of cases within the following areas: (1) Energy (gas 

& electric), (2) Telecommunications and Cable Television, (3) Commercial Solid Waste 

Facilities and Motor Carriers (solid waste carriers, taxis and limousines, household goods 

movers, and wrecker operators) and (4) Customer Assistance (including both formal and 

informal complaints in the areas of energy, telecommunications, cable television, motor carrier, 

and solid waste facility issues). These internal restructuring steps within the Utilities Division 

along with the alignment of staff functions and responsibilities among divisions as discussed 

above permits the Utilities Division to use its staff resources effectively and to focus its 

energies on core issues related to the provision of reliable, cost-effective utility services to 

West Virginia. 

Utilities Division personnel participate in hearings before the Commission regarding issues 

such as: audit findings, financial statements, taxes, cost of capital, revenue requirements, rate 

design, operating performance, quality of service, construction activities, gas supply reviews, 

electric fuel reviews and formal complaints. 

Page 39


The following represents the volume of cases processed by the Utilities Division during 

the twelve months ended November 30, 2006. 

Active Cases as of 11/30/2005.........................339 

Cases filed during the period ............................732 

Cases reopened during the period .....................102 

Cases closed during the period .........................834 

Active cases as of 11/30/2006 .........................339 

Total cases processed ..................................1,173 

(beginning+opened+reopened) 

By way of further detail, the following table summarizes the formal utility casework by 

utility type and filing designation received by the Utilities Division during the 12 months 

ended November 30, 2006. 

Page 40

Utility Formal Cases Received December 1, 2005 - November 30, 2006 

Cell Cable Cab/cell Elec E/W Gas G/GT MC PSD PSWD PWD S SW Tel T/C TEGWS* W W/S TOTAL 


General Rate Cases 

19A 9 1 1 11 

42a 28 5 1 34 

42T 1 6 7 

Formal Complaints 

- Utility 5 8 1 65 52 1 3 75 1 1 1 213 

- Motor Carrier 60 60 

30C 25 25 

30E 5 5 

Other Tariff Filings 5 4 3 6 84 102 

General Investigations 2 1 3 1 2 9 

Certificates 

Motor Carrier 1 1 

CN 6 2 4 1 7 22 3 45 

CN-PC 2 1 3 

CS 3 3 

CS-CN 3 3 

Change Depreciation 

Rates 1 1 

Cable Franchise 

Authority 1 1 

General Orders 1 2 2 5 

Show Cause 1 1 2 

Show Cause - 

Revoke Authority 19 19 

Name Change 15 15 

Name Change - 

Petition for Consent 3 3 

Petitions 11 20 6 3 40 

Petitions for Consent 1 31 17 1 1 10 82 3 146 

Petitions for Waiver 1 1 

Cancellation 4 18 22 

Notice of Intent E 2 2 

Notice of Intent - R 1 1 

Tower Assistance Fund 15 15 

Amend Certificate 1 1 

Bulky Goods 7 7 

Transfer Certificate 6 6 

Transfer and Amend 

Certificate 6 6 

Transfer and Cancel 

Certificate 1 1 

Wrecker Rates 19 19 

Total 23 9 1 130 1 129 1 161 3 1 6 1 32 326 3 1 5 1 834 

Page 41

Energy 


MOTOR CARRIER FORMAL CASES 

RECEIVED DECEMBER 1, 2005 

THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2006 

General Rate Cases 

19A ................................................................... 9 

42A ................................................................. 28 

Formal Complaints ............................................... 60 

Landfill Charges ..................................................... 5 

MC Certificates ..................................................... 1 

Petitions - Other ..................................................... 6 

Cancellations .......................................................... 4 

Certificate .............................................................. 1 

General Orders ...................................................... 2 

General Investigation ............................................. 1 

Petition for Consent ............................................... 1 

Show Cause ........................................................... 1 

Bulky Goods ........................................................... 7 

Tariff Change ......................................................... 3 

Transfer Certificate ............................................... 6 

Transfer and Amend Certificate ............................ 6 

Transfer and Cancel Certificate ............................ 1 

Wrecker Rates ..................................................... 19 

Total ................................................................. 161 

During 2006, Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, both doing 

business as Allegheny Power, were granted a certificate of convenience and necessity for the 

construction and operation of emission control facilities at the Fort Martin generating station 

in order to meet federal E.P.A. requirements. In connection with the certificate, Allegheny 

Power received an order authorizing the financing of the facilities using the securitization 

financing mechanism and the resulting environmental control charges on its West Virginia 

customers. On October 3, 2006, Allegheny Power filed to reopen the proceedings for the 

purpose of amending the Commission Order for an increased construction costs estimate and 

for an increase in the maximum amount to be securitized and the resulting environmental 

control charges. Allegheny Power’s requested amendments are currently being considered, 

and the Commission has ordered notice be given of the filing to reopen. 

In a separate proceeding, Allegheny Power filed jointly for both Monongahela Power 

Company and The Potomac Edison Company a general rate increase with the Commission on 

July 26, 2006. Combined the companies provide electric service to approximately 492,000 

Page 42


customers in West Virginia. The requested rates equate to an increase of approximately $99.8 

million annually or 12.8 percent. The companies also seek to reinstate the expanded net energy 

cost (ENEC) review process, which would result in periodic rate increases or decreases to 

reflect changes in the cost of purchased power and of coal consumed at the generating plants 

and in related revenue credits. Pending investigation and decision, these requested rate increases 

have been suspended until May 23, 2007. 

Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company, both wholly owned subsidiaries 

of American Electric Power Company, Inc., jointly filed a general rate increase with the 

Commission on August 26, 2005. Combined the companies provide electric service to 

approximately 475,000 customers in West Virginia. The initial requested rates equated to an 

increase of approximately $82.2 million annually or 10 percent and with the four stages of 

further rate increases requested, the total increase requested equated to approximately 23 

percent phased in over four years. The companies stated three primary drivers of the rate 

increases sought. The first was to recover investment in the Wyoming-Jacksons Ferry 765 kV 

transmission line which went into service in mid-2006. The second was to phase in rate increases 

to recover the cost of four Flue Gas Desulfurization facilities (scrubbers) which are being 

installed at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants in order to meet environmental standards. Finally, 

the companies sought to reinstate the expanded net energy cost review (ENEC) process, which 

would result in periodic rate increases or decreases to reflect changes in the cost of purchased 

power and of coal consumed at the generating plants and in related revenue credits. 

On July 26, 2006, the Commission adopted a Joint Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement 

of the Appalachian Power Company and Wheeling Power Company joint rate case which 

provided for an increase of $43.7 million annually, of which $60.8 million represented an 

increase in annual revenue to be partially offset by refunding rates of $17.1 million annually 

to reflect amortization of an accumulated over-recovery balance of a prior ENEC in the amount 

of $51.2 million being held by the companies. The increase included $23.2 million annually 

from construction surcharges related to the Wyoming-Jacksons Ferry 765 kV line and scrubbers 

which are subject to annual adjustments in the reinstated annual ENEC proceedings. Also, to 

be reviewed by the Commission in a 2009 ENEC proceeding is the special rate mechanism 

for Century Aluminum approved by the Commission as an experimental rate program. 

In a separate proceeding, Appalachian Power Company filed an application for a certificate 

of convenience and necessity to construct a 600 MW integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

Generating Station in Mason County, WV. The matter is pending investigation under an 

established procedural schedule which provides for an evidentiary hearing beginning March 

13, 2007 and an Order from the Commission on or prior to June 5, 2007. 

Page 43


On October 18, 2005 Black Diamond Power Company, Elk Power Company, Elkhorn Public 

Service Company, Kimball Light and Water Company, Union Power Company, United Light 

and Power Company and War Light and Power Company (the Musser Companies) completed 

filing separate applications to increase rates for furnishing electric service to their customers. 

Previously, on February 17, 2005, the Musser companies were granted emergency interim 

rate relief subject to refund if finally determined rates are lower than the interim rates. On 

August 10, 2006 Staff submitted recommended rates. On September 11, 2006 a hearing was 

held. A decision on the rates is now pending before the Commission. 

Five gas companies requested base rate increases in 2006. Bluefield Gas Company requested 

a general rate increase of $198,841 or 1.7 percent for its approximately 4,000 customers. On 

September 13, 2006, a net increase of $66,846 was approved effective November 16, 2006. 

Consumers Gas Utility Company requested a general rate increase of $478,342 or 5 percent 

for its approximately 8,622 customers. On September 12, 2006, an increase of $383,900 was 

approved effective December 15, 2006. Union Oil & Gas, Inc. requested a general rate increase 

of $819,654 or 12.57 percent for its approximately 5,341 customers. On October 26, 2006, 

an increase of $336,287 was approved effective October 28, 2006. East Resources, Inc. 

requested a general rate increase of $2,111,708 or 51.2 percent for its approximately 5,018 

customers. On September 21, 2006 an increase of $859,000 was approved effective December 

19, 2006. Southern Public Service Company requested a general rate increase of $1,059,461 

or 11.39 percent for its approximately 7,188 customers. 

On August 4, 2006, Southern Public Service Company filed a motion to withdraw its request 

for a rate increase. On October 25, 2006, the Commission granted the Company’s motion to 

withdraw its request for a rate increase but instituted a general investigation of the utility’s 

contracts or arrangements for services with any affiliated corporations, persons or interests. 

On October 13, 2006, Commission Staff became aware of gas interruptions to certain 

customers of Wagner Gas Company. On October 17, 2006, the Commission ordered a general 

investigation of Wagner Gas Company and later added affiliated companies, Valley Gas 

Company and Beechy Gas Company. 

Natural Gas Rates 

The natural gas rates, which West Virginia consumers pay for gas consumption, are composed 

of two components. The first of the two components is the “base rate” which permits the 

utility to recover its costs to deliver gas to customers, i.e. investment in physical plant, return 

on investment, maintenance, payroll, etc. Last winter the statewide average bill for gas, inclusive 

of service charges, for a customer using a typical 13 Mcf of gas per month was nearly $15.00 

per Mcf. Typically the base rate component only comprised $2.00 to $3.00 per Mcf of that 

Page 44


total. The base rate is the component of rates in which any element of profit is contained. The 

second is the “purchased gas component,” which permits the utility to recover the costs it 

pays its suppliers for the gas it delivers to consumers’ homes and businesses. Of last winter’s 

typical bills for gas of approximately $15.00 per Mcf, $12.00 to $13.00 of that cost per Mcf 

represented the costs which the local gas utility had to pay its suppliers. This component is 

strictly a “pass-through” on which the utility earns no profit. The prices which the gas utility 

must pay its suppliers for the physical commodity of natural gas is unregulated by either state 

or federal government agencies. The prices are “market driven” based on supply and demand, 

i.e. when demand is greatest, the prices that well owners/producers can demand and receive 

for their gas production are at their highest also. 

As a result of various factors affecting supply and demand for natural gas, prices paid for 

gas service in West Virginia, and the rest of the country, hit all time highs in the winter heating 

season of 2005-06. The market prices of natural gas have moderated significantly as we enter 

the winter heating season of 2006-07. It is projected that the market price of natural gas will 

be somewhat lower this winter than last. Although, some natural gas customers will pay even 

yet higher bills this winter, the average bill statewide for natural gas this winter will be $9.46 

or 4.86 percent lower than last year for a typical usage of 13 Mcf. The “typical” gas bill for 13 

Mcf of usage was $194.60 last winter and is projected to be $185.14 this winter. Gas bills 

would be still lower statewide compared to last year but for the need for many gas utilities to 

recover higher prices they paid to their suppliers last year which weren’t passed through to 

consumers in rates. Consequently, the “typical” bill for 13 Mcf usage this winter of $185.13 

will reflect unrecovered costs of $12.35 or $0.95 per Mcf for gas used last winter but not yet 

recovered through rates. If market prices for gas remain at projected levels for this winter and 

into next winter, consumers may expect future winter bills to be reduced accordingly. The 

prices West Virginia gas utilities must pay their suppliers are unregulated and have been subject 

to continuous upward pressure in recent years. Accordingly, although the Commission can 

and does scrutinize carefully projected gas sales and purchased cost data provided by the 

utilities, it ultimately must pass through to consumers all prudently incurred purchased gas 

costs. 

Motor Carrier and Solid Waste Rates: 

The Utilities Division is responsible for providing audit and financial expertise on matters 

related to regulated Motor Carrier and Solid Waste Facility rates. The Division maintains a 

comparative database of motor carrier costs and rates and conducts both financial and 

management audits of motor carriers operating within the State. 

Page 45


In addition to making recommendations to the Commission in rate matters, the Utilities 

Division also processes formal and informal customer complaints concerning regulated motor 

carriers and commercial solid waste facilities. 

The Commission Staff estimates that over 2,400 informal complaints have been fielded as 

of December 1, 2006. Staff is developing a system to better record such informal complaints 

and expects that system to be implemented for 2007. 

The Commission has responded to the high cost of fuel for motor carriers by approving a 

temporary fuel surcharge for regulated motor carriers that remain in effect today. The most 

recent series of surcharges was initiated in M.C. GENERAL ORDER NO. 56.4 (Reopened) in 

March 2004 following a dramatic increase in fuel prices from previous levels with the latest 

adjustment accruing in June 2006. Staff monitors fuel prices on a weekly basis. 

Solid Waste Landfills: 

The Commission Staff continues to improve and build a strong working relationship with 

the DEP and the SWMB in an ongoing effort to provide consistent recommendations that 

conform with the requirements of other agencies’ rules and regulations, as well the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

A major agreement has been signed between Waste Management of West Virginia and the 

Jefferson County Solid Waste Authority that involves WMWV to spend 1.4 million dollars to 

build a new facility that will eliminate the shortage of disposal capacity that the eastern 

panhandle has faced for 1.5 years. This facility will be a state of the art facility and is projected 

to be operational by the first quarter 2007. Staff will continue to support the efforts and 

attend monthly meeting sponsored by the Berkeley County Commission. 

The Tucker County Solid waste Authority filed a rate case for its landfill operations located 

in Tucker County. The rate impact for its customer base is critical because two transfer stations 

provide the largest stream of solid waste going to the landfill and the transfer stations’ rates 

are near $69.00 per ton. A low interest loan has been obtained to help offset the major rate 

impact to the landfill customers. Staff has completed its audit and submitted its report with a 

recommended rate of $47.00 per ton inclusive of state assessment fees. The landfill has 

significant cost associated with closing the old cells that are no longer being used. Staff’s 

recommended rate provides for the funding of an on-going closure escrow account to be used 

to close old cells that are no longer being used, as well as to provide monies to close current 

cells as they are depleted. Staff’s recommended rate also provides monies for the 30 years of 

post-closure care of the landfill site in accordance with Federal EPA standards. Lastly, Staff 

Page 46


has provided a construction/equipment escrow account to ensure rate stability and the longterm 

viability of the landfill. One of the challenges associated with the processing of this 

filing was that if the rate at the Tucker landfill is too high, it will become more cost effective 

for the largest part of its customers to deliver solid waste to a landfill located in Frostburg, 

Maryland. Staff believes that its recommended rates will provide for the efficient operation 

of the Tucker landfill while allowing it to be cost effective in relation to alternative disposal 

options. 

In 2007, Staff will process rate applications that will impact customers throughout Central 

West Virginia. Meadowfill Landfill, Inc. and S & S Grading, Inc., aka S & S Landfill, Inc., both 

located in Harrison County, have made filings to increase tipping fees. Also, Northern 

Panhandle solid waste customers will be impacted by filings to increase tipping fees at Wetzel 

County Landfill and Brooke County Sanitary Landfill. 

On November 15, 2001, the Commission and the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with regard 

to the implementation of financial assurance requirements of 33CSR1. The MOU provides 

that the staff of the Commission will perform financial analysis to determine levels of funding 

required for regulated solid waste landfills to close cells and to provide for 30 years of postclosure 

care of landfill sites in accordance with Federal EPA standards. The Commission will 

establish and supervise escrow accounts funded by landfills which will assure that funds are 

available to meet future environmental requirements as administered by DEP. Implementation 

of this interdepartmental undertaking began in mid-2002 and was halted in 2004, but has been 

reactivated and will continue into 2007 with the goal of establishing adequate funding for all 

regulated landfills. Prior to 2006, all closure and post closure escrow fund accounts were 

established through a three-party agreement between the solid waste facility, the Public Service 

Commission and the bank performing the function of escrow agent. In 2006 a new escrow 

agreement format was established which added the Division of Environmental Protection as a 

party and designated the State Treasurer as the escrow agent. 

Challenges to Regulation: 

The Commission has opened a General Investigation of Solid Waste Motor Carriers (Case 

No. 06-0722-MC-GI) in the wake of the April 11, 2006, federal court decision James Allen 

Harper , et al. v. Public Service Commission et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00516, which concluded 

that W. Va. Code §24A-2-5 violates Mr. Harper’s rights under the commerce clause of the 

Constitution and that the PSC could not require solid waste collectors who cross state lines to 

obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity before operating in West Virginia. For a 

discussion of the nature and status of various challenges to the Commission’s jurisdiction and 

Page 47


regulation of commercial solid waste facilities and motor carriers, please refer to the section 

of this report prepared by the Transportation Division. 

Customers’ Assistance: 

Pursuant to General Order 195.22, the Utilities Division assumed responsibility for all 

non-motor carrier, non-PSD customer Requests For Assistance (RFA) effective March 31, 

1992. The procedures implemented in 1992 for handling RFAs were continued in 2003 with 

minor adjustments. 

Pursuant to General Order 195.30, on September 6, 1996, responsibility for municipalities 

and homeowner associations was transferred from the Utilities Division to the Water and 

Wastewater Division. 

Effective June 11, 1999, new Legislation (H. B. 2453) gave the Public Service Commission 

certain regulatory responsibilities for cable television. Handling of informal requests for 

assistance for cable service was incorporated into our existing processes. 

Effective April 2000, responsibility for all remaining water and sewer informal requests 

for assistance was transferred to the Water and Wastewater Division. 

The following two tables summarize the RFAs pending as of November 30, 2006. 

Vintage of RFA’s Pending as of November 30, 2006 

UTILITY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. TOTAL 

CABLE 0 1 3 15 19 

ELECTRIC 0 0 3 64 67 

GAS 1 0 1 52 54 

TELEPHONE 0 1 4 92 97 

TOTAL 1 2 11 223 237 

Nature of RFAs Pending as of November 30, 2006 

Cable Electric Gas Telephone Total 

Initiation of Service 4 12 10 7 33 

On-Going Service 

Problems 11 9 17 71 108 

Terminations of Service 2 43 25 16 86 

Miscellaneous 2 3 2 3 10 

Total 19 67 54 97 237 

Page 48


The following table shows the frequency of the informal requests for assistance received 

through November 30, 2006. 

Nature of RFAs Received Through November 30, 2005 



Billing Disputes 67 187 379 413 1,050 

Disputed Estimated Bills 0 15 93 0 108 

Poor Quality of Product 131 58 19 584 792 

Poor Quality of Service 103 121 110 428 762 

Terminations of Service 65 1,272 1,016 272 2,625 

Right-of-Way Problems 8 41 15 26 90 

Property Damage 3 31 11 1 46 

Cable Rates/Programming 11 0 0 0 11 


Unique Telephone Disputes: 

Slamming 0 0 0 29 29 

900 Calls 0 0 0 9 9 

Non-Traditional Service 0 0 0 51 51 

Subtotal 464 2,037 1,841 2,217 6,559 

Outage Information 12 13 6 122 153 

Material Requests, Rate 0 5 2 4 11 

Protests 

Total 476 2,042 1,849 2,343 6,723 

Note: A subtotal is made before outages, material requests, and rate protests 

because our record system normally does not attempt to capture all of these 

occurrences. For the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006 

this subtotal was 6,559 RFAs. 

In addition to the total 6,723 RFAs handled by the Consumer Affairs Technicians December 

1, 2005 through November 30, 2006, there were 189 letters written in response to inquiries 

from utility customers and/or other state agencies. 

The preceding chart included 49 duplicate records, which are generally RFAs for which the 

investigation of a single complaint required contacts at more than one company, summarized 

as follows: 

Page 49


Nature of Duplicate RFAs as of November 30, 2006 



Ongoing Service 

Problems 2 4 3 22 31 

Terminations of Service 0 5 0 1 6 


TOTAL 5 12 5 27 49 

Telecommunications and Cable Television Unit: 

Duties 

• Review and make recommendations regarding telecommunications-related certification, 

tariff, merger, rate, eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC), interconnection/resale 

agreement, certificate revocation, merger, etc. filings. 

• Review of utility construction plans and budgets to ascertain that modernization is undertaken 

at a rate which is both timely and affordable to subscribers. 

• Review of depreciation rates as necessary in an effort to align capital recovery with actual 

useful life of utility facilities. 

• Continual review of appropriate Internet web sites, the trade press, FCC orders, etc., to stay 

abreast of ever-quickening change in the telecommunications and cable TV industries. Major 

items in this regard include expansion of broadband via traditional and new technologies 

(such as broadband over power line, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, fiber to the curb/premises, etc.) and 

the impact of relatively new and fast-growing, telecommunications technologies such as 

voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). 

• Working with counties and local exchange telephone companies and wireless carriers 

regarding the provision of Enhanced 9-1-1 service. 

• Assisting telecommunications service subscribers with service, billing, policy, etc. 

complaints. 

• Maintaining the operational procedures and records required by the Cable Television 

Systems Act (24D-1-1). Advising and assisting cable companies regarding the Commission’s 

Rules and Regulations for the Government of Cable Television, (Cable Rules). Managing, 

filing and maintaining the Commission’s registration records for all cable companies 

operating in the State of West Virginia. Processing the Form No. 7 (Cable Television Annual 

Page 50


Report) in accordance with the Cable Rules.There are about 600 such forms filed each 

year. Maintaining a comprehensive statewide database of 48 cable television companies. 

This includes: cable operator’s franchise area, headends, service areas, FCC CUIDs 

(community unit identification), rates, channel line-ups, last annual report on file, company 

name, dba, addresses, names of contacts and their addresses and other general information. 

Recent Developments 

• Enhanced 9-1-1 service has become almost universal in our state, with 54 of West Virginia’s 

55 counties offering the service. Grant County has passed an Enhanced 9-1-1 ordinances 

and expects to have Enhanced 9-1-1 in operation by early in 2007. “Phase I” Enhanced 

9-1-1 service (provision to the 9-1-1 call taker of the calling party’s wireless phone number 

and identification of the cell site handling the call) is widely operational in the state. Phase 

II of Enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service (provision to the 9-1-1 call taker of the caller’s 

approximate location - 100 to 300 meters) continues to spread throughout West Virginia. 

Progress has been made regarding VoIP participation in 9-1-1 in our state. The Commission 

in 2006 adopted rules regarding payment of Enhanced 9-1-1 fees by prepaid wireless service 

providers. Commission telecommunications staff regularly attends meetings of the West 

Virginia Enhanced 9-1-1 Council and assists that group with telecommunications-related 

matters. Many requests for assistance, information, guidance, etc. are fielded each year. 

• AT&T informed the Commission that the company no longer wants to provide Telephone 

Relay Service (TRS). The Commission sought applications from other TRS providers and, 

after extensive review and a formal hearing, chose Hamilton Relay and directed that they 

complete the transfer by no later than January 31, 2007. 

• Pursuant to obtaining authority from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 

do so, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, in 2006, ordered mandatory 

thousands block number pooling. This will significantly add to the time before the state’s 

304 area code is considered exhausted. Such exhaust would require the initiation of another 

area code. This is a very disruptive process and creates problems for the public, especially 

during the early phases. 

• The Commission continues to administer the use of federal Universal Service Fund (USF) 

money for the purpose of making basic telephone service affordable to as many of our 

citizens as feasible. All incumbent local exchange carriers and several competitive local 

exchange and wireless carriers have received Commission certification to the FCC as 

Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs). ETC status makes carriers eligible to receive 

federal USF money. This money defrays the cost of providing telecommunications service 

Page 51


in rural, high-cost, sparsely populated areas of West Virginia. This will have the effect of 

expanding telecommunications competition and service choice throughout the state. One 

very important benefit is that this money has allowed wireless telecommunications carriers 

to add cell sites and thus expand coverage of cellular and PCS service. 

• In its 2005 regular session, the Legislature passed HB3208. This legislation almost doubled 

the Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 fee (it became $3.00 per subscription per month on July 8, 

2005), gave funding to State Police 9-1-1 communications efforts and established a one 

million dollar per year fund for subsidizing wireless tower construction. The Commission 

has adopted rules regarding the Wireless Tower Access Assistance Fund. Those rules created 

the Tower Access Assistance Fund Review Committee (TAAFRC). That body has met 

regularly and has approved grants for four tower projects (two in Mercer County and one 

each in Boone and Lincoln Counties). 

• In 2004, pursuant to problems brought to its attention by the West Virginia Enhanced 9-1-1 

Council, the Commission promulgated Case No. 04-0102-T-GI. The purpose of this proceeding 

is to investigate the establishment of a statewide Enhanced 9-1-1 database management system 

(DBMS). This will allow the non-Verizon counties to reliably and economically provide fully 

enhanced 9-1-1 service to their citizens. It will also accommodate the needs of CLECs, 

wireless telecommunications service providers and VoIP companies. This proceeding is 

nearing completion and it is expected that, if adopted, the changes regarding provision of 9- 

1-1 to the counties by the telephone companies will be put into place by mid-year 2007. 

• In 2006 numerous cable company transfers took place: Charter Communications was sold 

to Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, dba Suddenlink (portions went to Rapid Communications); 

Cequel III Communication II was sold to Rapid Communications; Adelphia Communications 

was sold to Time Warner and Comcast; Wyoming Cable Television was sold to Jetbroadband 

These transfers involve approximately 70 to 80 percent of all franchised areas in the state 

of West Virginia 

2007 and Beyond 

• The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has the major intent of quickly bringing full 

competition to the provision of local telephone service, has created several difficult, 

complex and very important tasks for the Utilities Division’s telecommunications staff. 

Major among these are: 

� Advising the Commission regarding arbitration requests concerning the parties’ inability 

to successfully negotiate interconnection rates and terms with local exchange carriers 

such as Verizon and Frontier. 

Page 52


� Reviewing and passing judgment on numerous interconnection and resale agreements 

between wireless and competitive local exchange carriers and incumbent local exchange 

carriers. 

� Working to develop a Universal Service Fund, which will adequately and fairly subsidize 

telephone service in high cost areas of the state. 

� Advising the Commission regarding proposals for access charge reform. 

� Advising the Commission regarding competitive local exchange carrier certification filings 

(with review of initial tariffs). 

� Making recommendations, as appropriate, regarding modification (due to ever changing 

telecommunications issues) of rules and regulations governing local exchange 

competition. 

� Working out solutions to problems posed for 9-1-1 systems by the advent of local service 

competition. 

� Keeping track of and advising the Commission regarding numerous actions by the FCC 

and the federal courts related to telecommunications matters 

• The Commission continues to work on a plethora of matters concerning the survival of its 

long standing universal service policies in an era of increasing competition in the provision of 

telecommunications services. It is possible that the Commission eventually will create and 

administer a universal service fund for the purpose of keeping phone service affordable for 

the vast majority of our citizens, even those in the more remote and sparsely populated (thus 

more expensive to serve) areas of West Virginia. 

Page 53


Page 54

Transportation Administration Division 



• Issues permits and certificates, maintains insurance records and 

other administrative operations. In addition, an assigned legal 

representative to the Transportation Administration Division 

participates in Commission proceedings as well as Motor Carrier 

cases in various county, state and federal courts. 

• Issues and enforces permits on vehicles that travel on the Coal 

Resource Transportation System. 

• Monitors electronic reports, sale of permits and issues Notices of 

Violation that occur upon the system. 

• Responsible for registration of hazardous material transportation 

in the state and is responsible for a multi-state project that provides 

for identification, registration and permitting of commercial motor 

vehicles transporting such materials in and through West Virginia. 

Meet The PSC 

Page 55 

Transportation 

ransportation 

Administration 

Administration


Transportation Administration Division 


1. The Motor Carrier Section learned to operate, and make full use of, 

its new database, designed by the Data Processing Section, in time 

for the 2005-06 intrastate motor-carrier registrations. 

2. Alan Abbott, the only employee in the Hazardous Materials Section, 

was elected Vice-Chairman of a multistate organization of state 

hazardous-materials officials. 

3. Through continuing communications with the coal industry and 

continued monitoring of coal-industry records, the Coal Resource 

Transportation System (CRTS) Section increased not only the number 

of sites registered with the Commission, but also the number of 

transactions or records submitted by sites within the CRTS program. 

The constant monitoring, by the CRTS Section, of these transactions 

also increased the accuracy of industry records and created a higher 

number of complete or matching records between shippers and 

receivers of coal. During 2006, the CRTS Section received 

information about over 2,000,000 transactions. 

4. The CRTS Section has been working on a program to pinpoint the 

exact locations at which coal is transported onto public highways 

from registered coal facilities. These locations are being ascertained 

through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and 

will be used to develop mapping software. 

Page 56


On November 13, 1986, the Commission entered an order in General Order No. 195.10 

that consolidated the Motor Carrier Division, the Railroad Safety Division, and the Gas Pipeline 

Safety Section of the Engineering Division into a new Transportation Division. Later, in 1999, 

the Legislature conferred upon the Commission limited jurisdiction over cable television 

companies. Those duties, primarily related to quality of service, were performed by 

Transportation Division personnel. From 1999 to September 2004, the Transportation Division 

handled the Commission’s limited jurisdiction over cable television systems in West Virginia; 

in September 2004, those responsibilities were reassigned to the Utilities Division. In 2003, 

the Legislature enacted legislation that transferred weight-enforcement responsibility for all 

commercial motor vehicles from the Division of Highways to the Commission. The legislation 

also authorized the Coal Resource Transportation System (CRTS) and imposed statewide 

electronic weight-reporting requirements on coal shippers and receivers. Accordingly, the 

Transportation Division’s responsibilities were expanded to include administering and 

enforcing the new legislation. 

On December 2, 2005, the Commission entered an order in General Order No. 195.33 that 

reorganized a number of its divisions. That order reorganized the Transportation Division by 

transferring the Gas Pipeline Safety Section to the Engineering Division and by splitting the 

Transportation Division into a Transportation Administration Division and a Transportation 

Enforcement Division. Generally, motor carrier, coal resource transportation system, and 

hazardous materials registration responsibilities were placed within the Transportation 

Administration Division. Legal and support services for the sections of the Transportation 

Administration Division are provided through the operating unit of the Director’s Office. The 

Transportation Administration Division and the Transportation Enforcement Division continue 

to work closely on a daily basis, one with the other, to accomplish the mission of each 

respective division. 

The current Transportation Administration Division consists of the Director’s Office and 

three (3) sections: the Motor Carrier Section, the Hazardous Materials Registration Section, 

and the Coal Resource Transportation System Section. From time to time, other responsibilities 

are undertaken by the Division. The information with respect to each of these operating units 

is set forth hereinbelow. 

A. Director’s Office 

The Director’s Office currently consists of four employees, including a staff attorney. 

During Calendar Year 2006, employees in this section continued to advocate positions for the 

Commission and its staff in various proceedings before both administrative and judicial bodies. 

Page 57


Through staff counsel, employees in this unit of the Transportation Administration Division 

initiated, intervened in, or otherwise participated in the following cases before the Commission: 

Court Cases: 

State Circuit Court 

Motor Carrier Show Cause Cases..................................... 2 

Motor Carrier General Order (fuel surcharge) ................. 1 

Motor Carrier Formal Complaint Cases ......................... 88 

Motor Carrier General Investigation ................................ 2 

Motor Carrier Rate Cases .............................................. 88 

Motor Carrier Suspension/Revocation Cases 

(for failure to register vehicles) ................................ 30 

Other Motor Carrier Cases ............................................ 54 

Solid Waste Facility Cases ............................................. 33 

CRTS Cases .................................................................. 667 

Total ............................................................................ 965 

1. Coal River Mountain Watch, Inc. v. Danny Ellis and the Public Service Commission of 

West Virginia, Civil Action No. 06-C-257 (Kanawha County). 

This case is a civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County in June 2006 by 

Coal River Mountain Watch, Inc. (CRMW), a nonprofit corporation, against Danny Ellis, 

Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Transportation, in his official capacity, 

and the Commission. CRMW filed this civil action seeking declaratory relief, and/or a writ of 

mandamus or prohibition, for the purpose of having the entire Coal Resource Transportation 

System (CRTS) statute declared unconstitutional. Enacted in 2003, that statute set up a system 

of highways in a fifteen-county area in southern West Virginia upon which coal is transported, 

as well as other isolated roads. Heavier loads may be transported upon these roads by companies 

that purchase CRTS permits. The statute also imposed statewide electronic weight-reporting 

requirements on coal shippers and receivers and transferred weight-enforcement responsibility 

from the Division of Highways of the Department of Transportation to the Commission. 

Discovery in the civil action is under way, with several motions for summary judgment on 

behalf of the defendants still pending. Trial on the issues is scheduled for June 4, 2007. 

Page 58


Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 

Solid Waste Facilities 

1. Lackawanna Transport Company, doing business as Wetzel County Landfill v. Public Service 

Commission of West Virginia and Herbert L. Heiss, Case No. 01-1273-SWF-C, Petition 

No. 031210. 

This case arose from a formal complaint filed on September 17, 2001, by Herbert L. 

Heiss, a resident of Wetzel County, against Lackawanna Transport Company (LTC), a 

corporation that does business as Wetzel County Landfill. In his formal complaint, Mr. Heiss 

alleged that LTC should be required to apply for, and obtain, a certificate of need from the 

Commission before recommencing composting operations near its landfill in Wetzel County 

and before constructing certain new structures for a sewage sludge composting facility. On 

September 8, 2001, LTC filed its answer to the formal complaint and denied that it needed a 

new certificate of need before recommending such composting operations and beginning 

such new construction. LTC claimed that it had been grandfathered under a (landfill) certificate 

of need issued by the Commission in 1992. The case was referred to the Division of 

Administrative Law Judges. After reviewing the filings by the parties, an Administrative Law 

Judge issued a Recommended Decision on March 12, 2002, that ruled that a new certificate 

of need was required if composting was to continue. Shortly thereafter, the Wetzel County 

Solid Waste Authority (WCSWA) filed a petition to intervene and LTC filed Exceptions to the 

Recommended Decision. On May 21, 2002, the Commission, after reviewing the Exceptions, 

issued an order again referring the case to the Division of Administrative Law Judges for 

development of a factual record. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing was held on September 

10, 2002. On December 16, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued another Recommended 

Decision that again required LTC to apply for, and obtain, a certificate of need for the composting 

of sewage sludge in Wetzel County. After LTC filed Exceptions to that Recommended Decision, 

the Commission, on May 9, 2003, issued an order denying those Exceptions. Next, LTC filed 

a petition with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for an appeal from, suspension 

of, and review of the Commission’s order of May 9, 2003. On August 11, 2003, the Commission 

filed its Statement of Reasons for the entry of that order. The legal issues briefed included the 

following: (1) whether the Commission may require that LTC obtain a certificate of need even 

though the WVDEP had, to some extent, authorized LTC to engage in composting activities in 

Wetzel County, (2) whether a 1997 federal court ruling declaring an earlier version of the 

certificate-of-need statute unconstitutional relieved LTC of having to apply for such a 

certificate of need, and (3) whether the failure of the Commission, or its Staff, to appeal the 

1998 issuance of a permit to LTC precludes the Commission from now requiring that LTC 

obtain such a certificate of need. The matter was to be held in abeyance pending the filing of a 

Page 59


petition for appeal by LTC in Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN. Following review of briefs filed by 

LTC, the WCSWA, and the Commission, and oral argument on February 28, 2006, the Court, 

on March 2, 2006, issued an order denying LTC’s petition for appeal in Case No. 01-1273- 

SWF-C. As a result of an order by the Court in a related mandamus proceeding, the Commission, 

on July 6, 2006, in Cases Nos. 01-1273-SWF-C and 02-1463-SWF-CN, also ordered LTC to 

cease and desist operation of its commercial compost facility in Wetzel County. 

2. Lackawanna Transport Company, doing business as Wetzel County Landfill and Compost 

Facility v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia and Wetzel County Solid Waste 

Authority, Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN, Petition No. 052783. 

This case arose from an application filed on September 20, 2002, by Lackawanna Transport 

Company (LTC), doing business as Wetzel County Landfill and Compost Facility, for a 

certificate of need to operate a commercial sewage sludge compost facility in Wetzel County, 

thereby commencing Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN. The case was filed after a formal-complaint 

case, Case No. 01-1273-SWF-C, was filed by Hebert L. Heiss in which he alleged that LTC 

should be required to apply for and obtain, a certificate of need before recommencing 

composting operations near the LTC landfill in Wetzel County and before constructing certain 

new structures for a sewage sludge compost facility. After Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN was 

filed, the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority (WCSWA), applied for, and was granted, 

intervenor status in that case. Evidentiary hearings in Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN were held 

on April 22 and 23, 2003. On November 12, 2003, an Administrative Law Judge issued a 

Recommended Decision denying the requested certificate of need for a number of reasons, 

including the fact that a sewage sludge compost facility was tentatively prohibited by the 

WCSWA’s county siting plan. After LTC filed Exceptions to that Recommended Decision, the 

Commission, on August 19, 2005, issued an order that also denied LTC’s application. After 

LTC filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s order of August 19, 2005, the 

Commission, on November 10, 2005, issued an order denying that petition for reconsideration. 

On December 12, 2005, LTC filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West 

Virginia for an appeal from, suspension of, and review of the Commission’s order of November 

10, 2005. In essence, LTC argued that it had expended great sums of money on constructing a 

compost facility in Wetzel County and that it was authorized to operate that compost facility 

pursuant to an earlier “grandfather” landfill certificate of need issued by the Commission and 

pursuant to a permit issued by the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. On 

February 1, 2006, the Commission filed its Statement of Reasons for the entry of its order of 

November 10, 2005, in this case. Following review of briefs filed by LTC and the Commission, 

and oral argument on February 28, 2006, the Court, on March 2, 2006, issued an order denying 

LTC’s petition for appeal in Case No. 02-1463-SWF-CN. As a result of an order by the Court 

Page 60


in a related mandamus proceeding, the Commission, on July 6, 2006, in Cases Nos. 01-1273- 

SWF-C and 02-1463-SWF-CN, also ordered LTC to cease and desist operation of its 

commercial compost facility in Wetzel County. 

Motor Carriers 

1. American Disposal Services of West Virginia, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of West 

Virginia; Jacob Frederick Jochum, doing business as Jack Jochum Truck Service; Jacob F. 

Jochum, Jr.; and Waste Management of West Virginia, Inc., Cases Nos. 04-0421-MC-TC- 

AC, 04-0422-MC-TC-AC, and 04-0508-MC-TC-AC, Petition No. 060475. 

These cases arose from an application filed on March 22, 2004 (and amended on April 6, 

2004), for the Commission’s approval of the amendment of, and for transfer and assignment 

of, P.S.C. M.C. Certificates Nos. F-4605, F-4606, and F-6417 from Jacob Frederick Jochum, 

doing business as Jack Jochum Truck Service (holder of P.S.C. M.C. Certificate No. F-6417), 

and his son, Jacob F. Jochum, Jr. (holder of P.S.C. M.C. Certificates Nos. F-4604 and F- 

4605), to Waste Management of West Virginia, Inc. (WMWV). These certificate-transfer 

cases were assigned Cases Nos. 04-0421-MC-TC-AC, 04-0422-MC-TC-AC, and 04-0508- 

MC-TC-AC. The three certificates in question, read together, authorized their holders to 

transport solid waste from all of Ohio County and a portion of Marshall County to places of 

disposal. Because the territorial descriptions in the certificates were ambiguous, the certificates 

needed to be amended and clarified prior to transfer. After American Disposal Services of 

West Virginia, Inc. (ADSWV), another common carrier by motor vehicle, which the 

Commission had authorized to transport solid waste from Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, and 

Ohio Counties to places of disposal, filed a letter of protest in opposition to the proposed 

transfer of the Jochums’ operating authority to WMWV, an evidentiary hearing was held in 

those cases in Wheeling on December 13, 2004. Following that hearing, both ADSWV and 

the Commission Staff raised certain legal arguments with respect to the unauthorized merger 

of the two (2) transferors’ operations and with respect to the possible dormancy of the portion 

of the certificates that authorized the transferors to transport solid waste through the use of 

rolloff containers. On February 28, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended 

Decision in these cases that authorized the transfer and assignment of the certificates in 

question. The Administrative Law Judge amended that Recommended Decision on March 1, 

2005. After both ADSWV and the Commission Staff filed Exceptions to that Recommended 

Decision, as amended, the Commission, on December 28, 2005, issued an order that addressed 

both sets of Exceptions and approved the proposed transfer and assignment of the certificates 

with a minor modification as to the rates that were to be charged under P.S.C. M.C. Certificate 

No. F-4604. On February 27, 2006, ADSWV filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Appeals 

Page 61


of West Virginia for an appeal from, suspension of, and review of, the Commission’s order of 

December 28, 2005, in these cases. In essence, ADSWV argued that the Commission erred by 

approving the transfer and assignment of the certificates because of the unauthorized merger 

of the transferors’ operation and because of the alleged dormancy of the rolloff component of 

their operating authority. On May 19, 2006, the Commission filed its Statement of Reasons 

for the entry of its order of December 28, 2005, in these cases. Following review of briefs 

filed by ADSWV, the Jochums, by WMWV, and by the Commission and oral argument on June 

6, 2006, the Court, on June 6, 2006, issued an order denying ADSWV’s petition for appeal. 

Federal District Court 

(None) 

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals 

(None) 

B. Motor Carrier Section 

The Motor Carrier Section currently consists of five (5) employees, including a Supervisor. 

The Supervisor reports to the Director. The Motor Carrier Section conducts registration of 

intrastate and interstate motor carriers, and collects intrastate and interstate assessments, 

filing fees for intrastate authority, insurance fees, and HazMat (hazardous materials) 

assessments. Most of the revenue collected by the Section is derived from Single State 

Registration System (SSRS) fees. 

The following is a breakdown of revenues collected by the Motor Carrier Section during 

Fiscal Year 2006: 

Page 62


Intrastate Assessments: 

Assessment fees - Regulated Passenger carriers ................. $8,879.57 

Assessment fees - Regulated Property carriers ................... 99,250.89 

Uniform Vehicle I.D. Card Fees 

(all certified carriers) .................................................... 9,154.50 

Filing fees for intrastate carriers ........................................... 5,878.00 

Insurance registrations 

(all other for-hire carriers) .......................................... 23,350.00 

Total intrastate assessments ................................. $146,512.96 

Interstate Assessments: 

SSRS fees - 8625 Funds 

(collected for West Virginia) ................................ $1,470,803.00 

SSRS fees - 8626 Funds 

(collected for other states) ....................................... 328,183.23 

Total interstate assessments ...................................... $1,798,986.23 

HazMat Assessments: 

Registration fees - 8625 Funds 

(collected for West Virginia) ................................... $175,795.00 

Registration fees - 8626 Funds 

(collected for other states) .......................................... 14,155.00 

Processing fees ................................................................... 15,850.00 

Total HazMat Assessments .................................... $205,800.00 

______________________________________________________ 

Gross Total Motor Carrier Collections ............................................. $2,151,299.19 

- 8626 Accounts (for other states) ....................................................... - 342,338.23 

Net Total - Motor Carrier Collections ......................................... $1,808,960.96 

C. Hazardous Materials Registration Section 

The Hazardous Materials Registration Section currently consists of one employee, who 

reports to the Director. This section is responsible for the registration of hazardous materials 

that are being transported along highways in West Virginia. It is a participant in a multistate 

project that provides for the identification, registration, and permitting of commercial motor 

vehicles that transport such materials in and through the state. 

Page 63


D. Coal Resource Transportation System Section 

The Coal Resource Transportation System Section currently consists of five employees, 

including a Manager. The Manager reports to the Director. The Coal Resource Transportation 

System (CRTS) is comprised of most highways in a 15-county area, in southern West Virginia, 

upon which coal is transported, as well as some other isolated roads. Heavier loads may be 

transported upon those roads, consistent with the purchase of a CRTS permit. The Transportation 

Division began selling CRTS permits in 2003. The CRTS Section renews or sells additional 

permits yearly. In February 2004, a system of documents, procedures, and policies was 

developed and put into place to address the administrative sanction mandates of 17C-17A, et 

seq. of the West Virginia Code (essentially Senate Bill 583). The CRTS Section educates both 

shippers and receivers as to the necessity of timely and accurate electronic reporting. The 

administrative sanction process commenced in the latter part of 2004, with the issuance of 

the first Notices of Violation. 

In 2006, 493 Notices of Violation had been issued through November 27, 2006. They were 

generated either by Uniform Traffic Citations or by the electronic reporting system. As of 

November 27, 2006, there were approximately 122 pending cases in which penalties had not 

been paid, hearings had not been held, or final orders had not yet been entered. Additionally, in 

2006, five Petitions for Waiver of the Commission’s Rules for the Transportation of Coal by 

Commercial Motor Vehicles were filed. The Commission granted four temporary waivers in 

regard to reporting requirements while companies installed new permanent certified scales. 

Through November 27, 2006, $326,227.27 was collected as a result of payment for 

violations contained within Notices of Violation with respect to the CRTS. West Virginia 

Code §17C-17A, et seq. also provides that all shippers of coal upon the CRTS that ship in 

excess of 88,000 pounds must make monthly reports of the tonnage shipped and must pay a 

fee of a nickel per ton. Through work done within the CRTS unit, the Transportation 

Administration Division collected $2,016,134.03 for the period January 1, 2006, through 

November 27, 2006. 

The CRTS Section sold 1,829 CRTS permits, representing renewals and new permits for 

the year 2006. The permits are broken down into the following classes: 

A Permits (80,000 Pounds) ................. 24 

B Permits (90,000 Pounds)...............277 

C Permits (110,000 Pounds) .............181 

D Permits (120,000 Pounds) .........1,347 

The sale of 2006 permits has generated $761,955.00 through November 27, 2006. 

Page 64


Goals of the Transportation Administration Division for 2007: 

1. The Motor Carrier Section plans to make better use of computerized assistance and to 

prepare for the replacement of the Single State Registration System (SSRS) by the 

Uniform Carrier Registration (UCR) System. 

2. The Hazardous Materials Section plans to implement its project to enable enforcement 

officers in the field to access motor-vehicle information from communications 

satellites. 

3. The CRTS Section plans to complete its GPS-based mapping system. 

Page 65


Page 66

Transportation EnforcementDivision 



• Keeps West Virginia railroad companies operating and the 

railways safe and productive for the main purpose of economic 

development and goods 

transport. 

Meet The PSC 

• Enforces economic 

regulations related to 

commercial motor carriers. 

• Enforces safety regulations 

adopted by the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations over interstate 

and intrastate commercial 

motor vehicles (private and 

for-hire). 

• Performs weight and 

oversize inspections of the 

commercial motor vehicles 

operated on all state 

maintained highways. 

Page 67 

Transportation 

ransportation 

Enforcement 

Enforcement


Transportation Enforcement Division 


1. For the fourth year in a row, the Transportation Division’s Railroad 

Safety inspection program was rated #2 in the nation by the Federal 

Railroad Administration in comparison to other state rail safety 

programs. 

2. Effective September 1, 2006 and as furtherance of combining Safety 

Enforcement and Weight Enforcement we paired Safety Enforcement 

Officers and Weight Enforcement Officers as two man teams. 

Page 68


On November 13, 1986, the Commission entered an order amending its Rule for 

Reorganization, which became effective on July 1, 1986, in General Order No. 195.10. Inter 

alia, this order consolidated administration and operations of the Motor Carrier Division, the 

Railroad Safety Division, and the Gas Pipeline Safety Section of the Engineering Division, 

incorporating them into a Transportation Division. This consolidation was based on the similar 

operating characteristics of these units, their common duties in regulating transportation safety, 

and their common participation in U.S. Department of Transportation safety programs and 

grants-in-aid. Further, in 1999 the Legislature conferred upon the Commission limited 

jurisdiction over cable television companies. Those duties, primarily related to quality of 

service, are performed by Transportation Division personnel. From 1999 to September 2004, 

the Transportation Division handled the Commission’s limited jurisdiction over cable television 

systems in West Virginia. In September 2004, those responsibilities were reassigned to the 

Utilities Division. Finally, legal and support services for the various sections of the division 

are provided through the operating unit of the Director’s Office. Accordingly, the annual 

management reports for each unit appear below, for Calendar Year 2005. 

On December 2, 2005 General Order No. 195.53 of the Public Service Commission of 

West Virginia the Transportation Administration Division was created. This Order reorganized 

the Transportation Division by transferring the Gas Pipeline Safety Section into the Engineering 

Division and by splitting the Transportation Division into a Transportation Enforcement Division 

and a Transportation Administrative Division. 

Enforcement Division 

The Transportation Enforcement section consists of seven employees who report directly 

to the Director. The disciplines of enforcement, included are Railroad Safety, Safety 

Enforcement, Weight Enforcement, Special Operations Section and Logistics. 

A. Railroad Safety Section 

The Railroad Safety Section of the Transportation Division is responsible for administration 

and enforcement of federal and state regulations governing the transportation of persons and 

property by rail. The section is composed of a section manager and a field inspection staff of 

seven. The inspection activities of the program for Fiscal Year 2006 were as follows:property 

Page 69


by rail. The section is composed of a section manager and a field inspection staff of ten. The 

inspection activities of the program for Fiscal Year 2006, were as follows: 

Track (2 Inspectors) 

Hi-Rail Track (miles) .................................4,647 

Walk Track (miles) ........................................530 

Derails...........................................................436 

Turnouts......................................................3,588 

Yard Inspections ..............................................45 

Bridges and Tunnels ....................................1,302 

Grade Crossings .........................................2,626 

Records Inspection ........................................348 

Sanitary Facilities ..............................................7 

Trucks and Motor Cars ....................................33 

Operation Lifesaver Presentations .................. 11 

Complaint Investigations ...................................4 

Violations ..........................................................1 

Total Number of Exceptions .......................1,426 

Motive Power and Equipment (2 Inspectors) 

Yard Inspections ............................................305 

Cars ......................................................... 25,555 

Locomotives .................................................342 

End of Train Devices .....................................193 

Records Inspection ........................................764 

Blue Signal ....................................................619 

Single Car Test ................................................33 

Initial Brake Test .............................................80 

Clearances .......................................................44 

Stations and Shops .........................................305 

Sanitary Facilities ..........................................305 

Cabooses and Camp Cars .................................39 

Trucks and Motor Cars ....................................35 

Glazing ..........................................................343 

Operation Lifesaver Presentations ..................16 

Complaint Investigations .................................22 

Total Defective Locomotives ........................151 

Total Defective Cars ...................................3,643 

Violations ..........................................................2 


Page 70


Operating Practices (2 Inspectors) 

Operating Rules .............................................584 

Blue Signal ......................................................42 

Yard Limits ........................................................4 

Flag Protection ..............................................224 

Tampering ......................................................226 

Camp Car Protection .........................................5 

Radio Procedure............................................106 

Rear-End Markers .........................................290 

Accident/Incident Reports .............................144 

Hours of Service .............................................39 

Locomotive Engineer Certification ...............283 

Sanitary Facilities ............................................25 

End-of-Train Device Calibration......................64 

Train Riding (Hours) ........................................24 

Dispatchers/Operators.....................................24 

Operation Lifesaver Presentations ....................5 


Violations ........................................................16 


Hazardous Materials (1 Inspector) 

Tank Cars ....................................................3,423 

Tank Tests ...................................................2,892 

Safety Valve Tests .......................................2,892 

Loading/Unloading Facilities ..........................90 

Railroad Facilities ...........................................90 

Shipper/Consignee Inspections .......................71 

Caution Signs (Loading and Unloading) .........134 

Train Consists ..................................................77 

Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers .........2,543 

Stations, Terminals and Shops........................159 

Violations ..........................................................7 

Total Number of Exceptions ..........................312 

Signal and Train Control (2 Inspectors) 

Signals ...........................................................145 

Signal Records ................................................80 

Switches ..........................................................54 

Highway Grade Crossing Records .................544 

Highway Grade Crossing Signals ...................370 

Highway Grade Crossings..............................587 

Page 71


Operation Lifesaver Presentations ................104 


Violations ..........................................................0 

Total Number of Exceptions ..........................244 

An important aspect of railroad safety involves highway grade crossings, which exact a 

number of casualties each year. In West Virginia the Railroad Safety Section cooperates closely 

with the Division of Highways in this area. The Railroad Safety Section Manager is a member 

of the Railroad Grade Crossing Diagnostic Team, which is composed of members from the 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Public Service Commission, 

CSX Transportation, Inc., and Norfolk Southern Corporation. This committee studies the degree 

of hazard involved at public crossings and makes recommendations for types of protection 

needed, consistent with funds available, and assigns priorities for making applications to FHWA 

for assistance in funding improvements at these dangerous crossings, such as flashing lights 

and gates. 

The Railroad Safety Section has assumed lead responsibility for the Operation Lifesaver 

Program and is cooperating with West Virginia’s railroad companies to put more emphasis on 

the program. This multi-media public education campaign is designed to inform the public 

regarding motorists’ responsibilities for safe passage at railroad crossings, and the risks of 

ignoring crossing warning devices or trespassing on railroad rights-of-way. This cooperative 

driver education program has proven successful in reducing crossing accidents in states where 

it has been implemented. 

B. Safety Enforcement Section (formerly known as Motor Carrier Section field staff) 

The Safety Enforcement Section’s field staff consists of 33 safety enforcement officers, 

and four supervisors, who report to the field enforcement manager. The field enforcement 

manager, in turn, reports to the Director of the Section. The officers are assigned to territories 

which, in the aggregate, encompass the entire state. They are assigned to receive, investigate, 

and report on formal and informal complaints. 

The enforcement officers perform vehicle safety inspections of motor vehicles operated 

by interstate and intrastate motor and private carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and drivers. 

Inspections are performed on a routine basis in the enforcement officer’s work area and at 

regional road check sites throughout the state during the warmer months. During the winter 

months the officers inspect vehicles at the terminal facilities of intrastate carriers. 

Enforcement officers check for compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation safety 

criteria which have been adopted by the Commission. Each officer works out of his or her 

Page 72


home, making frequent in-person, telephone, e-mail, and written contact with supervisors and 

the Section’s office in Charleston. 

Laptop computers have been incorporated into the inspection process for over seven years. 

These computers, along with printers, are mounted in each state vehicle. The laptops give the 

officers access to fast, up-to-date information concerning carriers being inspected. Safetyinspection 

data is electronically transferred from the field to the home-based terminal at the 

Charleston office and on to the national data base, SAFETYNET, a national inspection data 

bank used by the states and maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Officers are also using the laptops for weekly and monthly 

reports to their supervisors, supply requests, and other routine items. 

Through accident data provided by the state, this Section identifies areas with high crash rates 

and conducts more inspections and traffic enforcement activities in those high-crash areas. 

Inspection statistics for FY 2006 (7-1-05 to 6-30-06) were as follows: 

Vehicles/Drivers inspected ...................... 18,554 

Out-of-Service Vehicles ............................ 2,471 (13.67%) 

Out-of-Service Drivers................................. 746 (6.56%) 

Out-of-Service Vehicle Defects ................ 3,978 

Out-of-Service Driver Defects ..................... 860 

All Other Vehicle Defects ....................... 11,827 

As indicated, 3,217 of the vehicles/drivers inspected were found to have at least one defect 

serious enough to render the vehicle/driver out-of-service until the problem was resolved. 

Those 3,217out-of-service vehicles/drivers accounted for a total of 4,838 out-of-service 

vehicle/driver defects. Moreover, there were 11,827 less serious defects noted. All vehicle 

inspection criteria are based on the Commission’s adoption of safety rules promulgated by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

E. WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT SECTION 

During the 2003 Regular Session, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 583, which, 

among other things, transferred weight enforcement responsibility for all commercial motor 

vehicles from the Division of Highways to the Public Service Commission. The legislation 

also authorized the Coal Resource Transportation System (CRTS). The legislation also imposed 

statewide electronic weight reporting requirements on coal shippers and receivers. 

During the 2004 Regular Session, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 673, which 

Page 73


authorized tolerances for certain gross weight vehicle loads; required compliance with weight 

load limits on the national system of interstate and defense highways; and provided tolerance 

limits for maximum gross vehicle weights on certain highways. The legislation also imposed 

statewide reporting requirements on coal shippers and receivers transporting coal in excess 

of 88,000 pounds on non-CRTS highways. 

The Weight Enforcement Section has jurisdiction on all highways within the State, including 

all urban systems. The weight enforcement officers perform weight and oversize inspections 

of commercial motor vehicles on the highways and at the permanent weigh stations. 

The permanent scales are open 40 to 50 hours per week. Personnel rotate the operating 

hours so that a discernable pattern of operation is not established. Portable scales are located 

at each site so that officers can check commercial motor vehicles that may bypass the scale 

location. 

Portable scale operations are scheduled throughout the state on a regular basis.Patrol vehicles 

schedules. The mobile teams receive their assignments from the regional enforcement 

supervisors, who select enforcement areas based on traffic volumes and complaints from the 

general public. 

The Weight Enforcement Section’s field staff consists of 58 enforcement officers and 

includes five regional supervisors, who report to the field enforcement manager who then 

reports to the Director of the Section. The officers are assigned to territories which, in the 

aggregate, encompass the entire state. They are assigned to receive, investigate, and report on 

formal and informal complaints. They staff eight permanent weigh stations on the Interstate 

highway system. 

The PrePass system is installed on the interstate highway system at all permanent weigh 

stations. This system allows qualified truck traffic to bypass a weigh station with an electronic 

clearance. 

The activities of the Weight Enforcement Section during Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (October 

1, 2005 through September 30, 2006) were as follows: 

Page 74


Vehicles Weighed: 

Fixed Scales ....................... 1,146,635 

Portable Scales ....................... 37,207 

Weigh-in-Motion .................. 379,639 

Total .................................. 1,563,481 

Citations Issued: 

Axle (Single, Tandem) .................. 173 

Gross Weight Violation .............1,311 

Bridge Formula Violations ........ 1,252 

Failure to Comply ........................ 571 

Over dimensional ......................... 272 

Total ......................................... 3,579 

An additional 1,922 citations were issued during this period for fuel-tax, motor-vehicleinspection, 

and commercial-driver-license violations. 

Bridge gross weight formula violations were evidenced in 45 percent of the overweight 

citations issued during Fiscal Year 2006. During this period, 459 vehicles were required to 

off-load or obtain special oversize permits before proceeding. 

F. Special Operations Section 

The Special Operations Section consists of nine officers and one administrative support 

person who reports to a Supervisor who then reports to the Director of the Section. These 

officers are responsible for conducting Safety Audits on West Virginia motor carriers who 

are involved in interstate commerce. This section is also responsible for conducting 

Compliance Reviews on non-hazardous material intrastate motor carriers. The Special 

Operations Section is also responsible for the Special Patrol Unit who function is address 

high commercial vehicle accident areas within the State of West Virginia. 

The activities for the Special Operations Section for Fiscal Year 2006 (7-1-05 to 6-30-06) 

were as follows: 

Compliance Review statistics are as follows: 

Compliance Reviews conducted.................34 

New Entrant Audits conducted .................437 

Page 75

G. Logistics Section 


The Logistics Section consists of three support personnel who reports to a Manager who in 

turn reports to the Director of Transportation Enforcement. The responsibility of this section 

is to procure and inventory all supplies and equipment in support of the Transportation 

Enforcement Division. In addition, this section also installs and maintains all electronic 

equipment used by this Division. 

Page 76

Engineering Division 



Meet The PSC 

• Advises the Commission on the operational and design 

aspects of the electric, natural gas, water, sewer and landfill 

utilities. 

• Provides informal assistance to utilities and the public. 

• Engineers provide technical reviews of proposed water 

and sewer projects pending before the West Virginia 

Infrastructure Council. 

Page 77

Engineering Division 



1. In 2005 Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) which, in part, 

required state commissions to consider whether or not certain revisions to the Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) should be adopted. In 2006 the Commission initiated a 

proceeding for this purpose, specifically for EPAct 2005 provisions regarding net metering, 

smart metering, and interconnection of distributed generation. In September 2006 a consensus 

was reached among the parties to the proceeding and was subsequently submitted to the 

Commission for approval. To summarize, the consensus calls for the impementation of net 

metering rules which will allow customers to participate in net metering for facilities up to 

25 kilowatts capacity, and for interconnection of distributed generation facilities up to 2 mega 

volt-amperes (MVA) in capacity. EPAct 2005 also established a federal/state task force to 

examine economic dispatch of the electric industry. The Commission participated in this task 

force via the Director of the Division. 

2. 2006 was another active year for cases involving electric generating plants. Two major 

wind projects sought siting certificates. These projects would be located in Greenbrier and 

Pendleton Counties. American Electric Power filed for a certificate to construct a 600 MW 

coal fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in Mason County. A complaint 

was filed against a wind project previously certificated by the Commission. The complaint 

alleges that the project is beginning construction before all preconstruction conditions set by 

the Commission have been met. Late in 2006, two certificated projects filed information on 

proposed modifications to their plants with this Commission. 

3. A number of complaints were filed against the town of Clendenin concerning the quality 

of water service the town was providing. The Division participated in discussions with the 

various stakeholders which ultimately led to the town agreeing to sell their utility to West 

Virginia American Water. In a similar case, Logan Public Service District agreed to take over 

ownership of the troubled Holden Water Company. It is expected that by placing utility 

ownership with larger entities with more resources the problems can be corrected. 

4. Proceedings are currently on going with several small privately owned natural gas and 

electric utilities. The issue in these proceedings is whether or not the present owners have 

effectively abandoned the interests of their customers. 

5. The major electric utilities in the state either completed or initiated rate cases during the 

year. Appalachian Power and the Wheeling Power Companies signed a stipulation with the 

other parties to the case which was adopted by the Commission in July of 2006. The rate cases 

with Monongahela Power and The Potomac Edison Companies are ongoing and will not be 

completed until 2007. The Engineering Division main interests in these proceedings involve 

investigating quality of service issues such as reliability. 

Page 78


The Engineering Division consists of a director, three managers, 16 engineers/technical 

analysts, six inspectors and two secretaries. The Division is divided into three sections. One 

section handles electric and natural gas matters as well as assistance requests. One section 

handles formal water, sewer and solid waste cases. The third section is responsible for gas 

pipeline safety. 

Examples of the Engineering Division’s duties include: 

1. Providing technical recommendations in formal cases before the Commission. Such 

cases include rate requests, quality of service issues, high bill complaints, engineering 

agreements, alternate main line extensions, certificate of convenience and necessity 

cases, purchases and mergers of utilities, service territory disputes, general investigations 

of utility operations and any other type of case in need of an engineering opinion. 

2. Providing informal technical assistance to customers and utilities. More specific 

examples of such assistance include supervising meter tests, certifying of utility meter 

test benches, conducting water pressure tests, investigating voltage levels, investigating 

taste and odor inquiries in water, odor and back-up inquiries for sewer, leak detection 

services, providing opinions on utility construction estimates and many other technical 

tasks. 

3. Providing recommendations on the merits of proposed water and sewer projects to the 

West Virginia Infrastructure & Jobs Development Council. 

4. Supporting other State agencies as needed. 

5. Providing information and assistance to governmental and private entities around the 

state and country 

6. Providing technical training to public service districts board members and staff. 

7. Applying and enforcing pipeline safety regulations pursuant to Chapter 24B of the West 

Virginia Code and 49 U.S.C Chapter 601, §60105(a), relating to certification with the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

8. Investigating pipeline accidents or incidents involving the transportation and distribution 

of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. 

The work load of the Division is quite heavy. During 2006, the Division participated in 

more than 600 formal cases. On the informal side, Engineering staff responded to 

Page 79


approximately 84 requests for technical assistance from small utilities, investigated 27 informal 

complaints and provided input into the review of 213 infrastructure applications. 

The Gas Pipeline Safety Section of the Engineering Division is responsible for the application 

and enforcement of pipeline safety regulations pursuant to Chapter 24B of the West Virginia 

Code and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601, §60105(a), in conformance with certification by the United 

States Department of Transportation. 

The rules and regulations are structured toward the design, construction, installation, testing, 

operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities within the state. In addition, the section is 

also responsible for the investigation of pipeline accidents or incidents involving the 

transportation and distribution of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. 

For the certification for Calendar Year 2006, the operator identification and inspection 

activities were as follows: 

Operator Number of Number of *Number of Units 

Type Operators Operators Inspection Inspected 

Inspected Units 

Distribution Systems: 

Private 23 20 46 40 

Master Meter 83 42 99 53 

Subtotal 106 62 145 93 

Transmission Systems: 

Intrastate 23 17 32 26 

Interstate 6 3 15 11 

Subtotal 29 20 47 37 

TOTAL 135 82 192 130 

Page 80

Legal Division 



• Represents the Commission before all external courts. 

• In internal cases before the Commission, the Division 

represents technical staff from the Utilities, Engineering 

and Water and Wastewater Divisions. 

• A staff attorney is assigned to every utility case filed at 

the Commission except those filed with the Transportation 

Division. 

• Also provides informal assistance to the PSC customer 

relations personnel. 

Meet The PSC 

Page 81

Legal Division Public Service Commission — Management Summary Report 


1. Participated with the Water and Wastewater and Engineering Divisions in a group of 

cases that led to West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) and the Town of 

Clendenin (Town) reaching an agreement that the Town would sell its water utility system 

to WVAWC. On September 1, 2006, the Commission issued an order in which it granted 

consent and approval to the sale of Clendenin’s water system to WVAWC. The 

Commission conditioned its approval on the Clendenin voters’ upcoming decision on 

whether to approve the sale of the water utility assets. On October 11, 2006, WVAWC 

filed in Case No. 06-1032-W-PC a Certificate of Result of Special Election certifying 

that the sale of the Town of Clendenin’s water system to WVAWC was approved by a 

vote of 184 in favor of the proposed sale and 96 opposed to the sale. 

2. During the year the Commission received numerous complainants involving Holden 

Water Company, in particular Rosemary Elmore v. Holden Water Company, Case No. 

05-0900-W-C. The Holden system was determined to be in severe disrepair and the 

owner could no longer handle the operation of the system. Commission Staff worked 

diligently to facilitate the purchase of the Holden Water Company by the Logan County 

Public Service District as quickly as possible in Logan County PSD, Case No. 06- 

0701-PWD-PC. During the pendency of these cases, Commission Staff coordinated 

its efforts with the Department of Health to try and maintain the best service possible 

under the circumstances. Commission Staff visited the Holden system several times in 

furtherance of that goal. Since the purchase of the system by Logan County PSD, the 

Staff has not been informed of any complaints from the customers in the Holden area. 

The Logan PSD should obtain funding to replace the lines in the Holden area soon to 

ensure those customers receive excellent service in the future. 

3. Participated in a Disaster Management and Cost Recovery for Utilities and Energy 

Companies presented in New Orleans, LA. The presentation was designed to assist 

utilities suffering large damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The concept of 

securitization was described in our presentation: Monongahela Power Company was 

granted approval to use securitization, which is a financing mechanism that guarantees a 

dedicated stream of revenue derived from customers to be used solely and exclusively 

for the payment of debt for specified bonds, which provides capital to construct facilities 

for the benefit of customers. In West Virginia, securitization is being used to finance 

construction of pollution control facilities. 

4. Working in coordination with the Utilities Division, participated in the rule-making 

process G.O. No.187.29. During the 2005 Regular Session of the West Virginia 

Legislature, the Legislature created Page the Wireless 82 Tower Access Assistance Fund to be


funded through Enhanced 911 fees. Each year, $1,000,000 was earmarked for grant 

assistance for the construction of wireless towers to increase service availability in areas 

where tower construction might not otherwise be economically feasible. The Legislature 

authorized the Commission to provide the grants. The Staff participated in the 

Commission’s rule-making proceeding, advised the Review Committee, assisted in the 

drafting of the Committee’s by-laws and necessary applications and grant agreements 

designed to implement the tower construction assistance program. As a result of these 

efforts, the Committee now meets regularly and has begun processing grant applications 

from various political subdivisions of the State. 

5. Represented the Agency in outside litigation before the Supreme Court of Appeals of 

West Virginia and various circuit court proceedings. A professional, hard-working and 

dedicated staff consisting of ten Staff Attorneys, an Attorney Supervisor, the General 

Counsel and four support staff processed nearly 1500 formal and many additional informal 

utility cases in 2004. 

Page 83


Page 84


The Legal Division is comprised of the Commission’s General Counsel, an Attorney 

Supervisor and 10 staff attorneys and three support staff. The Legal Division represents the 

Commission before all courts external to the Commission. When practicing before the 

Commission or the Commission’s Administrative Law Judges, the Legal Division represents 

the Commission’s technical staff from the Utilities, Engineering and Water and Wastewater 

Divisions. A staff attorney is assigned to every utility case, except Transportation Division 

cases, filed at the Commission. The types of cases before the Commission include complaints, 

applications for certificates of convenience and necessity, rate cases and general petition 

cases. The Legal Division also provides informal assistance to the Commission’s Customer 

Relations personnel and provides responses to informal requests for assistance that involve 

legal issues. 

A. State Circuit Court 

1. State of West Virginia, ex rel. The Public Service Commission, The County Commission 

of Kanawha County, the Meadowview Estates Homeowners Association, and the Sissonville 

PSD, Petitioners v. David B. LaLone dba Clean Water No. 3 a public utility, and Dana R. 

LaLone, owner of Clean Water No. 3, Case No. 01-C-2680. 

After many unsuccessful attempts to find a competent receiver for Clean Water No. 3, the 

Public Service Commission was able to persuade a local attorney well versed in public utility 

regulation to serve as receiver. By order of the Kanawha County Circuit Court, the receiver 

was appointed on December 4, 2001. The court-appointed receiver will be responsible for the 

operation, management and maintenance of the utility until further order of the court. By 

order of the court, the PSC is to provide, on a priority basis, advice, counsel and assistance to 

the court-appointed receiver. The case is still pending. 

2. State of West Virginia, ex rel, The Public Service Commission , v. West Dunbar Public 

Service District, Commission Case No. 01-0552-PSD-GI, Circuit Court Case No. 02- 

MISC-317. 

This case was a filing by Cassius H. Toon, Staff Counsel, on behalf of the Commission in 

the Circuit Court of Kanawha County for an order for attachment and appointment of a receiver 

for the West Dunbar Public Service District. 

By a Commission Order entered April 26, 2001, in Case No. 01-0552-PSD-GI, the 

Commission ordered that a general investigation be initiated into the acts, practices and services 

provided by the District (the “General Investigation”). 

Page 85


On July 26, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) entered a Recommended 

Decision in the General Investigation that was adopted in its entirety by Order of the Public 

Service Commission entered on August 14, 2002. 

As contained in the Recommended Decision, the ALJ found, inter alia, that the District is 

a “paper district” which does not maintain an office, that West Dunbar was not using proper 

account codes, was not maintaining a cash disbursement journal, was not maintaining proper 

ledgers, and was failing to keep its books and records in conformance with the Uniform Systems 

of Accounts. Also, West Dunbar repeatedly failed to have an audit performed, did not keep its 

invoices and records in a central location available for public inspection, and did not attach a 

list of approved payments to its minutes. Its minutes were frequently unsigned, it keeps presigned 

blank checks in its checkbook, and it paid board members for attending meetings for 

which there were no minutes. West Dunbar employed part-time workers for duties that should 

have been done by Dunbar under the maintenance contract, and much of the work done by 

West Dunbar employees could have been done more efficiently by Dunbar. West Dunbar did 

not pay Social Security, Worker’s Compensation, Unemployment Compensation for, or have 

liability insurance related to, any of its employees or independent contractors. West Dunbar 

employed family members of its Chairman, in violation of the law. It had legal fees much 

higher than usual for a utility of its size, adding about $1.20 per month to each of its customer’s 

rates. West Dunbar has continuing environmental violations. Several of its lift stations are in 

poor condition, and West Dunbar has rejected suggested improvements and did not effectively 

use grant money to improve the lift stations. West Dunbar has similarly failed to reduce its 

inflow and infiltration problem, even when grant and low interest loan funds would be made 

available upon West Dunbar conducting an engineering study. West Dunbar is unresponsive to 

customer complaints. Furthermore, West Dunbar has a history of a large arrearage to Dunbar 

for treatment services. 

As contained in the Recommended Decision, the ALJ concluded, inter alia, that the District 

should be placed into receivership as soon as possible and that it would be in the public interest 

for the District to be merged into the City’s system in the long run. 

The Circuit Court of Kanawha County ORDERED that: 

1. the assets of the Respondent West Dunbar Public Service District are hereby placed in 

receivership under the sole control and responsibility of Todd Dingess as receiver and; 

2. the receiver maintain such control and authority over the assets of the District until the 

Kanawha County Commission has appointed new board members for the District or 

further order of the Court. 

Page 86


On August 17, 2006, we joined in a motion filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County 

entering the Report of Todd F. Dingess, CPA, as Receiver of the West Dunbar Public Service 

District. The Report detailed among other things, actions that will identify and evaluate 

liabilities of the WDPSD, level the WDPSD’s rates with the City of Dunbar, and accomplish 

other steps to enable the merger of the WDPSD and the Dunbar Public Service District. 

B. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 

1. Thomas Shipley, v. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia and Pocahontas County 

Public Service District, Commission Case No. 05-0103-PSD-CN, Supreme Court Docket 

No. 060767. 

This case was an appeal before our State Supreme Court of Appeals from a Commission 

Order entered in Pocahontas County Public Service District, Case No. 05-0103-PSD-CN, 

approving an application for a certificate of convenience and necessity for the construction, 

acquisition, operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment and collection system to 

service approximately 1,981 customers in Linwood, Slaty Fork, Snowshoe, Silver Creek and 

Hawthorne Valley areas of Pocahontas County. 

The Petitioner alleged the Commission erred in granting a certificate for this project because 

it failed to require twenty-year population projections or to apply the mandatory requirement 

that a wastewater treatment plant be adequate for a projected 20-year population growth and 

instead approved a plan at a site that would be inadequate in ten to fifteen years. In support of 

its position asserted: 

Public Health regulations require that sewage treatment plants: 

shall be [designed] to provide for an estimated population July 1, 

2023, which is twenty (20) years from the date of this rule. The 

design of all treatment plants shall be so that their capacity can 

readily be increased except when circumstances preclude the 

probability of expansion. 64 C.S.R. 47-5.1.a (emphasis added). 

We asserted that the provision is a Public Health regulation that is interpreted, applied and 

enforced by the Bureau of Public Health. W. Va. Code § 16-1-1 et. seq. establishes the Bureau 

of Public Health and authorizes the Commissioner of the Bureau to enforce those statutes and 

the regulations promulgated thereunder. The above rule, cited by the Petitioner is one of those 

regulations. Nothing in W. Va. Code § 24-1-1 et. seq. gives the Public Service Commission 

the authority to enforce those regulations. The Public Service Commission, being an entity 

created by statute, has no inherent jurisdiction, power or authority and can exercise only such 

as is authorized by statute. 

Page 87


The Supreme Court of Appeals entered an Order on September 6, 2006 refusing petition 

for appeal of Thomas Shipley. 

2. Bert E. Magnuson v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia and Snowshoe Water & 

Sewer, Inc., Commission Case No. 05-0639-W-42A, Supreme Court Docket No. 061961. 

This case was essentially the objection of Mr. Magnuson to his flat rate monthly water bill 

increasing, rate consolidation and an argument on utility indebtedness that had no relevancy 

to the increase in rates. He alleged 9 assignments of error. They were: 

1. Since the Water Company, hereinafter referred to as Intrawest, presented no evidence at 

the hearing, it failed to carry its burden of proof, and the case should have been dismissed. 

2. In affirming the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in overruling the Petitioner’s motion 

that the Commission Staff be directed to withdraw from the Stipulation with Intrawest 

unless all Interveners signed it. 

3. In affirming the ALJ in overruling Petitioner’s motion that Intrawest be required to 

present its own case at the next hearing. 

4. In affirming the ALJ in permitting the Commission Staff to present Intrawest’s case. 

5. In affirming the ALJ in failing to find that under the 1992 Stipulation (Magnuson Exh. 1) 

and the uncontradicted evidence Magnuson presented from the 1992 Annual Report that 

$991,921 of debt and $689,000 of losses were phony, and should be removed from the 

books. 

6. In affirming the ALJ in finding that the commercial rate of $7.27 was higher than the 

bedroom rate, and in ignoring Magnuson’s uncontradicted testimony with regard to the 

test metering of Rimfire in 2001 which shows conclusively that the bedroom rate is 

56.5 percent higher that the commercial rate of $7.27. 

7. In affirming the ALJ in allowing a 10.5 percent rate of return, contrary to the evidence 

that the debt is owed to SS Tristane bank at an interest rate of 6.25 percent. 

8. In affirming the ALJ in consolidating the rates of Snowshoe Water and Silver Creek 

Water, contrary to the evidence that they were and are separate utilities, with separate 

costs of service, and that they were physically connected contrary to provisions of code 

24-2-12, requiring prior approval by the Commission for such connection. 

9. In affirming the ALJ in making, contrary to the evidence, Findings of Fact 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

14, 15, 16 and 18. 

Page 88


We asserted that Assignments of error 1, 2, 3 and 4, all related to the fact that Staff testified 

to the Joint Stipulation between the Utility (the Petitioner calls the utility “Intrawest” the 

name of the parent company) and Staff. It is not necessary that the evidence in the record 

supporting a decision be supplied by the Commission Staff or any particular party. It is sufficient 

that there is evidence in the record to support the decision. West Virginia Code §24-1-7 

Provides in pertinent part: 

All orders of the commission shall set forth separately findings 

of facts and conclusions of law, which findings of fact shall make 

specific reference to the evidence in the record which supports 

such findings. 

As with all the Petitioner’s arguments, there were no citation (save for the irrelevant cite of 

West Virginia Code §24-2-12 and a joint stipulation in a prior case) to any court cases, statutes, 

rules or administrative decisions to support any of the positions taken. Many cases are settled 

on the “court house steps”. To require parties to litigate issues on which they have settled 

because other parties have differences makes no sense and would fly in the face of judicial 

economy. Indeed, it has long been Commission policy to encourage stipulations in rate cases. 

Re West Virginia Water Company, Case No. 86-204-W-T, February 10, 1986. Moreover, 

West Virginia Code §24-1-9 (f) provides: 

The commission, a hearing commissioner, a hearing examiner 

or panel to whom a matter is referred may expedite the hearing 

and decision of any case if the public interest so requires by the 

use of pre-trial conferences, stipulations and agreements, 

prepared testimony, depositions, daily transcripts of evidence, 

trial briefs and oral argument in lieu of briefs, as appropriate. 

(Emphasis added). 

Assignment of error No.5 did not show how a stipulation in a 1992 case or debt would have 

any effect on the Petitioner’s rates in this proceeding. 

Assignment of error No.6 related to the Petitioner’s rate determination regarding the 

metering of a commercial customer. The Petitioner supplied no figures of operation and 

maintenance expenses or class cost of service study to justify his rate analysis. 

Assignment of error No.7 is an erroneous reading of the record on the interest rate on the 

debt of the utility. 

Page 89


Assignment of error No.8 is a disingenuous objection to the consolidation of rates of 

Snowshoe Water and Silver Creek Water. Silver Creek rates were extremely low. If they were 

not consolidated the Petitioner’s rates would go up much higher to make up the lost revenue. 

Assignment of error No.9 is an unfounded allegation that the listed findings of fact are 

contrary to the evidence. 

The Supreme Court of Appeals entered an Order on October 25, 2006 refusing petition for 

appeal of Robert E. Magnuson. 

3. Barbara J. Born; et al. v. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia; Longview Power, 

LLC; and West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 

Commission Case Nos. 03-1860-E-CS and 05-1467-E-CN, Supreme Court Case No. 

062056. 

This was the first case to be processed before the Commission under the siting certificate 

statute, W. Va. Code § 24-2-11c. This was the second time this case had been before the 

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 

This case involved the Commission granting two certificates to Longview Power, LLC 

(hereinafter Longview): (1) a siting certificate pursuant to W. Va. Code § 24-2-11c to construct 

and operate a 600 MW (megawatt) electric coal-fired generating facility, which will be an 

exempt wholesale generator (EWG), in Fort Martin just north of Morgantown in Monongalia 

County, West Virginia and (2) a certificate of convenience and necessity pursuant to W. Va. 

Code § 24-2-11a to construct and operate a high voltage transmission line that will be 

approximately 1.5 miles long. Additionally, a 500 kV (kilovolt) interconnection station will 

be constructed and, thereafter, used to interconnect the transmission line with Allegheny 

Power’s Kammer Fort Martin line so that electricity generated by the EWG facility can be 

transmitted to the interstate transmission grid. The transmission line will be located in 

Monongalia County, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The 500 kV interconnection station 

will be located in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The EWG facility and transmission line together 

are known as the “Project”. (Order 1, pp. 66-67, Order 2, pp. 107-109). 

During this proceeding, the West Virginia Construction and Building Trades Council, AFL- 

CIO (Trades Council); the Born Intervenors, a group made up of 62 individuals and multiple 

non-profit organizations; and Monongahela Power Company and Allegheny Energy Supply 

Company, LLC (Allegheny) were granted intervenor status. 

After two public comment hearings were conducted on March 31, 2004, in Morgantown, 

Page 90


West Virginia, and after an evidentiary hearing which was conducted on April 27-29, and July 

1, 2004, the Commission issued an order on August 27, 2004, which granted Longview a 

conditional siting certificate for the proposed EWG facility subject to an extensive list of 

conditions. 

Additionally, the Commission outlined additional information it needed before the 

Commission would be able to grant a full siting certificate to Longview. More specifically, in 

addition to being required to file a complete application for a certificate of convenience and 

necessity for its high voltage transmission line, the Commission on page 102 of its August 

27, 2004 order entered in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS, stated Longview must also file additional 

information with regard to its siting certificate application related to (1) plant layout and 

related equipment; (2) a predictive noise impact study and information on how noise would be 

mitigated; (3) evidence demonstrating financial viability; and (4) reasonable estimates of taxes 

Longview would pay in absences of public documents. 

On September 27, 2004, the Born Intervenors filed a petition for appeal of the Commission’s 

August 27, 2004 order with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On January 11, 

2005, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia entered an order refusing the petition 

for appeal. 

On September 30, 2005, Longview filed its application for a certificate of convenience and 

necessity to construct its high voltage transmission line which was docketed at the Commission 

as Case No. 04-1467-E-CN. 

During this proceeding, the Trades Council, Born Intervenors and Monongahela Power 

Company and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny) were granted intervenor status. 

On December 16, 2005, the Commission entered an order in Case No. 04-1467-E-CN 

which reopened Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN and consolidated it with Case No. 04-1467-E- 

CN. This order also, among other things, stated it would set a procedural schedule in a 

subsequent order. On January 26, 2006, the Commission entered an order which, among other 

things, set a procedural schedule. 

On February 21, 2006, two public comment hearings, one at 10:00 a.m and the other at 

7:00 p.m., were conducted in Morgantown, West Virginia. Approximately 63 individuals gave 

oral comments. 

On March 21-22, 2006, the Commission conducted the evidentiary hearing. 

Page 91


On June 26, 2006, the Commission issued its order in Case Nos. 03-1860-E-CS and 05- 

1467-E-CN which granted Longview a full siting certificate and a certificate of convenience 

and necessity for the transmission line subject to an extensive list of conditions. 

On July 27, 2006, the Born Intervenors filed its petition for appeal of the Commission’s 

August 27, 2004 and June 26, 2006, orders with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 

On August 31, 2006, the Commission filed its Statement of Reasons for the entry of its 

orders of August 27, 2004, in Case No. 03-1860-E-CS, and June 26, 2006, in Case Nos. 03- 

1860-E-CS and 05-1467-E-CN, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s Order of July 31, 

2006. By order entered October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 

refused the petition for appeal. 

4. Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority v. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia 

and Lackawanna Transport Company, Docket No. 052796. 

The State Attorney General ‘s Office filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on behalf of 

the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority against the Public Service Commission. The suit 

alleged that when the Public Service Commission denied a certificate to Lackawanna to operate 

a sludge composting facility in Wetzel County, the Commission should have also directed 

Lackawanna to cease and desist operations of the facility. 

The Commission’s position was that the facility was operating pursuant to a DEP permit 

and that the DEP had issued a ruling directing that Lackawanna cease operation under the DEP 

permit. Apparently because Lackawanna appeared before the Court and argued that they were 

going to take legal action challenging DEP’s action, the Court directed the PSC to issue a 

cease and desist order. 

On July 5, 2006, the Commission issued an order directing Lackawanna to immediately 

cease and desist operation of it commercial composting facility in Wetzel County. 

C. Federal District Court 

1. Harper v. Public Service Commission, United States District Court for the Southern District 

of West Virginia - 427F.Supp.707 

James Allen Harper, a resident and citizen of Ohio previously doing business as Southern 

Ohio Disposal; and Southern Ohio Disposal LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Plaintiffs 

v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia; Jon W. McKinney, Chairman, Edward H. 

Staats and R. Michael Shaw, Commissioners, Defendants and WV Association of Solid Waste 

Page 92


Haulers and Recyclers, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., Stewart’s Sanitation, Sunrise 

Sanitation Services, Inc., and United Disposal Services, Inc., United States District Court for 

the Southern District of West Virginia, Case No. 2:03-cv-0516 

The complaint was filed in the District Court on June 6, 2003 by James Allen Harper and 

Southern Ohio Disposal LLC (SOD or collectively Complainants). The Complainants asserted 

that primary jurisdiction was conferred by 28 USC § 1331 because the civil action arises 

under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Additionally, the Complainants 

stated that they seek redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of plaintiffs’ civil 

rights. They stated that supplemental jurisdiction arising under West Virginia law was conferred 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

Mr. Harper previously ran a solid waste disposal service called Southern Ohio Disposal, 

but in April 2002, he conveyed his interest to SOD. The Complainants asserted that SOD is 

engaged solely in the interstate transportation of solid waste to points outside of West Virginia 

for disposal. Thus, the Public Service Commission’s orders entered on October 21, 2002, and 

May 30, 2003 in M.C. Case No. 30564-00-FC are an unlawful, direct regulation of interstate 

commerce violating Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 

The Complainants requested that the District Court issue a temporary restraining order 

and, thereafter, preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants, prohibiting 

them from enforcing Commission orders or otherwise interfering with SOD’s interstate 

transportation of solid waste from West Virginia to other states. 

On August 5, 2003, the Public Service Commission filed a motion to dismiss the case 

pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Commission urged the 

District Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter, should jurisdiction be 

found. The Commission stated that while the District Court’s obligation to address jurisdictional 

cases is virtually unflagging, the concept of comity dictates that federal courts refrain from 

interfering with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. The 

Commission based its abstention argument on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 

27 L. Ed. 2d 669; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 87 L. Ed. 1424 (1945); and Colorado 

River Water Conservation District v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976). The 

Commission also argued that the 11th amendment of the United States Constitution bars the 

action. Other parties made arguments in support of and opposing the Commission’s arguments. 

On November 19, 2003, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in 

which it concluded, among other things, the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under 

Rooker-Felman doctrine. 

Page 93


The Complainants appealed the District Court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. On January 24, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Case No. 04-1444 issued an opinion reversing the United States District Court and remanding 

the case to the District Court for adjudication on the merits. On February 22, 2005, the Fourth 

Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the Defendants petition for rehearing and 

hearing en banc. On March 2, 2005, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order which 

reversed the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. 

On April 5, 2005, the District Court issued an order, which among other things, set a 

procedural schedule which includes a hearing date of March 7, 2006. The case is still pending 

at the District Court. 

In 2006 the Federal District Court for the Southern of West Virginia ruled that the provisions 

of West Virginia Code § 24A-2-5, which requires a carrier to obtain a certificate of public 

convenience and necessity before it could enter the garbage market, is unconstitutional and 

violates the commerce laws of the United States Constitution when applied to a carrier that 

was transporting the waste in interstate commerce. 427F.Supp.707 

2. Midwest Disposal of West Virginia, LLC, Southern District, West Virginia, Civil Action 

No. 5:00-0362 

The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Summers County Solid Waste Disposal Revenue 

Bonds Series 1997A in the Original Principal Amount of $15,300,000.00 and Summers County 

Taxable Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds Series 1997B in the Original Principal Amount 

of $1,000,000.00 v. Midwest Disposal of West Virginia, LLC, Southern District, West Virginia, 

Civil Action No. 5:00-0362. 

This action arose from a complaint filed in United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, on the 22nd day of May, 2000. Midwest Disposal 

of West Virginia, LLC (Midwest), had failed to make regular and timely payments on revenue 

bonds heretofore issued by Summers County in and about the purchase of a landfill from EPA 

Services, Inc. By defaulting on the payments to bond holders, the Bank of New York, as Trustee, 

had sought a formal declaration of default and the appointment of a receiver to undertake 

control, operation and possible sale of the landfill. 

The Commission intervened to protect its Commission’s interest with regard to the 

certificate of need now held by the defendant, Midwest, as a result of Commission action in 

approving the transfer of ownership from EPA Services, Inc. to Midwest in Case No. 96-1111- 

SWF-PC. A preliminary injunction for the appointment of a receiver was forestalled by 

Page 94


bankruptcy petition and the matter remains open at this time. For a time, the Bank contributed 

some funds to the leachate management operations at the landfill from the bondholders’ reserve 

fund. However, these contributions ceased in 2003. The case is in a holding pattern until the 

bankruptcy matter is fully concluded. 

D. Federal Bankruptcy Court 

(none) 

E. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cranberry Pipeline Corporation - Docket No. 

PR04-6-000. 

Cranberry is an intrastate pipeline within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Natural Gas 

Policy Act of 1978 (“NGPS”), owning and operating an intrastate natural gas pipeline system 

in the State of West Virginia. 

On December 16, 2003, Cranberry filed a new rate petition with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission seeking the approval of a 68.17 cents/Dth system-wide rate for the 

NGPA Section 311 interruptible transportation service provided on its West Virginia intrastate 

system for the three-year period. Cranberry stated that such system-wide rate also would be 

applicable to Cranberry’s firm and interruptible intrastate system-wide transportation services. 

Cranberry also sought Commission (FERC) approval for firm and interruptible storage rates 

for both Cranberry’s X-1 and Raleigh Storage Fields in West Virginia, effective May 1, 2004. 

Cranberry proposed to discontinue offering its Hub Service, which service consisted of the 

transportation of gas between certain receipt and delivery point interconnects between 

Cranberry’s pipeline facilities and the pipeline facilities of Columbia Gas Transmission 

Corporation (“COTC”), Dominion Transmission, Inc. (“DTI”), and Tennessee Gas Pipe Line 

Company (“TGPL”). 

Cranberry also proposed to continue charging a $50 low flow meter to be assessed on a 

per-meter, per-month basis to all shippers delivering gas into Cranberry’s system from meters 

that averaged five (5) Dth/day or less during any month. 

Finally, Cranberry also filed with its petition a Revised Operating Statement, pursuant to 

Section 284.123(e) of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations. The Operating Statement set 

forth the terms and conditions applicable to the storage services to be offered by Cranberry, 

as well as revisions to certain other portions of Cranberry’s current Operating Statement on 

file with the Commission. 

Page 95


Interventions and/or protests were filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia 

(“PSC”), Consumer Advocate of the State of West Virginia Public Service Commission 

(“CAD”), Equitable Production Company (“Equitable”), the Independent Oil & Gas Association 

of West Virginia (“IOGA”), Monongahela Power Company (“MPC”). 

The parties are involved in negotiations trying to reach a settlement. 

G.Requests for Assistance 

During the calendar year 2006, the Legal Division handled approximately 185 written 

requests for assistance which involved legal issues. 

Page 96

Administrative Law Judges 



• Issues “Recommended Decisions”on cases assigned to the Division 

by the Commission. 

• Cases are referred to the ALJ Division by Commission Order with 

a stated decision due date. 

o Some cases also have statutory deadlines. 

o If there is no factual dispute, the cases are decided without a 

hearing. 

o If there is a factual dispute, or, in some cases, if required by 

statute or rule, a hearing will be held. 

• ALJ “Recommended Decisions” become final PSC orders 20 days 

after issuance, unless a party has filed an appeal with the 

Commission, or the Commission has issued an order staying the 

decision. 

o On review, the Commission can affirm, modify or reverse 

the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. 

Meet The PSC 

Page 97


Administrative Law Judges Division 


1. Met all decision due dates. 

2. Timely completed all CRTS cases. 

3. All ALJs engaged in professional development training. 

4. Chief ALJ actively participated on committee appointed by the West Virginia 

Supreme Court of Appeals to draft uniform rules for the handling of 

administrative appeals in the various circuit courts in the State. The committee 

draft of the rules and form should be submitted to the Court in January of 2007. 

5. Conducted 166 hearings in various locations throughout West Virginia. 

Page 98


This report covers the activities of the Administrative Law Judges Division for the calendar 

year 2006. 

This year, as in the previous years, the Administrative Law Judges Division successfully 

met all internal Commission deadlines for decisions, as well as all other deadlines imposed 

upon the Division by Chapter 24 of the West Virginia Code, regarding general rate filings, 

municipal appeals, and certificates of convenience and necessity. For calendar year 2006 this 

Division issued 1,469 Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and CRTS Final Orders, and 2,263 

total orders. Additionally, during 2006, this Division held 67 hearings in Charleston and 99 

hearings at various locations throughout the State, for a total of 166 hearings. One Thousand 

One Hundred Thirty-Three (1,133) cases were referred to the Division by the Commission of 

which Four Hundred Sixty-Two (462) were CRTS (coal truck) cases. 

The Administrative Law Judges Division, at full staff, consists of a Chief Administrative 

Law Judge, a Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge, six Administrative Law Judges, one 

Hearing Examiner, and four office support people. The continuing ability of this Division to 

effectively deal with an ever increasing workload, as well as successfully meet all deadlines 

imposed upon it, both by statute and by internal policy, is due to the diligence, hard work and 

capability of every member of this Division. 

Page 99


Page 100


APPENDIX A 

ELECTRIC AND GAS 

RESIDENTIAL RATE COMPARISON 

October 1, 2006 

Page 101


Page 102


Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 

West Virginia and Bordering States 

Electric Residential Rate Comparisons ............................................................................2 


Gas Residential Rate Comparisons ...................................................................................3 

Alternative Fuel Cost - West Virginia ...............................................................................4 

National Electric Comparisons - 30 Mcf .........................................................................5 

National Gas Comparisons - 600 Kwh..............................................................................7 

Exhibits ...................................................................................................................... 9-10 

Page 103


Page 104

Introduction 


This Residential Rate Comparison report is prepared by the Utilities Division of the Public 

Service Commission of West Virginia. 

The original study compared electric and gas residential rates between West Virginia and 

bordering states. The study was later expanded to include comparisons with other areas of the 

United States and with alternative heating fuels. 

Information in this report is compiled from a survey of utility companies and the state 

Public Service Commissions. The utility companies and the major cities served were picked 

at random by the various state Commissions. All of the rates used in the calculations were 

effective as of October 1, 2006. It should be noted that some of the rates used may be in 

effect subject to regulatory approval. Also, rates may change between October 1, and the date 

of the next report, January 1, 2007. 

The residential electric bills are calculated at 600, 1,500 and 2,500 kilowatt-hour usage 

(Table 1). The residential gas bills are calculated at 30 Mcf usage (Table 2). Graphs (Exhibits 

A and B) further illustrate the residential electric and gas costs to West Virginia customers. 

The study also includes comparisons of alternative heating fuels and cost of these fuels 

(Table 3). In Table 3, the calculations are based on 65 and 85 percent efficiency rate. The 

average unit costs in this table were taken from two major electric and two major gas companies 

(American Electric Power, Allegheny Power, Mountaineer Gas and Hope Gas). These 

calculations represent an estimate of electric and gas bills for the majority of West Virginia 

customers. 

The residential electric and gas rates in the continental United States and the District of 

Columbia are shown in Tables 4 and 5. To show more relevance of the comparisons, the cost 

was calculated and arranged from highest to lowest. Also, rate information was requested as to 

cost being average, below average or above average for each state. The electric data showed 

26 average, 12 above average, six below average, three did not respond to the question and two 

were not available. The gas data showed 27 average, eight above average, eleven below average, 

one did not respond to the question and two were not available. 

Page - 1 -105

West Virginia 


TABLE 1 

Residential Rate Comparisons (Electric Service) 


as of October 1, 2006 

Usage 

600 Kwh 1,500 Kwh 2,500 Kwh 

$ $ $ 

American Electric Power (APCo) 39.44 83.47 132.39 

Monongahela Power Company (Allegheny) 43.65 103.13 169.22 

The Potomac Edison Company (Allegheny) 43.65 103.13 169.22 

West Virginia Power (Allegheny) 43.65 103.13 169.22 

American Electric Power (Wheeling) 39.44 83.47 132.39 

Kentucky 

American Electric Power 47.22 109.03 177.70 

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. 42.58 98.85 161.37 

Kentucky Power Company 43.24 99.43 161.68 

Maryland 

Baltimore Gas and Electric 48.45 109.33 176.92 

Allegheny Power (Potomac Edison Co.) 44.68 103.61 169.10 

Ohio 

Cleveland Electric Company 64.87 135.29 193.24 

x Ohio Power Company 43.57 96.63 153.25 

x Columbus Southern Power Company 59.95 97.82 138.62 

Pennsylvania 

x Duquensne Light Company 74.16 175.83 288.80 

West Penn Power Company 42.62 104.06 170.10 

PECO Energy Company 83.14 200.17 330.12 

Virginia 

American Electric Power (APCo) 37.29 79.87 123.86 

x The Potomac Edison Company 45.37 105.23 171.75 

Dominion Virginia Power 44.83 88.69 133.34 

Potomac Edison Allegheny 42.14 97.19 152.90 

x Did not respond, Latest calculations used 

Page - 2 106 -

West Virginia 


Residential Rate Comparisons (Natural Gas Service) 



Page 107 

Usage 

30 Mcf 

$ 

Equitable Gas Company 477.00 

Hope Gas, Inc. 487.74 

Mountaineer Gas Company 469.29 

Shenandoah Gas / Mountaineer Gas Company 469.29 

West Virginia Power Gas Service / Mountaineer 480.90 

Kentucky 

Louisville Gas and Electric (April 1, 2006) 438.07 

Maryland 

* Baltimore Gas and Electric 469.89 

Ohio 

* Columbus, OH 479.88 

Pennsylvania 

Equitable Gas Company 407.95 

PECO Energy Company (July 1, 2006) 440.46 

Virginia 

Shenandoah division of Washington Gas (July 1, 2006) 470.77 

* Estimated 

- 3 - 

TABLE 2


Alternative Fuels Cost Comparison 

for 19.5 Million BTUs of Heat Used 


Page - 4 108 - 

TABLE 3 

QUANTITY AVERAGE 

OF HEAT FUEL UNITS UNIT TOTAL 

TYPE OF FUEL USED PURCHASED (A)(B) COST (C) COST 

MMBTU $ $ 

Natural Gas (65%) 19.5 30.00 Mcf 15.950500 478.51 

Natural Gas (85%) 19.5 22.94 Mcf 16.019746 367.49 

No. 2 Fuel Oil (65%) 19.5 216.31 Gal. 2.3550 509.41 

No. 2 Fuel Oil (85%) 19.5 165.41 Gal. 2.3550 389.54 

Propane (65%) 19.5 327.19 Gal. 2.80 916.13 

Propane (85%) 

Electricity 

19.5 250.20 Gal. 2.80 700.56 

(Heat Pump) 

Electricity 

19.5 2,857.00 Kwh 0.059971 171.33 

(Resistance) 

Notes: 

19.5 5,713.00 Kwh 0.058738 335.57 

(A) Natural Gas, Number 2 Fuel Oil and Propane furnaces were calculated at two levels of efficiency 65 

percent and 85 percent. Electricity was calculated using coefficients of performance of 2.0 for heat pumps 

and 1.0 for resistance heating. 

(B) Calculations based on the following norms: 

Natural Gas 1,000,000 BTUs/Mcf 

No. 2 Fuel Oil 138,690 BTUs/Gal. 

Propane 91,690 BTUs/Gal. 

Electricity 3,413 BTUs/Kwh 

(C) Natural Gas average unit cost taken from Mountaineer and Hope Gas Companies. Electricity average 

unit cost taken from Appalachian Power Company (American Electric Power) and Monongahela Power 

Company (Allegheny Power) Companies. Average unit cost for Number 2 Fuel Oil and Propane were 

provided by the West Virginia Petroleum Marketers Association.


RESIDENTIAL GAS RATES 

IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OCTOBER 1, 2006 

MAJOR CITY 30 UNIT 

STATE SERVED UTILITY COMPANY MCF COST 

$ ¢/mcf 

1 NR Delaware Wilmington Delmarva Power and Light (Gas Division) NR NR**** 

2 A Vermont Burlington Vermont Gas Systems 552.03 18.40* 

3 BA Massachusetts Boston Boston Gas Company 552.00 18.40*** 

4 A Alabama Birmingham Alabama Gas Corporation 517.15 17.24 

5 A South Carolina Columbia South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. 490.55 16.35 

6 A Rhode Island Pawtucket New England Gas 472.70 15.76* 

7 A Virginia Winchester Shenandoah div of Washington Gas 470.77 15.69 

8 BA West Virginia Charleston Mountaineer Gas Company 469.29 15.64 

9 BA Oklahoma Oklahoma City Oklahoma Natural Gas 436.40 14.55 

10 AA New York New York Consolidated Edison 409.41 13.65 

11 A Pennsylvania Various Equitable Gas 407.95 13.60** 

12 A Florida Miami Peoples Gas div of TECO Energy 404.54 13.48 

13 BA North Carolina Raleigh Public Service Co. of North Carolina 401.39 13.38 

14 A Maine Portland Northern Utilities, Inc. 401.23 13.37**** 

15 A New Hampshire Manchester Keyspan Energy Delivery New England 388.01 12.93 

16 NA District of Columbia Washington DC Washington Gas and Light 386.62 12.89**** 

17 A Nevada Las Vegas Southwest Gas Corporation 371.39 12.38** 

18 AA Washington Bellingham Cascade Natural Gas Corporation 360.15 12.01**** 

19 AA Maryland Baltimore Baltimore Gas and Electric 357.91 11.93* 

20 A Kentucky Louisville Louisville Gas and Elecctric Co. 331.04 11.03 

21 A Indiana Terre Haute Indiana Gas Company 324.88 10.83 

22 A Idaho Boise Intermountain Gas Company 322.44 10.75 

23 BA Wisconsin Milwaukee Wisconsin Gas Company 316.77 10.56**** 

24 A Tennessee Nashville Piedmont Natural Gas 314.91 10.50** 

25 A Louisiana New Orleans Entergy New Orleans, Inc. 314.37 10.48* 

26 A Kansas Topeka Kansas Gas Service/Western Resources 300.74 10.02 

27 A Ohio Various Dominion East Ohio Gas 299.33 9.98*** 

28 AA Connecticut Hartford Connecticut Natural Gas Co. 290.27 9.68**** 

29 BA Wyoming Thermopolis Wyoming Gas 273.00 9.10* 

30 A Utah Salt Lake City Questar Gas Co. 263.61 8.79 

31 AA New Jersey Elizabeth Elizabethtown Gas Co. 255.94 8.53**** 

32 AA Texas Houston Reliant Energy Entex 255.09 8.50**** 

33 A Nebraska Lincoln Utilicorp United, inc. 253.52 8.45 

34 A Colorado Colorado Public Service Co. of Colorado 249.50 8.32**** 

35 NR Illinois Chicago Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. 243.45 8.12** 

36 BA Mississippi Jackson Mississippi Valley Gas Co. 239.93 8.00**** 

37 A New Mexico Albuquerque Public Service Company of New Mexico 225.72 7.52**** 

38 BA California Oakland Pacific Gas and Electric 209.79 6.99**** 

39 A Arizona Phoenix Southwest Gas Corporation 201.74 6.72**** 

40 AA South Dakota Aberdeen Northwestern Public Service Co. 186.35 6.21* 

Page 109 

- 5 -


41 BA Michigan Detroit Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. 182.94 6.10**** 

42 A Oregon Portland Northwest Natural Gas Co. 180.61 6.02**** 

43 AA Arkansas Little Rock Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. 177.34 5.91**** 

44 A Missouri St. Louis Laclede Gas 171.33 5.71**** 

45 A Iowa Des Moines Mid American Energy Company 165.83 5.53**** 

46 BA Montana Billings Montana - Dakota Utilities 163.85 5.46* 

47 A Georgia Georgia Atlanta Gas Light Company 161.66 5.39**** 

48 BA Minnesota Minneapolis Minnegasco 156.03 5.20**** 

49 A North Dakota Fargo Northern States Power Co. 140.67 4.69**** 

A = Average 

AA = Above Average 

BA = Below Average 

NR = No Response 

NA = Not Available 

* = Last reported July 1, 2004 

** = Last reported April 1, 2004 

*** = Last reported prior to January 1, 2004 

Page 110 

- 6 -


RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC RATES 

IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OCTOBER 1, 2006 

MAJOR CITY 600 UNIT 

STATE SERVED UTILITY COMPANY KWH COST 

$ $/KWH 

1 NR Delaware Wilmington Delmarva Power & Light NR NR*** 

2 AA Massachusetts Boston Boston Edison Company 128.00 21.33** 

3 AA New York New York Consolidated Edison 113.32 18.89 

4 A Connecticut Hartford Connecticut Light and Power Co. 111.38 18.56 

5 A New Hampshire Manchester Public Servie Co. of New Hampshire 95.28 15.88** 

6 BA Pennsylvania Pennsylvania West Penn 89.06 14.84 

7 AA Texas Houston Houston Lighting and Power Co. 81.74 13.62** 

8 AA Vermont Rutland Central Vermont Public Service Co. 79.57 13.26 

9 AA New Jersey Elizabeth Public Service Electric and Gas Co. 70.63 11.77**** 

10 A Maine Portland Central Maine Power Co. 70.08 11.68**** 

11 A Nevada Las Vegas Nevada Power Company 68.25 11.38**** 

12 A California Oakland Pacific Gas and Electric 68.25 11.38*** 

13 A Louisiana New Orleans Entergy New Orleans, Inc. 68.24 11.37 

14 BA Wyoming Cheyenne Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power Co. 67.01 11.17 

15 A Florida Miami Florida Power and Light Co. 66.28 11.05*** 

16 A Ohio Various Cleveland Electric 64.87 10.81** 

17 A South Carolina Columbia South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. 62.97 10.50 

18 A Rhode Island Rhode Island Narragansett Electric Company 62.39 10.40**** 

19 A Alabama Birmingham Alabama Power Company 61.77 10.30 

20 AA Iowa Des Moines Mid-American Energy Company 61.40 10.23**** 

21 AA Wisconsin Milwaukee Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 60.48 10.08 

22 A Arizona Phoenix Arizona Public Service Company 58.62 9.77**** 

23 AA North Carolina Raleigh Carolina Power and Light Co. 58.04 9.67 

24 A Oklahoma Oklahoma City Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. 56.63 9.44 

25 NA Arkansas Little Rock Enetergy Arkansas, Inc. 56.61 9.44 

26 A Montana Billings The Montana Power Co. 56.47 9.41 

27 AA Indiana Terre Haute PSI Energy, Inc. 53.88 8.98**** 

28 AA Michigan Detroit Detroit Edison Company 53.40 8.90**** 

29 NR Colorado Denver Excel Energy 50.38 8.40 

30 NA Illinois Chicago Commonwealth Edison Company 49.32 8.22 

31 A New Mexico Albuquerque Public Service Co. of New Mexico 47.86 7.98**** 

32 AA Washington Bellingham Puget Sound Power & Light Co. 46.02 7.67* 

33 BA Kansas Topeka Western Resources/KPL Gas Service 45.31 7.55 

34 A Virginia Richmond Dominion Virginia Power 44.83 7.47 

35 AA Maryland Baltimore Allegheny (Potomac Edison) 44.67 7.45 

36 A South Dakota Aberdeen Northwestern Public Service Co. 44.47 7.41 

37 A Utah Salt Lake City Utah Power and Light 43.59 7.27 

38 A Minnesota Minneapolis Northern States Power Co. 43.08 7.18**** 

39 A Kentucky Louisville Kentucky Power 42.07 7.01 

Page 111 

- 7 -


40 BA Nebraska Lincoln Lincoln Electric System 40.80 6.80 

41 A Oregon Portland Portland General Electric 40.45 6.74**** 

42 AA Mississippi Jackson Mississippi Power and Light Co. 40.31 6.72**** 

43 A Missouri St. Louis Union Electric Company 39.77 6.63 

44 BA West Virginia Charleston American Electric Power (APCo) 39.44 6.57 

45 NR District of Columbia Washington, DC Potomac Electric Power Co. 39.00 6.50**** 

46 A Georgia Georgia Georgia Power Company 37.44 6.24**** 

47 A Tennessee Kingsport Kingsport Power Company 36.53 6.09 

48 A Idaho Boise Idaho Power Company 36.38 6.06 

49 A North Dakota Fargo Northern States Power Co. 32.13 5.36**** 

A = Average 

AA = Above Average 

BA = Below Average 

NR = No Response 

NA = Not Available 

* = Last Reported July 1, 2006 

** = Last Reported April 1, 2006 

*** = Last Reported January 1, 2006 

**** = Last Reported prior to January 1, 2006 

Page - 8 112 -


WV Residential Electric Service 

600 Kwh at October 1, 2006 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

(43.65) (43.65) 

(39.44) 

WV Power Mon Power Wheeling Potomac Ed APCO 

Page 113 

- 9 - 

(43.65) 

(39.44)


WV Residential Gas Service 

30 Mcf at October 1, 2006 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

(477) 

(480.9) (487.74) 

Equitable WV Power Gas Hope Shenandoah Mountaineer 

Page 114 

- 10 - 

(469.29) (469.29)


Rate Rate Rate 

of of of 

Return Return Return 

Telephone Utility 2003 2004 2005 

Armstrong Telephone Company - WV 0.00% 7.24% 4.90% 

Armstrong Telephone Company - Northern Division 6.41% 1.67% 4.11% 

Frontier Communications of West Virginia (1) 25.59% 19.55% 24.69% 

Verizon West Virginia, Inc. (2) 8.46% 10.40% 11.34% 

War Telecommunications Company (3) 24.91% 23.64% 25.24% 

West Side Telecommunications 4.89% 7.22% 10.95% 

Notes 

(1) Citizens Telecommunications Company, dba Frontier Communications of West Virginia. 

(2) Formerly known as Bell Atlantic-WV, Inc.; the name was changed to Verizon-West Virginia, Inc. in 2000 

(3) War Acquisition Corp. dba War Telecommunications 

APPENDIX B 

Rate of Return 

Total Company 

Page 115



Total Company 

Gas Utility Rate Rate Rate 



2003 2004 2005 

A.V. Company ........................................................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Ashford Gas Company ........................................................... 0.86% 4.87% 0.00% 

Bazzle Gas Company .............................................................. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Beechy Gas ............................................................................ 0.00% 26.80% 6.15% 

Blacksville Oil & Gas Company ............................................. 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 

Bluefield Gas Company .......................................................... 2.87% 0.18% 0.71% 

Canaan Valley Gas Company ................................................. 9.58% 4.82% 8.31% 

Consumers Gas Utility Company ............................................ 11.62% 4.23% 0.00% 

East Resources, Inc. ............................................................... (2) (2) (2) 

Equitable Gas Company .......................................................... 17.35% 14.43% 13.37% 

Gasco Distribution Systems, Inc. ............................................ (1,4) (1,4) (1,4) 

Hope Gas, Inc. dba Dominion Hope ....................................... 11.68% 6.45% 2.33% 

J.A.&M. Oil & Gas Co. ......................................................... (3) 111.05% 117.72% 

Lumberport-Shinnston Gas Company ..................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Megan Oil and Gas Company, Inc. ......................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Mountaineer Gas Company .................................................... 0.76% 0.55% 3.06% 

Ravencliff Fuel and Supply Company ..................................... 28.99% 0.00% 0.00% 

Richter Utility Corporation ...................................................... (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) 

Southern Public Service Company.......................................... 3.38% 3.35% 0.77% 

Standard Gas Company .......................................................... 15.80% 37.43% 13.81% 

Tawney Gas Services, Inc. ..................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Union Oil & Gas, Inc. ............................................................. 0.00% 1.39% 0.00% 

Valley Gas Company............................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

W.G. Gas, Inc. ......................................................................... 166.87% 9.76% 132.82% 

Wagner Gas Company, Inc. .................................................... 0.00% 15.73% 19.39% 

Wyoming Natural Gas, Inc. .................................................... 0.00% 53.91% 0.00% 

(1) No report submitted for current year. 

(2) Insufficient information submitted. 

(3) Initial report filed: YE 12/31/04 

(4) Sold to Southern Public Service Company in Case No. 02-1225-G-PC, final 01/14/03 

(5) Sold to East Resources, Inc. in Case No. 02-1551-G-PC, final 04/20/03 

Page 116



Total Company 

Electric Utility Rate Rate Rate 



2003 2004 2005 

Appalachian Power Company .................................................... 12.47% 9.25% 7.93% 

Black Diamond Power Company ............................................... 11.36% 13.80% 0.00% 

Elk Power Company ................................................................... 4.78% 0.00% 0.00% 

Elkhorn Public Service Company ............................................... 0.00% 16.27% 0.00% 

Kimball Light & Water Company ............................................... 0.00% 5.67% 0.00% 

Monongahela Power Company .................................................. 7.93% 6.48% 7.22% 

Potomac Edison Company .......................................................... 7.62% 8.62% 11.85% 

Union Power Company .............................................................. 26.29% 32.13% 0.00% 

United Light & Power Company ................................................ 14.06% 29.18% 0.00% 

War Light & Power Company.................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

West Virginia Power ................................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Wheeling Power Company ......................................................... 27.59% 18.48% 8.82% 

Page 117



Total Company 

Sewer Utility Rate Rate Rate 



2003 2004 2005 

Alpine Lake Public Utilities Company ............................................ 0.00% 50.54% 65.71% 

Big Bend Sewer Association, Inc. .................................................. (1) (1) (1) 

Cabell Utilities, Inc. ........................................................................ 15.68% 13.56% (1) 

Clean Water No. 3 David B. LaLone ............................................... (1,4) (1,4) (1,4) 

Coolfront Mountainside Association, Inc. .................................... 337.19% 338.96% 0.00% 

Fort Clark Utility Corporation.............................................................. 0.00% 0.00% (1) 

Graham Meadows Service District, Inc. ......................................... 44.54% 0.00% 0.00% 

Green Acres Utilities ...................................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

HiddenValley Treatment, Inc. ......................................................... 153.15% 243.58% 0.00% 

Knobley Estates Sanitary Corporation .......................................... 0.00% 0.00% 29.57% 

Lagoon, LLC, The .......................................................................... 0.00% 2,412.13% 2,319.93% 

Linmont Sanitation System, Inc. .................................................... 40.57% 68.85% 83.57% 

Little Kanawha Service Company .................................................. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Mountainaire Village ...................................................................... 409.17% 353.35% 383.90% 

New Windwood Fly-In Resort ....................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Newell Company, Inc...................................................................... 4.72% 5.00% 9.75% 

North Hills Service Company ......................................................... 0.00% (6) 0.00% 0.00% 

P&P Enterprises Utilities, LLC ....................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 53.37% 

Putnam Utilities Corporation .......................................................... (1,7) (1,7) (1,5) 

Sewage Systems, Inc...................................................................... 0.00% 0.00% (1) 

Sheandoah Junction Public Sewer, Inc. .......................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Slab Fork Community Utility Foundation....................................... 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 

Snowshoe Water & Sewer Inc. ......................................................(3) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Springer Run Park, LLC .................................................................. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Stanaford Acres Sewage System, Inc. ............................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Sylvan Grove Waste Treatment, Inc. ............................................. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Thomas C. Ogden Sewer Company ................................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. .......................................... 16.84% 28.82% 28.67% 

Wastewater Management, Inc. ...................................................... 203.61% 214.91% 231.41% 

Williamsburg Sewer System, Inc. ................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Willow Spring Public Service Corporation ..................................... 50.82% 0.00% 0.00% 



(3) Reflects combined operations of Snowshoe Water & Sewer and SC Water & Sewer (merged in 2002). 

(4) Utility currently in Receivership. 

(5) Utility sold to South Putnam PSD in Case No. 03-0959-PSWD-PC, final 02/04/03 

(6) Utility sold to Town of North Hills in Case No. 03-1030-S-CN. 

Page 118



Total Company 

Water Utility Rate Rate Rate 



2003 2004 2005 

Alpine Lake Public Utilities Company .................................................. 35.53% 27.29% 17.83% 

Alpoca Water Works, Inc. .................................................................... 0.00% 11.58% 0.80% 

Beckley Water Company ...................................................................... 7.57% 6.74% 6.10% 

Bellwood Community Facilities Improvement Coporation ................... 0.00% (2) (2) 

Buckeye Waterworks, Inc. ............................................................... (3) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Corinne Water System ..................................................................... (3)413.33% 327.30% 937.44% 

Covel Water Works, Inc. ...................................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Elkhorn Public Service Company ......................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Fox Glen Utilities, Inc. .......................................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Greenville Water Company .................................................................. 0.00% 276.17% 215.66% 

Hampton Roads Water System ............................................................ 141.53% 53.82% 23.28% 

Hemlock Inn, Inc. ................................................................................. (1) (1) (1) 

Holden Water Company ....................................................................... 10.25% 2.91% 10.44% 

Jefferson Utilities ............................................................................. (9) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Kimball Light and Water Company ...................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Little Kanawha Service Company ........................................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Mountain View Water System, LLC ..................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Mountainaire Village Utility ................................................................. 279.48% (1,6) (1,6) 

New Windwood Fly-In Resort ............................................................. 0.00% 1.81% 0.00% 

Newell Company .................................................................................. 14.49% 4.62% 13.40% 

P&P Enterprises Utilities, LLC ............................................................. 0.00% 0.00% 53.40% 

Putnam Utilities Corporation ................................................................ 0.00% (1,7) (1,7) 

Sewell Creek Water Company, Inc. ....................................................... (1,8) (1,8) (1,8) 

Snowshoe Water & Sewer, Inc. ........................................................(4) 3.91% 0.00% 0.00% 

Springer Run Park, LLC ........................................................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Sunny View Acres Water Project ......................................................... 118.59% 0.00% 236.63% 

Timberline Four Seasons Utilities, Inc. ................................................ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Valley Water & Sewer Services, Inc. .................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 1.65% 

War Water Works................................................................................. 103.23% (1,5) (1,5) 

Welton Water Company ................................................................... (3) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

West Logan Water Company ............................................................... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

West Virginia-American Water Company............................................. 5.98% 5.17% 5.31% 

Wiley Ford Water Company ................................................................. 94.58% 0.00% 0.00% 



(3) Placed into receivership in 2000; Logan County Public Service District serves as Receiver. 

(4) Reflects combined operations of Snowshoe Water & Sewer and SC Water & Sewer (merged in 2002). 

(5) Utility sold to City of War in Case No. 02-1964-W-PC, final 07/21/03. 

(6) Sold to Frankfort Public Service District in Case No. 03-1728-PWD-PC, final 12/11/03. 

(7) Utility sold to South Putnam Public Service District in Case No. 03-0959-PSWD-PC, final 02/04/03. 

(8) Utility sold to Town of Rainelle in Case No. 03-0588-W-PC, final 08/27/03. 

(9) Reflects consolidated operations of six systems: Meadowbrook, Walnut Grove, Shenandoah Junction, Keyes Ferry 

Acres, Campsite POA and Westridge Utilities. 

Page 119


Page 120


APPENDIX C 

Summary of the 

Senate Bill 110 

Utility Discount Program 

**** 

December 2006 

Page 121


On March 12, 1983, the West Virginia Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 117. The Bill 

created Article 2A of Chapter 24 of the West Virginia Code entitled “Reduced Rates for Low 

Income Residential Customers of Electricity and Gas.” This article provided for a special 

reduced rate schedule for the provision of gas and electric service to residential customers 

receiving (a) Social security Supplemental Security Income (SSI), (b) Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC), (c) Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Unemployed 

(AFDCU), or (d) Food Stamps, if such food stamp recipients are sixty (60) years of age or 

older. AFDC and AFDCU now fall under the state “West Virginia Works” program.The special 

reduced rate is 20 percent less than the rate applicable to other residential customers obtaining 

similar service. Section §24-2A-2 of the Code established mechanisms for the recovery of 

revenue deficiency experienced by a utility. 

The West Virginia Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 110 on March 10, 1984. Under Senate 

Bill No. 110, the same four recipient groups would receive 20 percent discounts and the Bill 

further: 

1) exempted municipal or cooperative gas or electric utilities from the program, 

2) set the application period as the billing months of December, January, February, March 

and April of each year, 

3) clarified eligibility requirements, 

4) made the program retroactive to the billing months of December 1983 through April 

1984, 

5) made the Public Service Commission of West Virginia responsible for certifying a 

utility’s revenue deficiency resulting from the special reduced rates, and 

6) established a utility’s primary means of recovering its certified revenue deficiency as a 

tax credit against state business and occupation tax liability 

The Public Service Commission of West Virginia implemented the provisions of Senate 

Bill 110 through Electric Rule 4.l6 and Gas Rule 4.15- Reduced Rates for Low Income 

Residential Customers, which became a final rule by General Order 214.6, dated September 

6, 1984. These Rules set forth the requirements for tariff filings and applications for 

certification of revenue deficiency. 

Following is a report on the 20 percent discount program for the billing months of December 

2005 through April 2006. This report contains a summary by type of utility on the first two 

pages, including the percentage changes from last year, and individual utility information on 

subsequent pages. 

Page 122


For the individual utility information, line 13 represents an adjustment to the revenue 

decrease reported by the utilities (line 12) for business and occupation (B&O) taxes, if 

appropriate. Since the State Tax Commissioner has determined that the utilities’ tax credits 

would not be subject to taxation, it was necessary to make adjustments for taxes embedded in 

rates, but which would not be levied. Electric companies are no longer subject to a B&O tax 

levied on a revenue basis. Thus, only data for natural gas companies show a tax adjustment for 

B&O taxes. 

The dollar amount shown on Line 14 is less than the actual discounts given to customers, 

because of the B&O tax adjustment made for all natural gas utilities. Line 10 of the report 

shows the total bills that qualified customers would have been required to pay in the absence 

of the discount program. Line 11 represents the discounted bills and Line 12 is the actual 

discount given to customers. 

During the 2005-2006 program year, 34,128 electric customers received $2.44 million in 

discounts, an average of $72 per customer. The number of electric customers receiving the 

discount is more than last year. In addition, the average discount per customer is equal to that 

reported for the 2004-2005 program when 31,692 electric customers received $72 per 

customer. More than twelve thousand (12,330) natural gas customers received $1.83 million 

in discounts, an average of $148.77 per customer. The total number of natural gas customers 

is less than the 2004-2005 program when 13,363 customers received an average of $127.88 

in discounts per customer. 

Page 123

Report on 20% Discount Program 

for the Billing Months of 

December 2005 through April 2006 

1. 2005-2006 Percentage 2. 2005-2006 Percentage 3. 2005-2006 Percentage 

Summary Data Change From Summary Data Change From Summary Data Change From 

Electric Utilities Previous Year Gas Utilities Previous Year All Utilities Previous Year 

1. Total Applications Received 40,906 7.15% 13,211 -4.66% 54,117 ** 4.01% 

2. Total Applications Rejected 4,303 7.36% 931 -21.30% 5,234 ** 0.83% 

3. Percent Rejected 10.52% 0.19% 7.05% -17.46% 9.67% -3.06% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 34,128 7.69% 12,330 -0.27% 46,458 ** 5.45% 

5. No. of Residential Customers 835,441 2.42% 332,501 -7.56% 1,167,942 ** -0.63% 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.09% 5.14% 3.71% 7.89% 3.98% 6.13% 


Page 124 

7. SSI Customers 24,086 9.84% 8,265 -0.92% 32,351 ** 6.87% 

8. WV Works Customers 4,379 -12.71% 1,630 -4.00% 6,009 ** -10.51% 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 5,663 19.30% 2,385 4.93% 8,048 ** 14.64% 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $12,220,266.00 7.06% $9,461,690.90 15.99% $21,681,956.90 10.77% 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $9,776,213.33 7.04% $7,569,315.92 16.27% $17,345,528.92 10.88% 

12. Revenue Decrease $2,444,053.00 7.04% $1,743,774.20 17.91% $4,187,827.20 34.91% 

13. Revenue Deficiency Certified $2,444,053.00 7.04% $1,834,338.86 30.07% $4,278,391.86 25.21% 

** This number represents customers 

and not individual households. A household 

may be an electric and natural gas customer. 

-126 -





ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

Appalachian Black Diamond Elk Elkhorn Public Kimball Monongahela 

Power Company Power Company Power Company Service District Light & Water Power Company 

1. Total Applications Received 19,965 94 114 18 36 14,157 

2. Total Applications Rejected 2,591 1 0 0 1 1,362 

3. Percent Rejected 12.98% 1.06% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 9.62% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 17,374 93 114 18 35 12,795 

5. No. of Residential Customers 368,846 1,499 1,129 127 234 320,703 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.71% 6.20% 10.10% 14.17% 14.96% 3.99% 

Page 125 

7. SSI Customers 12,694 63 89 15 24 8,977 

8. WV Works Customers 2,238 18 12 3 9 1,431 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 2,442 12 13 0 2 2,387 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $6,753,127.95 $38,047.30 $36,170.25 $13,129.95 $20,454.75 $3,918,010.05 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $5,402,502.36 $30,437.84 $28,936.20 $10,503.96 $16,363.80 $3,134,408.04 

12. Revenue Decrease $1,350,526.59 $7,609.46 $7,234.05 $2,625.99 $4,090.95 $783,602.01 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $1,350,625.59 $7,609.46 $7,234.05 $2,625.99 $4,090.95 $783,602.01 

- 127 -




Potomac Union United Light War Light West Virginia* Wheeling 

Edison of WV Power Co. and Power Co. and Power Co. Power Co. Power Company 

1. Total Applications Received 2,712 58 95 116 1,066 

2. Total Applications Rejected 265 0 2 1 80 

3. Percent Rejected 9.77% 0.00% 2.11% 0.86% 7.50% 


4. No. of Customers Given Discount 2,447 58 93 115 986 

5. No. of Residential Customers 104,675 1,145 793 729 35,561 

6. Percent Given Discount 2.34% 5.07% 11.73% 15.78% 2.77% 

Page 126 

7. SSI Customers 1,412 45 79 93 595 

8. WV Works Customers 432 7 10 20 199 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 603 6 4 2 192 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates$1,013,754.75 $21,152.80 $61,534.75 $66,243.70 $278,639.40 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $811,003.80 $16,922.24 $49,227.80 $52,994.96 $222,911.52 

12. Revenue Decrease $202,750.95 $4,230.56 $12,306.95 $13,248.74 $55,727.88 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $202,750.95 $4,230.56 $12,306.95 $13,248.74 $55,727.88 

* Has not filed 

- 128 -





NATURAL GAS UTILITIES 

Apollo Carnegie* Ashford* A.V. Gas* Bazzle* Beechy* Blacksville 

Natural Gas Co. Gas Company Company Gas Company Gas Company Oil & Gas Co. 

1. Total Applications Received 16 5 

2. Total Applications Rejected 0 0 

3. Percent Rejected 0.00% 0.00% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 16 5 

5. No. of Residential Customers 338 264 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.73% 1.89% 

Page 127 

7. SSI Customers 9 3 

8. WV Works Customers 3 1 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 4 1 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $9,234.12 $3,953.17 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $7,393.21 $3,162.51 

12. Revenue Decrease $1,840.91 $790.66 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction $78.98 $33.92 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified *Now part of $1,761.93 *Has Not Filed *Has Not Filed *Has Not Filed $756.74 

Monongahela 

Power/Allegheny 

Power 

- 129 -





Bluefield Canaan Valley* Consumers East Equitable Hope 

Gas Company Gas Company Gas Utility Co. Resources Inc. Gas Company Gas, Inc. 

1. Total Applications Received 112 492 423 3,710 

2. Total Applications Rejected 29 0 18 77 

3. Percent Rejected 25.89% 0.00% 4.26% 2.08% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 83 492 405 3,633 

5. No. of Residential Customers 3,389 7,830 12,416 106,379 

6. Percent Given Discount 2.45% 6.28% 3.26% 3.42% 


Page 128 

7. SSI Customers 50 361 276 2,462 

8. WV Works Customers 21 52 36 480 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 12 79 93 691 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $77,781.45 $324,865.29 $386,386.05 $2,726,558.20 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $62,225.16 $259,851.86 $309,108.81 $2,181,246.56 

12. Revenue Decrease $15,556.29 $65,013.43 $77,277.21 $545,311.64 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction $667.36 $2,789.08 $3,315.19 $23,393.87** 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $14,888.93 *Has not filed $62,224.35 $73,962.01 $521,303.79 

*Formerly Penzenergy 

and Devon Energy 

**Includes Adjustment 

for 2003-2004 program 

- 130 -





Lumberport- Megan Mountaineer Ravencliff Richter* Shenandoah* 

Shinston Gas Oil & Gas Gas Company Fuel & Supply Utility Corp. Gas Company 


1. Total Applications Received 118 23 7,834 38 

2. Total Applications Rejected 0 0 805 0 

3. Percent Rejected 0.00% 0.00% 10.28% 0.00% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 118 23 7,029 145 

5. No. of Residential Customers 2,861 256 186,641 376 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.12% 8.98% 3.77% 38.56% 

7. SSI Customers 82 22 4,658 29 

8. WV Works Customers 13 0 973 5 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 23 1 1,398 4 

Page 129 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $77,330.54 $6,736.95 $5,518,062.25 $16,468.59 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $61,864.37 $5,389.35 $4,414,449.80 $13,175.33 

12. Revenue Decrease $15,466.17 $1,347.60 $1,103,612.45 $3,293.26 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction $663.50 $57.81 $47,344.97 $141.28 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $14,802.63 $1,289.78 $1,056,267.40 $3,151.97 *Has Not Filed *Now part of 

Mountaineer Gas 

- 131 -





Southern Public Standard Town Union Oil Valley* W.G. Gas* 

Service Co. Gas Company Gas, Inc. and Gas Co. Gas Company Inc. 

1. Total Applications Received 312 13 83 

2. Total Applications Rejected 0 0 2 

3. Percent Rejected 0.00% 0.00% 2.41% 


4. No. of Customers Given Discount 312 13 81 

5. No. of Residential Customers 6,356 378 4,930 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.91% 3.44% 1.64% 

7. SSI Customers 231 9 51 

8. WV Works Customers 30 1 12 

9.Food Stamps +60 Customers 51 3 18 

Page 130 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $229,147.35 $7,026.85 $44,448.20 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $182,317.88 $5,619.47 $35,558.56 

12. Revenue Decrease $45,829.47 $1,407.38 $8,889.64 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction $1,966.08 $60.38 $381.37 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $43,863.39 $1,347.00 *Has Not Filed $8,508.27 *Has Not Filed *Has Not Filed 

- 132 -






Wagner* West Virginia* Wyoming 

Gas Company Power Gas Service Gas Company 

1. Total Applications Received 70 

2. Total Applications Rejected 0 

3. Percent Rejected 0.00% 

4. No. of Customers Given Discount 70 

5. No. of Residential Customers 1,426 

6. Percent Given Discount 4.91% 

7. SSI Customers 51 

8. WV Works Customers 8 

9. Food Stamps +60 Customers 11 

10. Total Bills at Non-Discounted Rates $50,160.48 

$40,128.38 

Page 131 

11. Total Bills at Discounted Rates $10,032.09 

12. Revenue Decrease 

13. Adjustment for B&O Tax Reduction $430.38 

14. Revenue Deficiency Certified $9,601.71 

*Has Not Filed *Has Not Filed 

- 133 -


Page 132


Summary of the 

Tel-Assistance Service 

Telephone Rate Discount Program 

*** 

December, 2006 

Page 133


Page 134


On March 3, 1986, the West Virginia Legislature passed Enrolled Committee Substitute 

for Senate Bill 165, to be effective July 1, 1986. The Act amends certain sections of Chapters 

11 and 24 of the West Virginia Code, creating Tel-Assistance Service which provides reduced 

rates for designated low-income residential customers of telephone utilities, except 

cooperatives, which provide local exchange dial access line service within West Virginia. In 

2003 the Legislature made amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code which became effective 

June 4, 2003. 

On July 28, 1986, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia promulgated emergency 

rules to ensure that rules and regulations would be in effect within 120 days, as required by 

West Virginia Code Section 24-2C-4(b). Following a proceeding to promulgate final rules 

and regulations, the Commission issued General Order No. 234 on April 24, 1987. This General 

Order set forth Rule 10.00 - Reduced Telephone Rates for Certain Low-Income Residential 

Customers, which contains provisions concerning tariff filings, conditions of service, rates 

and charges, and certification of revenue deficiency. 

Tel-Assistance service is made available only to qualified low income customers. “Qualifying 

low-income consumer” means a consumer who is a recipient of Medicaid, food stamps, 

supplemental security income, federal public housing assistance, low-income home energy 

assistance program benefits, temporary assistance to needy families benefits or other incomerelated 

state or federal programs. “Tel-assistance service” means a wholly measured or message 

individual, residential local exchange dial access line offered through the provisions of this 

article and that provides for an allowance for usage not to exceed two dollars in value. 

”Usage” means the local exchange service and the long distance service provided by the eligible 

telecommunications carrier furnishing the tel-assistance service. 

Verizon West Virginia (formerly Bell Atlantic-West Virginia) and Citizens 

Telecommunications Company of West Virginia doing business as Frontier Communications 

of West Virginia are the only companies which filed a Tel-Assistance report for certification 

of revenue deficiency in 2006 (see Cases No.06-0244-T-P and 06-0299-T-P). 

The agreements or tariffs filed with the Commission for approval in accordance with the 

Tel-Assistance Program may specify the methodology by which the eligible 

telecommunications carrier calculates its annual revenue deficiency. Subject to prior approval 

by the Commission, eligible telecommunications carriers may agree to freeze or cap the 

amount of the revenue deficiency at specific levels. n August 20, 2003 the Commission 

concluded in case 03-1363-T-T that for provision of the Tel-Assistance Program Verizon 

could freeze the revenue deficiency at the level approved for the 2002 tax year. Accordingly, 

Page 135


in Case No. 06-0244-T-P the Commission certified $66,384.89 as the revenue deficiency for 

Verizon associated with the Tel-Assistance Program for the 2005 program year. 

Likewise, on March 28, 2006 in Case No. 06-0256-T-T the Commission concluded 

that Frontier could freeze the revenue deficiency at the level approved for 2004. Accordingly, 

in Case No. 06-0299-T-P the Commission certified $19,603.80 as the revenue deficiency for 

Frontier associated with the Tel-Assistance Program for the 2005 program year. 

Tel-Assistance customers receive a waiver of the monthly Federal subscriber line charge. 

The telephone utilities recover their certified revenue deficiency as a credit against the West 

Virginia telecommunications tax.The option of Tel-Assistance Service remains part of the 

filed residential tariffs of all of the local exchange telephone utilities and is therefore available 

to all eligible customers. However, utilities other than Verizon and Frontier chose not to 

request certification of revenue deficiency in 2003. 

Page 136

MSR 2002-2 - Public Service Commission of West Virginia

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?