Quantcast
Home / Featured News / APS discloses settlements in previous deaths of disconnected customers

APS discloses settlements in previous deaths of disconnected customers

Light bulb on black background with copy text

The state’s largest electric utility acknowledged Wednesday that it settled claims with the survivors of two other customers who were found dead in their homes, not counting last year’s death of 72-year-old Sun City West resident Stephanie Pullman.

In a filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission, Barbara Lockwood, an APS vice president, said the first was in November 2011 when the unidentified customer was found deceased in her apartment. While APS disagreed that the power being turned off had led to the death the company settled out of court.

Lockwood told of a similar incident in June 2018 where a customer, also female, was found dead in her residence. Here, too, the utility settled out of court.

That second incident means that there are now two deaths that have occurred since the company got permission in 2017 by the commission to increase what it can charge customers by $95 million a year. The company also acknowledged that there were about 110,000 disconnections in 2018 out of 1.25 million customers, compared with about 56,000 the prior year.

Daniel Froetscher

Daniel Froetscher

But Daniel Froetscher, the company’s executive vice president for operations, told Capitol Media Services it would be a mistake to link either the deaths or the increased disconnections with the new rates.

He said that 2017 case actually revamped the rates, including things like new time-of-day and demand charges, and that not all customers had a rate hike.

More to the point, Froetscher said that 2017 number was artificially low, the result of the company suspending turnoffs as part of revamping its billing system. The result, he said, is the problems that some customers were having paying off their bills likely were pushed into 2018.

Froetscher said while APS settled with the estates of the two customers, there was no admission of liability. He said the company decided not to proceed to a trial, in part to protect the survivors and in part because of the “avoided costs” of litigating the case.

And then there’s the possibility of an even higher jury award.

Froetscher declined to say how much APS paid out in either case.

Lockwood, in her filing at the commission, echoed the company’s position that it is not acknowledging any fault.

“It is important to note that in each case there are other circumstances and contributing factors that likely impacted the customer’s health,” she wrote. “It is typically unknown, and often unknowable, what role – if any – disconnection of electric service played.”

Froetscher did say that, to date, there has been no claim filed against the company by Pullman’s survivors.

APS, in compliance with an emergency commission order issued after published reports of Pullman’s death, has suspended new shutoffs through Oct. 15. And commissioners are set to consider a more permanent rule before next summer.

But Froetscher said that the company does not acknowledge any wrongdoing in its disconnects until now.

“In these cases, from a policy and procedures standpoint, APS did what it needed to do,” he said, saying those policies are “aligned with and in compliance” with what is required under commission rules.

Stephanie Pullman

Stephanie Pullman

Still, Froetscher said, simply complying with those policies and procedures does not answer all the questions raised and still does not prevent “unwanted events and unwanted outcomes in which some of our most vulnerable populations fall through the cracks.”

“It’s tragic in that sense,” he said, saying that it becomes the responsibility of APS and other utilities, the commission, social service agencies and maybe even the Legislature and governor to take a closer look.

“It’s a bigger issue that needs to be examined as it relates to ensuring that the safety net for our most vulnerable constituents and customers is, in fact, sufficiently robust such that we do not have these kind of situations again,” Froetscher said.

Lockwood, in her filing, also said company staffers also found two other instances in the past 10 years where there were claims about disconnections having an impact on the health of a customer.

One was a 2009 claim by someone who apparently was staying at a residence where the power had been previously disconnected. He said he was harmed in a fire started from the candles he was burning for light.

That lawsuit, Lockwood said, was resolved when the occupant dismissed the case.

The other from last year involved a customer claiming in a news story of having to be hospitalized. But Lockwood said the claim against the company never alleged injury or hospitalization and the case was closed.

2 comments

  1. Warren Woodward

    “Still, Froetscher said, simply complying with those policies and procedures does not answer all the questions raised and still does not prevent “unwanted events and unwanted outcomes in which some of our most vulnerable populations fall through the cracks.””

    Oh, so that’s what happened to Stephanie? She “fell through the cracks?”

    Wow, APS, just wow!

  2. The challenges APS customers face goes beyond the issue of electricity turnoffs. Issues such as the rate plan rates being excessive in the days and times when customers need energy the most such as summer and the 3:00 – 8:00 time period (depending on the rate plan – however, all APS rate plans penalize electricity use during the hottest times of the day, and when people are at home – not in an office working). APS also demands security deposits when payment is slow several times a year (not a missed payment or a payment more than 30 days past due). A $500 deposit required, even when the electric bills had been paid for 27 years, with monthly invoices less than $250 a month. Even with the electric bills paid, APS continued to issue turn off notices for non-payment of the deposit. APS offers absolutely no rate plans, other than their most costly per KW fee, if a disabled individual or household pets that are adversely affected by heat, are in the home the entire day. APS customer service reps stated that we would just have to pay the higher rate if we needed to run air conditioning to keep the disabled individual working from home or the dogs at a temperature around 80 degrees. What needs to change is the Arizona constitution that allows APS to continue the profit margin while requiring no accountability for what they do with the money. Does APS really need to sponsor events with our money? It is not as if we have a choice in utility carriers? What about pay, staffing levels? With a guaranteed revenue stream, protected by the Arizona constitution, what safe-guards are in place to protect consumers against wasteful spending? I could provide a lot more examples, however, none of it ever makes a difference. When APS requests a rate increase – they get it. Why not require some internal efficiencies that every other business or person has to make in their finances when the income stream goes down versus an almost automatic process to allow another rate hike?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Arizona Supreme Court to rule on discrimination case Monday

The Arizona Supreme Court will decide Monday how much leeway − if any − business owners have to refuse to serve certain customers based on ...