Case Title: Beaupre v. Green Mountain Power Corp.

Citation: 172 Vt. 583, 776 A.2d 424

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Beaupre v. Green Mountain Power Corp. (99-415); 172 Vt. 583; 776 A.2d 424

[Filed 15-May-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-415

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

Darlene Beaupre, Anne Blair, 	       }	APPEALED FROM:
and Luanne Gallagher	               }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Public Service Board
                                       }	
Green Mountain Power Corp., 	       }
Burlington Electric Dept., and	       }
Central Vermont Public Service Corp.   }	DOCKET NO. 5898

	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Tenants Darlene Beaupre, Anne Blair and Luanne Gallagher appeal an
  order of the Public  Service Board closing the docket in their contested
  case against utilities Green Mountain Power  Corp., Burlington Electric
  Dept., and Central Vermont Public Service Corp.  Tenants claim that (1) 
  the board was incorrect in concluding that its authority does not extend to
  the exercise of personal  jurisdiction over landlords and that it lacks
  authority to order utilities onto non-utility property to  conduct
  inspections of wiring to resolve monetary disputes between landlords and
  tenants, (2) the  board abused its discretion when it denied tenants'
  motion for certification of this action as a class  action, and (3) the
  board erred in concluding that it cannot acquire in personam jurisdiction
  over  classes of persons, such as landlords, merely by service of summons. 
  Because the underlying billing  dispute between tenants and utilities has
  been resolved by stipulation and a release from liability,  leaving no live
  controversy between the parties, we affirm.

       On August 7, 1996, tenants filed their complaint with the board. 
  Previously, tenants had been  residential electric customers living in
  rented apartments in Colchester, Burlington, and Rutland.   Each complained
  of high utility bills arising from electricity being diverted to others in
  their  apartment building after the electricity had passed through tenants'
  own meters.  To stop the ongoing  diversion and to confirm its magnitude,
  customers brought this action before the board, naming their  respective
  landlords and utility providers as defendants, seeking injunctive relief
  and requesting  rulemaking.  The injunctive relief sought to require
  utilities to (1) investigate the internal wiring of  tenants' rental
  residences, (2) estimate the amount of electricity for which they paid that
  should have  been the responsibility of the landlords or other tenants, and
  (3) bill such charges to the parties who  appear to have actually received
  the service and adjust tenants' accounts accordingly.  Tenants also  sought
  injunctive relief against their respective present and former landlords,
  requiring them to  provide utilities access as needed for the purpose of
  determining how much electricity is or was  being billed to tenants but is
  or was consumed by other users, and to install meters and rewire the 

 

  premises as necessary to remedy such diversion problem.

       The petition for rulemaking requested the board adopt a rule
  applicable to all regulated,  metered utility service in the state.  This
  rule would require such utilities to investigate all consumer  complaints
  of apparent utility diversion of service, and, where reasonable cause
  existed to believe  that diversion has taken place, to estimate the usage
  fairly chargeable to another party or parties, and  to pursue such other
  party or parties exclusively for payment for such service, removing such
  charges  from the account of the complaining consumer.  The petition also
  proposed the remedy of requiring  landlords of residential rental premises,
  at which metered utilities are not separately metered to  deliver service
  only to the customer receiving the bill, to assume sole financial
  responsibility for such  accounts both retroactively and prospectively. 
  The complaint also claimed to bring this petition on  behalf of a class of
  Vermont residential tenants who had in the two years preceding the
  complaint, or  will have in the future, reasonable cause to believe that
  their utility meter is metering service  consumed by persons other than
  themselves.

       After a hearing on the matter, the hearing officer entered an order on
  June 9, 1997, stating that  (1) board jurisdiction does not extend to
  landlords, nor does it provide authority for the board to  order utility
  companies onto non-company property to conduct inspection of wiring; (2)
  the board  does have authority to order utility companies to adjust
  customer bills; (3) it would be inappropriate  at that time for the board
  to deal generally with the issue of meter diversion through rulemaking or 
  generic investigation; and (4) an investigation into tenants' claims was
  necessary, and a date for a  status conference needed to be set.  Shortly
  thereafter, the defendant landlords were formally  dismissed from the
  action.

       On July 9, tenants responded to a July 7 status conference memorandum
  by filing with the  Board a motion for class certification, and by
  withdrawing their earlier motion for preliminary  injunctive relief. 
  Tenants informed the hearing officer that none of the customers were still
  residing  in the rental units where the utility diversion giving rise to
  the complaint occurred. (FN1)  Tenants  also requested that the board
  review the hearing officer's June 9 order. 

       In its August 27 order on the motion to review the hearing officer's
  order, the board agreed  with the hearing officer that the board's
  authority does not extend to the exercise of personal  jurisdiction over
  landlords, nor does Vermont law give it authority to order utility
  companies onto  non-company property, over the objection of the property
  owner, to conduct inspection of wiring to  resolve monetary disputes
  between landlords and tenants.  It also agreed that the board has explicit 
  authority to hear and adjudicate matters arising between customers and
  their utilities, and this  jurisdiction includes the manner of operating
  and conducting utility-related business, including the  billing of
  customers.  

 

       Tenants appealed the board's ruling to this Court.  We dismissed the
  appeal as premature  because tenants still had avenues for relief
  available, such as the possibility of board resolution of  customer billing
  disputes or rulemaking after further evidence was presented, and the
  petition for  class action was still pending.  Beaupre v. Green Mountain
  Power Corp., 168 Vt. 596, 597,