Gas meter misreading even more painful to fix

Dan Thanh Dang writes in the Baltimore Sun about how a small business owner was charge $14,000 over his normal bill and how it took almost three months to resolve.

"My previous month's reading on Dec. 22 was 88,085 therms," Le said. "On Jan. 22, the meter was reported to be 99,159 therms. ... The reading should have read 89,159. The technician misread the most significant digit from an 8 to a 9. It made perfect sense to me."

It made perfect sense to customer service rep Edwin, too, when Le explained the discrepancy. Edwin promised to send a revised bill, but two weeks later, nothing showed up. So Le got on the horn again and spoke with CSR Radi, who said that CSR Edwin did note the misreading in the case file, so Radi would send it.

A revised bill never came. So on Feb. 19, Le called once more. CSR Nelle told him there was nothing she could do. He just had to wait for his next reading.

On Feb. 22, the same technician arrived to read the bakery's meter. That same day, Le called WashGas again and this time CSR Johnny did something none of the other CSRs could do. He changed Le's first meter reading to 89,159, which would reflect the bakery's prior average use of about 1,103 therms per month.

That fix took care of things - but only temporarily. The problem got more absurd when Le promptly received a second January-February bill for $15,767.79, and a revised January bill for $1,435.98.

Le spent another month struggling to fix this problem himself. He tried sending WashGas digital photos of his meter, but was told there was no "customer service e-mail account" to receive it. He begged WashGas to scrap the prior readings and send a supervisor out to re-read his meter.

The company did send someone on March 3 - the same technician who misread the meter earlier.

"The hoops I have to jump through are just tremendous," Le said. "Once I convince customer service to correct my bill, the meter reader comes along and reports it incorrectly again so the problem continues. I don't know what else to do. I don't want to pay a bill that isn't right and I don't want my gas turned off."

In most cases, billing disputes with a utility fall under the Maryland Public Service Commission. When the PSC receives a billing complaint, it forwards it to the utility, which then must provide information back to the PSC on your account.

You have rights under the Code of Maryland Regulations. If you believe your meter is inaccurate, you may ask the utility to test your meter at no charge. You can also file a written request and a $10 fee to the PSC's engineering division for a "referee test," which sends reps from the PSC and utility out to test your meter. You get your money back if your meter is found to be inaccurate.

The PSC also says that in the event of a billing dispute, you are required to "pay the undisputed portion of your bill" while the agency or the utility is investigating the complaint.

Even though Le had not yet contacted the PSC, he did take all the proper steps to resolve this with the company.

I called WashGas on Le's behalf March 4. One day later, spokesman Ruben Rodriguez called back with a tidy resolution.

"We're sending a supervisor out there to read his meter," Rodriguez said. "His bill will be adjusted. He will not have to pay his $14,000 bill. It was a mistake on our part and we apologize for any inconvenience to Mr. Le."

The apology is a good step, but WashGas may want to re-examine why things got that far.

It's inexcusable that none of the people Le spoke to referred this obvious error to a supervisor. It's maddening that there was no consistency to customer service, permitting one rep to change a meter reading when another rep told him it was impossible. It's a shame no one told Le he could send his letter and photos to custsrv@washgas.com. And finally, it makes no sense to send the same technician a third time to read a meter after he apparently misread it twice.

Common sense and employee empowerment would have cleared this issue up in a timelier manner.

Le confirmed that a supervisor did show up March 5, but he's waiting for his next bill to make sure the fix is permanent.

"I'm going to keep an eye on it," Le said. "It's a big relief, but it's unfortunate that it took this long to correct this problem."

At least Le's blood pressure was going back down, much like his adjusted and far more acceptable $2,703.61 bill for January and February.

Residents support natural gas bill

In an article written by Maya T. Prabhu and appearing in a Gazette newspaper, it looks like the Chillum LNG facility may soon be as good as dead.

Chillum-area residents hope the General Assembly will pass a law that would protect their community, as well as neighborhoods throughout the county, from liquefied natural gas facilities that could be built near their homes.

Washington Gas owns a 21-acre site on Chillum Road near Queens Chapel Road, which is less than a block away from the West Hyattsville Metro station. At a House Economic Matters Committee meeting Monday, officials said the legislation, House Bill 1043, specifically targets that site. There is no liquefied natural gas facility on that site yet, but Washington Gas would like to build one. If the committee gives the bill a favorable report, it will move on to the House for consideration.

"[This bill] is written specifically to create a barrier for Washington Gas to gain approval to build an LNG storage facility at our Chillum property," said Steven Jumper, director of regional public policy for Washington Gas. "More importantly, this bill hinders our company in meeting our statutory obligation to the citizens and businesses of Maryland to provide safe and reliable supply to them at a reasonable cost."

But residents say the facility could potentially be unsafe to the surrounding communities if anything went wrong, and could potentially draw terrorists.

The bill, proposed by Del. Jolene Ivey (D-Dist. 47) of Cheverly and the Prince George’s County delegation, would require facilities to meet stricter standards for the placement. It would prohibit LNG facilities from being built in Prince George’s and require that the facility be outside an acceptable separation distance from any residence, calculated by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development safety standards.