Man gets "back' electric bill, would you pay?

David Sowell shows me the bill he got last month from his electric cooperative. "Yes, I'm irritated," he says. "Wouldn't you be?"

The Bullouch County man is being told he owes $3,320 dollars in "back" electric bills. The bills date back 43 months, all the way to 2005.

"I don't know how they can do this," Sowell tells me.

Excelsior Electric Membership Corporation says an electronic device on Sowell's meter malfunctioned. Greg Proctor from the company says the AMR (or Automatic Meter Reading technology) reduces costs by allowing utilities to get a meter reading electronically. He says the meter reading is sent to their office using a transmitter that is installed on each meter. Proctor says the transmitter on Sowell's meter malfuctioned, but that the meter itself still recorded accurate data. He says as a result, Sowell was under-billed for almost four years.

Proctor says the company discovered the problem after Sowell's meter registered zero kilowatt useage. In mid-November, meter was removed and replaced with a new one. And that's when the problem with the transmitting device was discovered.

Still, Sowell is not sure he's buying any of it. When I ask him if he thinks he owes the money and if he actually used all the electricity, he replies, "I'm not sure." Sowell says if the electronic device on the meter failed, how does he know the meter really worked? "If one part of the meter is defective I don't know for sure that the rest of it isn't," he says.

Proctor told me while the company has a responsibility , the customer does as well. "Mr. Sowell's bills became consistently lower, something which should have given him an indication something was wrong. In a case like this, the customer has a responsibility to let the company know."

Sowell takes exception to that. "No, it's their responsibility to maintain their own equipment," he says.

Sowell showed me monthly bills that were low, such as $17 in one case. "But I have other bills for $50 or $72, so I didn't think much of it," he says. "And I'm not even here that much and this is a small place."

"They're in the business to bill people, I get the bill and I pay it according to what they charge me on the bill," Sowell says.

Sowell says he doesn't want to cheat anyone, but at this point he's just not convinced the company is right. So, he filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.

The company responded with an offer to let him pay half the bill, $1650 over a 22 month period. The letter says in part "Dear Mr. Sowell, Based on your complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau, it appears that you erroneously believe that you should be permitted to reap a windfall benefit by virtue of faulty equipment."

Sowell took exception to that saying he didn't like the intimidating tone. The letter which is dated January 7, indicates Sowell has until Monday, January 26 to sign a form indicating he will accept the offer.

Ross Howard from the Better Business Bureau says the tone of the letter probably could have been better in his opinion. "I would say using words such as 'reaping a windall benefit' is
inflammatory language that many people would consider drawing a line in the sand."

Still, Howard told me it seems that the company does have some evidence that Sowell has indeed used the electricity. "They do have the meter reading," he says. "At this point, if the customer wants to verify that the meter is correct, he would probably need to hire a third party to examine the meter."

Howard says the Better Business Bureau is under no obligation to offer mediation at this point, but if the company and Sowell are interested, he says "we could certainly try to get both sides together."

Sowell isn't sure what he'll do. He does say he believes most customers would side with him, not the company. "The people I've talked to say don't pay it," he told me.

Proctor told me that because Excelsior is a cooperative, that other customers will suffer if Sowell doesn't pay for the electricity he really used. Proctor indicated in a letter to Sowell that "should you (Sowell) choose not to accept this offer, we will pursue full recovery with a court."

Proctor also wrote me in an email "Our meters are tested and calibrated before they are installed." He says the manufacturer of the electronic monitoring device is Landis and Gyr and Landis and Gyr is one of the industry leaders in AMR technology. He says their products "meet or exceed AMR industry standards. L & G have more AMR devices deployed of this type than any other manufacturer."

Proctor also wrote "these devices work the vast majority of time. It is a rare situation where this type of problem occurs. However, as with any man-made device, it can be damaged by lightning or other natural events and it can fail."

Do you have an opinion?