[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-306207-105":53,"doc-detail-306207-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","informal-hearing-decision-case-716188-october-2-2019","Informal Hearing Decision - Case 716188 - October 2, 2019","","October 2, 2019 informal hearing decision in the case numbered 716188 concerns a high gas bill dispute between complainant Kevin Moran and Brooklyn Union Gas Co. d/b/a National Grid NY. The decision follows an August 29, 2019 hearing after an OCS initial ruling that upheld the utility’s billing. It summarizes account history from November 27, 2005 to January 12, 2018, the complainant’s claims of multiple billing errors, and the utility’s 2012 high bill investigation records, including meter reading and testing documentation, ultimately finding proper billing.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/informal-hearing-decision-case-716188-october-2-2019/306207/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/informal-hearing-decision-case-716188-october-2-2019/306207.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Jake","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-10","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What was the subject of the informal hearing decision in Case 716188?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The decision addresses an informal hearing related to a high bill and billing dispute between the complainant and National Grid NY.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"When was the informal hearing held and what prior step occurred?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The informal hearing was held on August 29, 2019, after OCS issued an initial decision on May 26, 2017 that upheld the utility’s billing.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What period did the complainant’s National Grid residential account cover?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The decision states the account covered gas service from November 27, 2005 to January 12, 2018, with a final balance of $3,478.14.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},306207,1790439438,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":15,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":79},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","90 Church Street, New York , NY 10007-2919 [www.dps.ny.gov](www.dps.ny.gov)  \nCommissioners  \nThomas Congdon  \nDeputy Chair and Executive Deputy  \nRobert Rosenthal  \nGeneral Counsel  \nKathleen H. Burgess  \nSecretary  \nOctober 2 , 2019  \nMr. Kevin Moran  \nMr. Malik Wellington National Grid-Metro One Metrotech Center Brooklyn, New York 11201  \nSubject: Informal Hearing Decision  \nCase \\# 716188  \n15 Duncan Street, Staten Island, New York 11415  \nHigh bill  \nDear Mr. Moran and Mr. Wellington:  \nAn informal hearing in the case referenced above was held on August 29, 2019. Mr. Kevin Moran , the complainant, represented himself. Mr. Malik Wellington, Ms. Maria Robertson , and Ms. Leanna Andreu represented The Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY (National Grid or the utility) . Based on all the information presented, I find that the utility billed the complainant properly.  \nBackground  \nMr. Moran had a National Grid residential account for gas during the period of November 27, 2005 to January 12, 2018. The final account balance was $3,478 .14. On March 16, 2017, the complainant contacted the New York State Department of State, Division of Consumer Protection with a complaint against National Grid. He stated that he notified  \nNational Grid of its multiple billing errors in 2008. The errors included an incorrect billing rate, incorrect usage , billing two meters on one account, not requiring a payment for years, and a threat of disconnection. On March 17, 2017, the Division of Consumer Protection referred the complaint to the Department of Public Service, Office of Consumer Services (OCS) . On the same date , the complainant contacted OCS to complain about National Grid. He provided a 47-page document , which included copies of some of his bills from the period of February 6, 2009 to January 5, 2015 , and a record of his monthly charges during the period of October 2, 2013 to March 22, 2017.  \nOn May 26, 2017, OCS issued its initial decision, which upheld the utility’s billing of the complainant’s account. The complainant disagreed with OCS’ initial decision and requested an informal hearing.  \nPrior to informal hearing , National Grid provided records of its 2012 high bill investigation of the complainant’s account, which included 1 :  \n• A field report dated February 24, 2009, which stated “HHHW combo 60000 RGE CLKD MTR to HHHW OK 600000 spoke to Stan acct has to be rebilled back in April when Ensc inst. Only 2BD, Kitch Bath LV RM (small);”  \n• National Grid’s letter to complainant dated March 5, 2012 , which referenced DPS complaint 186928;  \n• Records of meter readings by a remote reading device during the period of August 6, 2008 to February 1, 2012;  \n• A field report dated February 1, 2012 , which stated “735/000 Change   \nP.S.C. request”  \n• A field report dated February 16, 2012 of meter number 3379502 , which tested at 99.512% accuracy in Test Open and 98.99% accuracy in Test Check. Both results were within the limits established by the Commission for the gas meters.2 The report indicates that “meter retired with test”. The removal meter reading index – 4098.  \nComplainant’s Position  \nOn March 16, 2017, the complainant stated to OCS:  \nI first notified National Grid of its multiple billing errors in 2008. It has been nine years, and they still have not resolved various issues. They have thus failed to provide even the most basic of customer service, and in fact, most often have been the nastiest, rudest, most condescending, unprofessional, and bulling group of representatives I’ve ever experienced. In the nine years this has dragged out, I have made over 200 calls, visited their locations both in Staten Island and  \n1 National Grid provided 2012 record of high bill investigation on 08/26/2019 .  \n2 Non-temperature compensating diaphragm, rotary and turbine gas meter. At the check and open rates, the percent proof shell be no less than 99.0 percent nor more than 101.0 percent. For diaphragm meter the open rate","cbCaipRDEHGq8Gkp","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipRDEHGq8Gkp","pdf",259880,"English","# Informal Hearing Decision\n## Hearing overview and parties\n## Background and account history\n## Utility investigation records\n## Complainant’s position\n## OCS responses and complainant replies","[{\"question\":\"What was the subject of the informal hearing decision in Case 716188?\",\"answer\":\"The decision addresses an informal hearing related to a high bill and billing dispute between the complainant and National Grid NY.\"},{\"question\":\"When was the informal hearing held and what prior step occurred?\",\"answer\":\"The informal hearing was held on August 29, 2019, after OCS issued an initial decision on May 26, 2017 that upheld the utility’s billing.\"},{\"question\":\"What period did the complainant’s National Grid residential account cover?\",\"answer\":\"The decision states the account covered gas service from November 27, 2005 to January 12, 2018, with a final balance of $3,478.14.\"}]","Informal Hearing Decision - Case 716188 - October 2, 2019 | PDF",1789834186]