A federal judge this week ruled in favor of the V.I. Water and Power Authority on the sole remaining count in a lawsuit filed by residents and businesses who complained of exorbitant electric bills caused in part by the failed advanced metering infrastructure system implemented by contractors Itron and Tantalus a decade ago.
“Because the record shows VIWAPA had constitutionally adequate procedures for customers to dispute their bills and Plaintiffs neither availed themselves of those procedures nor produced admissible evidence that the procedures were inadequate, VIWAPA is entitled to summary judgment,” Judge Juan Sanchez wrote in an opinion filed in U.S. District Court Monday.
Ratepayers first took the utility and both contractors to court in 2021 and alleged that after the “smart grid” system was installed, WAPA billed them for electricity they never used. One plaintiff claimed that they were billed for thousands of dollars despite being out of town. Others claimed that WAPA threatened to disconnect their power when they disputed charges. Plaintiff Johann Clendinen, a six-year member and former chair of the V.I. Public Services Commission, claimed he was “beset” by Virgin Islanders who complained of overbilling and opaque customer service practices.
“From 2016, Clendinen knew the system was not working for him personally and for others,” according to the complaint. “As the PSC Commissioner, he could not obtain a straight answer or obtain relief for overbilling, on his personal behalf or for others.”
Sanchez dismissed a number of the plaintiff’s claims in April but allowed them to proceed with their claim that WAPA deprived ratepayers of their constitutional rights to due process before threatening to cut off their power. In May, the plaintiffs told the court that they would take their case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last month, the utility asked Sanchez to dismiss the remaining claim because none of the plaintiffs “bothered to even attempt or access” a complaint process administered by the PSC.
“Moreover, none of the Plaintiffs have provided any evidence to support their generalized claims for damages,” the utility’s attorney, Carol Ann Rich, wrote.
Sanchez found that the “record shows constitutionally adequate and robust procedures” were available for ratepayers to dispute their bills.
“First, VIWAPA sends each customer bills and disconnection notices that direct the customer to VIWAPA’s complaint channels,” he wrote. The bills and disconnection notices both supply customer service contact information and hours of operation. Second, VIWAPA has a staff customer service process, both in-person and online, that generates work orders and inspections based on customer complaints. Third, since 2023, the PSC has provided an external avenue for customers to challenge their bills pursuant to its written procedures for resolution of customer complaints and weekly coordination sessions with VIWAPA. These procedures permit ratepayers to have their complaints reviewed and decided by the PSC.”