Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Customer Billing Dispute Nolensville topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants temporary relief in Nolensville irrigation leak dispute, directs staff follow-up
Summary
A Nolensville College Grove customer disputed a $13,000 bill tied to a long-running irrigation-side leak. The board ordered the utility to waive late penalties assessed after the date the customer filed the complaint and urged the utility to recheck its leak-adjustment policy; staff will monitor resolution.
The Tennessee Board of Utility Regulation on Thursday sided with staff counsel and ordered Nolensville College Grove Utility District to freeze penalties assessed while a customer dispute over a large irrigation-related bill is pending.
Deanna Douglas told the board her irrigation line failed in January 2024; she said she did not receive or did not see the utility’s automated notices while traveling and that the leak ran for about a month, producing an exceptionally large bill. The district contended the leak was in the customer’s irrigation system, which its written leak-adjustment policy excludes from adjustments.
Nolensville’s attorney, Michael Wall, said the district followed its written policy and that the district offered Ms. Douglas payment plans, which she declined. Board staff told the board that prior practice at similar utilities usually treats irrigation leaks differently from potable-use leaks, because irrigation is discretionary and drives peak system sizing.
After discussion, the board voted to require the utility to waive or remove any fees, penalties or interest imposed after the date the customer submitted her informal hearing request to board staff; the utility may still collect charges for the water used unless otherwise negotiated. The order also included a staff recommendation that the utility revisit and, if appropriate, revise its leak-adjustment policy to reflect third-party leak coverage options such as ServLine and to improve customer notice practices.
The board also encouraged the utility and the complainant to reach a local settlement and authorized staff to close the case if the parties agree. Board members said the action was meant to protect a customer disputing a large charge while the complaint is resolved, without prejudging whether the base water charge is reasonable.
