The Public Service Commission (PSD) of West Virginia has set Sept. 30 at 10 a.m. for an Evidentiary Hearing for Fiesta Tableware v. Tomlinson PSD. The hearing will be held in the Weirton City Building, Council Chambers.
Tomlinson and Fiesta are in disagreement as to the rate charged for Tomlinson providing non-potable water to the plant. While for years Homer Laughlin (Fiesta) was provided the non-potable by the Newell Company, the Newell Company asked the PSC to declare it a distressed utility. That request was granted and Tomlinson PSD was ordered to take over the failing Newell Co.
Hearings have been repeatedly postponed due to Fiesta and Tomlinson being unable to come to an agreement as to the price. Tomlinson agreed to the price of $4.34 per gallon being proposed by the PSC, while Fiesta rejected that price and proposed $4.00 per gallon, Both parties asked for additional time to come to an agreement, but the lack of agreement has caused the PSC to schedule the Evidentiary hearing.
David Stevens, administrator for Tomlinson PSD, is hopeful an agreement on the rate can be reached. He said residential customers began paying the tariff rate for potable water when Tomlinson took over the Newell Company. Due to lack of “raw” or non-potable water, Fiesta received potable water and was charged the tariff rate.
A evidentiary hearing set for June 30 was cancelled due to both parties indicating an agreement could negotiated. According to Stevens, that did not happen, however, and an evidentiary hearing was set for Sept. 30.
The order, issued July 1, 2025 follows in its entirety:
P U B L 1 C S E RVI C E C 0 M M I SS ION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
Issued: July 1, 2025
CASE NO. 25-0070-PWD-C
FIESTA TABLEWARE COMPANY,
Newell, Hancock County,
V.
TOMLINSON PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT,
a public utility,
Complainant,
Defend ant .
PROCEDURAL ORDER
This Order schedules an evidentiary hearing for September 30, 2025.
’
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2025, Fiesta Tableware Company (Complainant) allegec
Tomlinson Public Service District (Tomlinson PSD) improperly charged the Complainant full tariff rates for potable water after Tomlinson PSD was unable to provide non-potable water for the Complainant’s operations. The Complainant requested the Commission establish an interim rate that does not exceed the amount it was previously charged for
non-potable water until Tomlinson PSD provides non-potable water. The Complainant also requested establishment of a final rate for providing non-potable water.
Also, on January 31, 2025, the Commission directed Tomlinson PSD to answer the complaint and referred this matter to its Division of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ)for a Recommended Decision.
On February 7, 2025, Tomlinson PSD rejected the proposal that the Complainant pay the previous rate for non-potable water, but concurred with the request for the Commission to establish an interim and final rate for the provision of non-potable water to the Complainant. Tomlinson PSD also requested the Commission dismiss the complaint.
On February 21, 2025, Tomlinson PSD tendered a discovery request to the
Complainant. The Complainant responded on March 13, 2025.
Public Service Commission
of West Virginia
Charleston
On March 4, 2025, Staff reported it was investigating this matter and would tender a subsequent final recommendation.
On March 7, 2025, the presiding ALJ directed Staff to propose an interim rate for Tomlinson PSD to provide potable water and a final rate for providing non-potable water.
On March 13, 2025, the parties responded to the March 4, 2025 Staff
Memorandum.
On May 1, 2025, Staff recommended the Commission adopt the existing tariff rates for Tomlinson PSD to provide potable water to the Complainant on an interim basisand recommended a final rate for providing non-potable water of $4.34 per thousand gallons with a minimum monthly bill of $2,170.50.
On May 2, 2025, the presiding ALJ granted the parties ten additional days to
respond to the Staff recommendation.
On May 7, 2025, the Complainant requested additional time to respond to the final Staff recommendation. The request was granted. (May 7, 2025 Procedural Order.)
On May 20, 2025, the Complainant and Tomlinson PSD responded to the final
Staff recommendation. Tomlinson PSD concurred with the rates Staff proposed. The
Complainant objected to the proposed rates and requested an evidentiary hearing.
On May 21, 2025, the matter was scheduled for hearing.
On June 11, 2025, the Complainant requested issuance of a subpoena. Return of service was filed on June 12, 2025. Tomlinson filed a list of documents responding to the subpoena on June 18,2025.
On June 17, 2025, Tomlinson PSD represented it would not propose an
alternative rate. Separately, it filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude settlement
discussions from the evidentiary record.
On June 18, 2025, the Complainant proposed an alternative interim rate of $4.00 per thousand gallons with a reduced rate for providing non-potable water once available.
On June 19, 2025, the Complainant filed parallel uncontested motions to cancel
the scheduled hearing and extend the deadline for a Recommended Decision. The
requests were granted and the deadline for a Recommended Decision was extended to
December 1, 2025. (June 19, 2025 Procedural Order, June 19, 2025 Commission
of West Vlrgrrua
Charleston
DISCUSSION
The Complainant objected to the Staff recommendations set forth in the May 1,
2025 Memorandum. The parties subsequently sought to cancel the scheduled evidentiary hearing to facilitate resolution their dispute informally and obtained additional processing time from the Commission. In order to ensure the timely adjudication of this
Council Chambers, 200 Municipal Plaza, Weirton, West Virginia. The Complainant should take note that it has the obligation to establish facts alleged to constitute a violation of law as required by Rule 6.2.7 of the Commission Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 150 C.S.R. Series I (Procedural Rules).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Complainant objected to the final Staff recommendations and proposed an
alternative interim rate. (May 20, 2025 Complainant Response, June 18, 2025 Filing.)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
It is reasonable to reschedule the evidentiary hearing to provide the parties an
opportunity to present facts supporting their positions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for an evidentiary
hearing on September 30, 2025, at 1O:OO a.m., at the Weirton City Building, Council
Chambers, 200 Municipal Plaza, Weirton, West Virginia.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Secretary serve this Order upon
Commission Staff by hand delivery, upon all parties of record who have filed an e-
service agreement with the Commission by electronic service and upon all other parties
by US. First Class Mail.
/——
MJM:s:lc
250070ae
Public Service Commission
of West Virginia
nant full tariff rates for potable water after Tomlinson PSD was unable to provide non-potable water for the Complainant’s operations. The Complainant requested the Commission establish an interim rate that does not exceed the amount it was previously charged for non-potable water until Tomlinson PSD provides non-potable water. The Complainant
also requested establishment of a final rate for providing non-potable water.
Also, on January 31, 2025, the Commission directed Tomlinson PSD to answer the complaint and referred this matter to its Division of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) for a Recommended Decision.
On February 7, 2025, Tomlinson PSD rejected the proposal that the Complainant pay the previous rate for non-potable water, but concurred with the request for the Commission to establish an interim and final rate for the provision of non-potable water to the Complainant. Tomlinson PSD also requested the Commission dismiss the complaint/.
On February 21, 2025, Tomlinson PSD tendered a discovery request to the
Complainant. The Complainant responded on March 13, 2025.
Public Service Commission
of West Virginia
Charleston
On March 4, 2025, Staff reported it was investigating this matter and would tender a subsequent final recommendation.
On March 7, 2025, the presiding ALJ directed Staff to propose an interim rate for Tomlinson PSD to provide potable water and a final rate for providing non-potable water.
On March 13, 2025, the parties responded to the March 4, 2025 Staff
Memorandum.
On May 1, 2025, Staff recommended the Commission adopt the existing tariff rates for Tomlinson PSD to provide potable water to the Complainant on an interim basis and recommended a final rate for providing non-potable water of $4.34 per thousand gallons with a minimum monthly bill of $2,170.50.
On May 2, 2025, the presiding ALJ granted the parties ten additional days to
respond to the Staff recommendation.
On May 7, 2025, the Complainant requested additional time to respond to the fina lStaff recommendation. The request was granted. (May 7, 2025 Procedural Order.)
On May 20, 2025, the Complainant and Tomlinson PSD responded to the final Staff recommendation. Tomlinson PSD concurred with the rates Staff proposed. The Complainant objected to the proposed rates and requested an evidentiary hearing.
On May 21, 2025, the matter was scheduled for hearing.
On June 11, 2025, the Complainant requested issuance of a subpoena. Return of service was filed on June 12, 2025. Tomlinson filed a list of documents responding to the subpoena on June 18,2025.
On June 17, 2025, Tomlinson PSD represented it would not propose an
alternative rate. Separately, it filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude settlement discussions from the evidentiary record.
On June 18, 2025, the Complainant proposed an alternative interim rate of $4.00 per thousand gallons with a reduced rate for providing non-potable water once available.
On June 19, 2025, the Complainant filed parallel uncontested motions to cancel the scheduled hearing and extend the deadline for a Recommended Decision. The requests were granted and the deadline for a Recommended Decision was extended to December 1, 2025. (June 19, 2025 Procedural Order, June 19, 2025 Commission
of West Vlrgrrua
Charleston
DISCUSSION
The Complainant objected to the Staff recommendations set forth in the May 1, 2025 Memorandum. The parties subsequently sought to cancel the scheduled evidentiary hearing to facilitate resolution their dispute informally and obtained additional processing time from the Commission. In order to ensure the timely adjudication of this matter, the Commission should reset the evidentiary hearing. Thus, the evidentiary hearing is rescheduled for September 30, 2025, at 1O:OO a.m., at Weirton City Building,
Council Chambers, 200 Municipal Plaza, Weirton, West Virginia. The Complainant should take note that it has the obligation to establish facts alleged to constitute a violation of law as required by Rule 6.2.7 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, 150 C.S.R. Series I (Procedural Rules).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Complainant objected to the final Staff recommendations and proposed an alternative interim rate. (May 20, 2025 Complainant Response, June 18, 2025 Filing.)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
It is reasonable to reschedule the evidentiary hearing to provide the parties an opportunity to present facts supporting their positions.
IT ISHEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for an evidentiary
hearing on September 30, 2025, at 1O:OO a.m., at the Weirton City Building, Council Chambers, 200 Municipal Plaza, Weirton, West Virginia.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Secretary serve this Order upon
Commission Staff by hand delivery, upon all parties of record who have filed an e-service agreement with the Commission by electronic service and upon all other parties
by US. First Class Mail.
/——
MJM:s:lc
250070ae
Public Service Commission
of West Virginia
’
