Many states allow individual check metering. However, in Louisiana, PHAs are not permitted to institute surcharges based upon check metering. Federal regulations that govern public housing state that individual check metering shall not be used if it is against local law or the policies of the public service commission. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in LaNasa v. New Orleans Public Service Commission, Inc. that the resale of electricity through check meters, even in the absence of profit, violated the contract between the customer and the utility company and was against New Orleans Public Service Commission policy prohibiting the resale of electricity.1

From time to time, Louisiana PHAs try to impose charges for utility usage on tenants in master-metered complexes through the use of individual check metering. PHAs may try to set surcharges for excess utility usage or try to use check metering due to pressure from HUD and rising costs. Each PHA must submit an annual budget showing projected income and expenses for the rental of their complexes. Once HUD approves the budget, HUD pays the difference between expenses and income to the PHA. If there is less rent collected or if expenses are higher than anticipated due to high PHA-paid utility costs, for example, the amount of the operating subsidy is insufficient to cover the costs of running the development. Should a Louisiana PHA seek to impose excess utility charges or individual check metering, an advocate should be able to mount a successful legal challenge.

• 166 So. 2d 332 (La. 1953).

Junior v. Housing Authority of New Orleans.1  A consent judgment required HANO to increase the utility allowance schedules that HANO used for its public housing tenants who had tenant-paid utilities. Any former tenant surcharged for electricity consumption after 1-1-82 and before 11-23-88 was entitled to a $250 offset against any debt owed to HANO.

Sylvester v. HUD.2  HUD and the PHA agreed in this consent judgment to increase utility allowances for tenants participating in its Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program. $500,000 in refunds were obtained for current and former tenants.

Desire Area Resident Council v. Housing Authority of New Orleans3 . Suit filed on behalf of public housing residents relocated from projects due to demolition or redevelopment under the Uniform Relocation Act. Basis of suit was that the displaced tenants estimated average utility costs had increased under the Section 8 programs or other housing to which they had been relocated because the PHAs’ utility allowances were too low. As a result of the litigation, the PHA raised its utility allowances to appropriate levels and provided monetary relief to tenants for the difference between the estimated average of utility costs and the inadequate utility allowances.

Johnson v. Housing Authority of Jefferson Parish.4  Suit filed based on parish’s failure to adjust utility allowances though utility costs had increased more than 10% since the last adjustment. Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and held that the HCVP rent provisions create enforceable rights. Case later settled with adjustments to allowances.

• 1No. 88-2172 (E.D. La.), 22 Clearinghouse Rev. 1302 (1989).
• 2No. 88-1134 (E.D. La.), 25 Clearinghouse Rev. 1382 (1992).
• 3No. 01-1458 (E.D. La).
• 4442 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2006).