20030826Reconsideration Order No 29327.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 26, 2003
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
QWEST CORPORATION TO PHASE OUT AND )CLOSE THE BOISE AND POCATELLO
CUSTOMER PAYMENT CENTERS.
CASE NO. QWE-03-
ORDER NO. 29327
On March 12, 2003 , Qwest Corporation filed an Application to close its two
remaining customer payment centers (CPCs) located in Boise and Pocatello. The Commission
Staff supported closure of the two CPCs but recommended that the Commission impose six
conditions. On June 26, 2003, the Commission issued Order No. 29270 authorizing the
Company to close the two CPCs and adopted three conditions proposed by the Staff.
On July 16, 2003, Qwest Corporation filed a timely Petition for Clarification and/or
Partial Reconsideration. In particular, the Company requested clarification or reconsideration of
two conditions set forth in the Commission s prior Order. In this Order the Commission grants
in part and denies in part Qwest's Petition.
FINAL ORDER NO. 29270
In Order No. 29270 the Commission authorized Qwest to close its Boise and
Pocatello customer payment centers. The Commission noted that Qwest customers have a
number of different ways to pay their monthly telephone bills. Order No. 29270 at 2. For
example, the Commission observed that Qwest had developed 58 "local payment agencies
(LPAs) throughout Idaho where customers can visit to pay their monthly telephone bills in
person. Id. The two conditions at issue in Qwest's Petition concern these payment agencies.
The first condition has two parts. The Commission s Order No. 29270 states that
each LP A should: (1) clearly post whether there is a fee or service charge for use of their
services; and (2) list the types of payment options available at each LP A. Id. at 7. The second
condition at issue requires the LP As to "accept payments without (customers having to present
their monthly) bills or notices" to the payment agency. Id. In its reply comments that initially
addressed the Staffs proposed conditions, Qwest did not object to the imposition of these two
conditions.
ORDER NO. 29327
In Order No. 29270, the Commission found that "it is appropriate that customers be
apprised whether a fee or charge is imposed for paying their Qwest bills. Moreover, the agencies
should list the types of payment options available.Id. at 7. The Commission observed in its
Order that both these requirements or practices were already in use by many of the local payment
agencies. Id.
ISSUES ON RECONSIDERATION
In its Petition, Qwest urges the Commission to clarify and/or reconsider these two
conditions. More specifically, Qwest asks the Commission to remove or delete these two
conditions. Qwest's Petition was supported by the Affidavit of Beth Jordan, a payment agent
assistant in Qwest's consumer finance services unit.
1. Posting the Fees and Payment Options. In its Petition, Qwest asserts that requiring
its payment agencies to post whether there is a fee or service charge and list the type of payment
options available is both unreasonable and unnecessary. Qwest states that many of its payment
agencies also accept payments for other utilities. Petition at 2. Qwest insists the payment
agencies are independent, unaffiliated businesses and "Qwest has no contractual right to require
(LPAs) to post a sign" regarding fees and services. Id. at 2-3. Requiring these agencies to post
signs specifically related to Qwest payments may also cause confusion for customers who are
paying bills to other entities. Id.Aff. at 2.
Qwest also asserts that posting a notice regarding the fee or servIce charge is
unnecessary. Petition at 3. More specifically, Qwest maintains that most Idaho agencies do not
assess fees. Qwest explained that when a fee is imposed, the agency "verbally inform(s) the
Qwest customer that such a fee applies.Id. In addition, Qwest states that its website indicates
whether a service charge will apply at a given agency location.
Commission Findings. Having reviewed Qwest's Petition and the record in this
case, we believe that it is appropriate to partially grant Qwest relief. We first address the
requirement regarding the posting of a fee or service charge. The Commission s prior Order No.
29270 specifically listed the Staffs recommended conditions.In particular, the Staff
recommended: "If there is a convenience fee or service charge for using payment options, this
fee should be clearly posted so that customers are notified in advance of the charge." Order No.
29270 at 5. In the "Findings" portion of our prior Order, the Commission found that it "
appropriate that customers be apprised whether a fee or .charge is imposed for paying their Qwest
ORDER NO. 29327
bills.Id. at 7. In its Petition, Qwest characterized this condition as requiring the local payment
agencies to "post whether there is a fee or service charge. . ..Petition at 2. Having reviewed
Qwest's Petition and our prior Order, we believe there is some confusion regarding this
condition and accordingly clarify Order No. 29270.
The Commission finds that if there is a convenience fee or service charge for using a
LP A, then that fee should be clearly posted. Conversely, if the payment agency does not assess a
fee or charge for its services, then no posting is necessary. Of the 58 payment agencies in Idaho
Staff stated in its comments that there are only 2 agencies (one in Nampa and the other in
Mountain Home) that assess a $1.00 fee. Staff Comments at 4. Consequently, the posting
requirement only pertains to these two agencies.
We do not believe that the posting requirement for these two agencies should be
removed. We are not persuaded by Qwest's assertion ~hat it has no "contractual right to require
(LP As) to post a sign consistent with" the fee condition. Petition at 3. Although Qwest may
have no "contractual right" directly with the payment agencies, Qwest does have a contract with
First Data Corporation to manage the business relationship of its payment agencies. Staff
Comments at 4. As the principal, Qwest can surely establish operating requirements for its
agents.
We further find that this posting requirement is not burdensome to Qwest. As Qwest
points out, most of its local agents do not impose a fee. Thus, the only posting requirement for
the fee condition would be applicable to the two agencies. Although Qwest's website may
indicate whether a service charge will apply at a given location, the website does not advise
customers in advance as to the amount of the service charge. 1 A simple posting that notifies
Qwest customers that there is a service fee for Qwest payments will not cause confusion to
customers paying other utility bills.
We next reconsider that portion of Order No. 29270 that requires Qwest to list the
type of payment options available at each LP A. Upon reconsideration we find that this part of
1 The Qwest website listing the Nampa fee agency states "CONVENIENCE/FEE AGENT.Besides being
somewhat ambiguous, this phrase does not disclose the amount of the fee. See com.qwestcom/ebus/cgi-
bin/gx.cgi.... (viewed August 21 , 2003). The website notation also states "NO DEPOSITS ACCEPTED." If this
latter statement is true, it would be contrary to the terms of the prior Order. In this Petition, Qwest has not
challenged the requirement that LP As accept customer deposits. We expect Qwest to comply with Order No. 29270
and ensure that LP As accept deposits.
ORDER NO. 29327
the condition should be removed or deleted. Rather than requiring the Company to "list" or post
the types of payment options available, it is more important that local payment agencies be
required to accommodate a variety of payment options. The Commission s prior Order requires
that payment agents: accept cash, make change, accept partial payments, accept checks and
money orders, accept deposits as well as payments on bills, promptly post payments, and provide
receipts to customers. These are essential customer payment functions. Qwest has not sought
reconsideration from these requirements - it has merely objected to the posting of such
requirements. We do not want to put form over substance; consequently, we shall delete this
posting condition.
2. Accepting Payment Without the Customer s Telephone Bill or Other Notice
Qwest also asks the Commission to remove the condition which requires an agency to accept
payment without having the customer present a monthly telephone bill or other official notice.
The Company asserts in its Petition that while it is technically possible for the agencies to
receive such payments, accepting payments without reference to a specific customer account
number may cause reporting inaccuracies and "potential confusion." Petition at 3 , n. 1.
Qwest explains that when an agency accepts a payment from a customer, it needs
both the customer s 10-digit telephone number and the unique "three digit customer code that
appears on the customer s bill or notice.!d. at 4. Oftentimes customers are unaware of their
unique three-digit customer code. For example, it is possible for a "new" and "old" customer to
be assigned the same telephone number but their records are identifiably separate due to the
different three-digit customer codes. Aff. at 3. Consequently, Qwest insists that providing local
payment agents with the three-digit customer code - normally found on the customer s bill or
termination notice - is critical to avoiding the misapplication of payments.
Commission Findings. We find that Qwest's argument regarding this condition has
merit. Accordingly, we modify our Order No. 29270 to remove this condition. Customers using
LP As need to present a telephone bill, termination notice, or other Company document that
discloses the customer s unique account number.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Qwest's Petition for Clarification and/or Partial
Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. The Commission s prior Order No. 29270
ORDER NO. 29327
is clarified to indicate that only those agencies that charge or assess a service fee shall be
required to post notice of the fee so that customers are advised in advance of the charge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the two conditions regarding: (1) the listing of
payment options available at each LP and (2) that agencies accept payments without
presentation of a customer s monthly telephone bill or other type of notice, are deleted.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this
Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. QWE-03-
may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules. See !daho Code ~ 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this c:l.
(p"'"
day of August 2003.
WL iL~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:QWETO310 dh3
ORDER NO. 29327