20001025Comments.doc

DONALD L. HOWELL, II
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 3366

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMISSION’S TELEPHONE CUSTOMER RELATIONS RULES (IDAPA 31.41.01.000 et seq.).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 31-4101-0001

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Donald L. Howell, II, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on August 28, 2000, submits the following comments.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has proposed several changes to its Telephone Customer Relations Rules (TCRR) that will impose fewer restrictions and regulatory requirements on telecommunications companies, allowing those companies greater flexibility in a changing business environment. It is important to note that this is accomplished without undermining the basic consumer protections provided by these rules. The Commission Staff believes that customer relations rules should be reviewed periodically and modified when circumstances warrant a change. New rules might become necessary, while existing ones may become obsolete. Continuous re-evaluation of the rules is prudent from the perspective of both telecommunications companies and the customers they serve.
Staff supports the proposed changes to the TCRR and submits the following comments in support of proposed rules.
DISCUSSION
Rule 107. The proposed modifications to Rule 107 will allow telephone companies to return a deposit by either crediting the customer’s account or issuing a refund without requiring an explicit request from a customer. Under the current rule, companies are required to refund a deposit absent customer instructions to issue an account credit. Under the proposal, neither method will be the preferred default procedure, giving companies greater flexibility in handling the return of customer deposits. Applying credits to future bills may provide customers with the benefit of more immediate use of their deposit money, avoiding the delay often associated with providing cash refunds. In a separate rulemaking docket (Case No. 31-2101-0001), the Commission has proposed that the same changes be made with respect to the corresponding Rule 107 of its Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR). Staff supports the proposed rule change and urges the Commission to maintain consistency between Rules 107 of the UCRR and TCRR for administrative efficiency. Simply put, it is easier for Staff to accurately administer rules and resolve disputes if the rules are the same, regardless of the type of company involved.
Rule 302. The proposed change to this rule removes an obsolete reference to Rule 313, which no longer exists. In addition to the change proposed by the Commission, Staff also proposes to eliminate another obsolete reference found in Rule 302. Staff suggests removing the reference to the guarantee option mentioned in Section 302.02. Specifically, Staff proposes eliminating the words “or obtain a guarantee”, so that the section would read “The customer or applicant failed to make a security deposit, when one is required.” The guarantee option referred to in this rule was eliminated in 1999. Staff recommends approval of both the proposed change and the additional modification suggested above.
Rule 304. The proposed changes to Rule 304 will clarify and simplify the requirements for notification of customers prior to disconnection of local exchange service. Under the proposal, the requirement of initial notification of the intent to disconnect service (the seven-day notice) and final notice (the 24-hour notice) remains the same. These notices expire within 21 calendar days after the proposed termination date, giving companies three weeks to disconnect service if the customer fails to respond to the notices. Additional notice must be given if the company does not actually disconnect service within this time frame and still intends to disconnect service. Essentially, the process starts over again, with both an initial and final notice required.
If the customer receives the required notices and fails to pay an undisputed bill, no additional notice is required under two specific circumstances. First, if the customer receives notification, makes a payment arrangement, and subsequently fails to keep that arrangement, no additional notice is required. Second, if the customer receives notification and tenders payment with a dishonored check, no additional notice is required. It is important to note, however, that customers who make and break payment arrangements or pay with a dishonored check but have not been subject to recent collection action by the company are entitled to prior notice before disconnection. In other words, breaking an arrangement or paying with a dishonored check cannot result in disconnection without any notification whatsoever. The link between prior notice and the customer’s action in response to the notice is necessary to avoid circumstances where customers who are not subject to collection actions miss self-imposed payment targets or encounter difficulty with their financial institutions.
The current rule has been difficult for local exchange companies and the Staff to administer. Customer rights and responsibilities have not been clearly understood. Eliminating confusion about when notification is required and under what circumstances no additional notice is necessary will benefit all concerned. Staff supports the proposed change.
Rule 305. The Commission proposes to eliminate this rule regarding special termination notice requirements in instances of unexplained high toll usage. Changes in the telecommunications industry and regulatory response to those changes have made this rule obsolete. Local exchange service can no longer be disconnected for non-payment of toll charges. Therefore, there is no need for the special notice provisions of this rule. Staff supports the proposed change.
Rule 310. Staff supports the proposed change to this rule, removing an obsolete reference to Rule 313.
Rule 401. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to correct a typographical error in Rule 401, changing “complain” to “complaint”. The Office of Administrative Rules for the State of Idaho subsequently determined that this error could be corrected administratively without actually amending the rule. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Commission to proceed officially with the proposed change.
Rule 502. The Commission proposes to reduce the period of time local exchange companies must retain records of customers’ trouble reports. Prior to the initiation of this rulemaking proceeding, Qwest Communications had informally discussed the issue of record retention with Staff. Trouble reports are an important indicator of service quality. During an investigation of performance, trouble reports can be an invaluable historical reference tool. However, it is Staff’s opinion that reducing the time period for keeping trouble reports from five years to two years will not significantly impair the Staff’s ability to monitor service quality. Staff also recognizes that a reduced record-keeping requirement will benefit companies by decreasing the amount of resources devoted to maintaining records for regulatory purposes. Staff supports the proposed change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed changes to Rules 107, 302, 304, 310, and 502 and the elimination of Rule 305. Staff also recommends an additional change to Rule 302 to remove an obsolete reference. For reasons mentioned above, there is no need to amend Rule 401 at this time.

Respectfully submitted this day of October 2000.

______________________________
Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Beverly Barker

BAB:jo:umisc/comments/31-4101-0001.babdh
STAFF COMMENTS 1 OCTOBER 25, 2000