HomeMy WebLinkAbout20001109.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2000 – 1:30 PM
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha Smith and Paul Kjellander.
Commissioner Hansen called the meeting to order. He noted there was only one item on the agenda under RULEMAKING, which was held over from the last Decision Meeting:
Bev Barker’s November 3, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Revisions to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (IDAPA 31.21.01). Case No. 31-2101-0001.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any questions or need for discussion concerning the first group of rules referenced in the Decision Memo—Rules 103, 104, 302, and 310. There was none.
Discussion then moved to Rule 107. Commissioner Smith stated she would look favorably upon adopting the proposed modifications and changing the word “bill” to “account.”
Rule 201 was considered next. Commissioner Hansen stated he questioned why the Staff was recommending that Rule 201 needed to be changed--was there a change in the law or was there new legislation? He also questioned how Staff felt about the opposition of both United Water and Idaho Power to the change. Bev Barker responded that the chief reason for recommending more specificity in this rule is because we have already encountered in the telecommunications environment a situation where a company went from monthly billing to quarterly billing, which caused quite a bit of consternation on the part of the affected customers. She stated she is also familiar with at least one instance in Minnesota where an energy utility decided to go to quarterly billing when it had previously been doing monthly billing. Bev stated that in part what they were trying to do was to make sure in the utilities sector that we’re covered by having a stated presumption that there will be monthly bills unless the Commission allows otherwise. She stated Staff recommended that we not change any of the current billing cycles the companies are now on. She noted that United Water has been doing bi-monthly billing for a long time, and we wouldn’t want to change that. Bev added that it was her understanding through discussion with United Water’s attorney that the PUC could issue a General Order that basically exempts those companies that do other than monthly billing from this rule requirement, accommodating them without jeopardizing the rule itself. She stated it is her understanding that United Water’s main concern with the rule was that they not be immediately required to start monthly billing, which wasn’t the Staff’s intent, anyway. She noted United Water was comfortable as long as the understanding is they would be exempted from the rule and be allowed to continue bi-monthly billing. She stated it is significant to note that no other company commented on that particular part of the rule change.
Commissioner Hansen asked that if by exempting some companies, Staff is saying this is a rule that really doesn’t fit all companies, and we will have companies that it doesn’t apply to and some that it should. Bev stated that she hasn’t gone through the tariffs to see if there are other water companies besides United Water that may have other than a monthly billing cycle. Off the top of her head, United Water was the only one she knew of that would be exempted at this point in time.
Commissioner Smith stated she liked the current language, “regular billing,” because the PUC regulates companies of all sizes with customers who have all ranges of bill amounts. She noted that “regular” seems to allow enough flexibility for each company to bill in a manner that is efficient and appropriate for its own needs. She stated that if a company did go to quarterly billing, and it did cause concern, the remedy for that would be to bring it to the Commission and ask, “Is this regular enough?” The PUC would then have the option of saying, “No, actually we think regular for this company means every month or every other month, and quarterly just doesn’t cut it.” Commissioner Smith stated she is trying to achieve the same thing but is doing it the other way around. She stated she would prefer in the first instance to let each utility determine what it thinks “regular” billing is and if there is a problem with it, the Commission can look it and decide whether it is really a problem that needs to be fixed or not. Commissioner Smith said she is leaning to keeping the language as it is now, with the word “regular.” Commissioner Hansen said that would be his preference, also. Commissioner Kjellander stated he had a question for legal staff, and asked if they can at anytime, by order, impose a different billing cycle on any of the utilities that we regulate and if there was anything that precludes the PUC from doing that. Mr. Stutzman replied that the proposed rule change would raise the presumption that billings would be monthly or every 30 days. He noted there is already a rule in place that allows the Commission to grant exemptions to that requirement. Mr. Kjellander stated that he was satisfied with the language we now have.
Commissioner Hansen then asked if there were any questions or discussion on Rule 207. He said he had questions about Idaho Power’s concern that the rule change won’t accomplish the desired results and asked Bev to comment on that. Ms. Barker replied that Idaho Power was focusing on the issue of billing for non-utility services and it was their impression we really weren’t focused on utility services, when in fact, we were focused on both utility and non-utility services. She stated she has had some informal discussions with Idaho Power since preparation of the Decision Memo. She said that the particular provisions in this rule that are troublesome to Idaho Power were actually requested by the telephone companies in the telephone rulemaking, but there is a difference of opinion whether utility services can be presumed to not be ordered by a customer. She said she thought Idaho Power’s concern is that if a customer claims to not have ordered utility service, then the company would be precluded from billing, but it is Staff’s position that a customer can raise that issue irregardless, and in fact, that does happen from time to time. Bev stated this rule will not preclude the company from billing for legitimately-ordered services. The question is, can a utility bill for services that are not ordered, whether they are utility services or non-utility services. She said as a fall back to that discussion, Idaho Power suggested some alternative language that focused exclusively on non-utility services, and if the Commission has pause about adding reference to utility services in this rule, she encouraged the Commission to at least adopt Idaho Power’s alternative language that references just non-utility services.
Commissioner Hansen asked Bev if she was saying that Staff’s proposed rule would not prohibit another company from providing billing services for another party. She replied that is certainly not an issue and it was one of the points that Pacificorp asked to be clarified—it wouldn’t prohibit them from billing for authorized services.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there was a sense of urgency and if there are practices happening with utilities now in Idaho that necessitate the proposed change. Bev replied there have been instances where a customer indicated they had not authorized or ordered a non-utility service that was provided by a utility—i.e. bill payer insurance, satellite dishes. She said there are a number of non-utility services now being offered so we have that circumstance coming up and she expects in the future there will be more issues that arise. Commissioner Kjellander clarified that the concern is that customers may see specifically more cramming on their bills and the proposed change would help resolve the cramming issue before it becomes a real problem in this state. Bev said that is exactly what is intended. She said that we haven’t seem slamming of energy services yet for the obvious reason that there is not competition in that arena and there aren’t alternative service providers, but in that respect Staff is trying to be pro-active in terms of preparing for the future. If the Commission doesn’t want to address the utility services issue now, then Staff would be comfortable with the fall back position offered by Idaho Power of addressing the non-utility services issue at this point in time. Commissioner Hansen asked if it may be wise to defer the decision and have a workshop with the parties to see if it could be refined a little to make it more acceptable, or if she felt that she had already received all the input from the companies. Bev said she checked with Pacificorp to make sure she had correctly interpreted their comments and the only company that really offered substantive comments was Idaho Power. Commissioner Smith said she would like to speak in favor of adopting the new rule as it was proposed. She stated this is a good area to be proactive since we have seen cramming and slamming. She noted all the rule does is remove the issue from the customer’s utility bill—the provider and customer may still be engaged in a dispute over whether goods and services were provided that the customer is still obligated to pay for. She stated that those disputes don’t belong in the utility bill or before the Commission, and it’s a good thing to let customers know they can’t be billed through their utility for goods they didn’t order and that they can have the charge removed if it’s disputed. She stated that doesn’t mean that whoever gave them services or goods can’t still argue that they had been received and the customer has to pay, but that argument occurs someplace other than on their utility bill.
Commissioner Kjellander stated he was still trying to understand Idaho Power’s original objection to the proposed changes. He asked if there was anyone from Idaho Power who could address that objection. Larry Ripley from Idaho Power said their difficulty with Staff’s proposal is that it literally says ‘no utility shall bill for utility services.’ He said Idaho Power will surely encounter customers who then come forward and say ‘don’t bill me for utility services.’ He said a district judge would also say ‘don’t bill for utility
services’ because that’s what the rule says. He said Idaho Power is concerned with the literal interpretation, and the company feels it is entitled to bill for services. Commissioner Hansen stated he is concerned with the same thing.
There was no discussion on Rule 300 or 304. Discussion ensued regarding Rules 305, 306, and 310. Commissioner Smith noted that Regarding Rule 310, she believed the wisest thing to do was to retain the existing rule without eliminating the two-month provision. She said it is a mistake to let outstanding bills go on too long. Commissioners Hansen and Kjellander concurred.
Discussion then ensued regarding Rule 313. Commissioner Hansen noted some utilities are opposed to the proposed change. He asked if any of the companies present would care to comment. Larry Ripley of Idaho Power said his company is concerned there might be an unintended result in that the customer could read the rule as permitting non-payment. He suggested it be re-worded to avoid that possibility. Bev stated that the language mirrors what was in the Telephone Customer Relations Rules, but if it could be made clearer, she would accept the suggestions.
There was no discussion regarding Rule 404 or the Rules Not Addressed in Notice of Rulemaking.
Going back to Rule 207, Commissioner Hansen stated he recognized Idaho Power’s concern and questioned if the language in the rule should be modified as Idaho Power proposed. Commissioner Kjellander said he supported using Idaho Power’s proposed language.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the proposed rule changes be adopted as proposed with the addition of the changes discussed for Rules 207, 310, and 313, and with the deletion of the proposed changes to Rules 201 and 310. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho this 5th day of December, 2000.
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary