PROPOSED RULEMAKING
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
[52 PA. CODE CH. 59]
[30 Pa.B. 37] [L-00990145]
Procedures to Ensure Customer Consent to a Change of Natural Gas Suppliers The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) on November 4, 1999, adopted a proposed rulemaking order to promulgate proposed regulations to implement and codify section 2206(b) of the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2206(b) (act) which requires the establishment of procedures to ensure that natural gas suppliers do not change a customer's gas supplier without direct oral confirmation from the customer of record or written evidence of the customer's consent to a change of supplier. The contact persons are Terrence J. Buda, Law Bureau (717) 787-5755 and Daniel Mumford, Bureau of Consumer Services (717) 783-1957.
Executive Summary
On June 22, 1999, Governor Tom Ridge signed the act into law. The act revised 66 Pa.C.S. (relating to public utility code) (code), by inter alia, adding Chapter 22 (relating to Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act) to restructure the gas utility industry. The purpose of the act is to permit customers to buy natural gas supply service from their choice of gas suppliers.
Section 2206(b) of the act requires the ''[t]he Commission shall, by order or regulation, establish procedures to ensure that a natural gas distribution company does not change a retail gas customer's natural gas supplier without direct oral confirmation from the customer or record or written evidence of the customer's consent to a change of supplier.'' The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to implement and codify this provision of the act.
Public Meeting held
November 4, 1999Commissioners Present: John M. Quain, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; Nora Mead Brownell; and Aaron Wilson Jr.
Proposed Rulemaking Order and Final Interim Guidelines By the Commission:
At public meeting of August 26, 1999, the Commission issued a tentative order establishing interim guidelines to ensure customer consent to a change of natural gas suppliers. The guidelines were undertaken as part of the implementation duties performed by the Commission under the act. Signed into law on June 22, 1999, by Governor Tom Ridge, the act revised the code by, inter alia, adding Chapter 22 relating to restructuring of the natural gas industry. The Commission is the agency charged with implementing the act. Section 2206(b) of the act states that ''[t]he Commission shall, by order or regulation, establish procedures to ensure that a natural gas distribution company does not change a retail gas customer's natural gas supplier without direct oral confirmation from the customer of record or written evidence of the customer's consent to a change of supplier.'' The purpose of the tentative order was to propose interim guidelines relating to the procedures for changing a customer's natural gas supplier to prevent unauthorized changing of suppliers, commonly referred to as ''slamming.'' The tentative order was entered August 27, 1999, at Docket No. M-00991249F0006 and a 20-day comment period was set.
Comments were filed by the Pennsylvania Gas Association (PGA), the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), Natural Fuel Resources (NFR), T. W. Phillips Gas and Oil Company (T. W. Phillips), Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania (Columbia), United Gas Management (United), PG Energy Inc. (PG Energy) and the Peoples Natural Gas Company (PNG). We thank the parties for their suggestions on developing these guidelines.
The instant order, based on review and consideration of all of the comments, presents a section-by-section summary of comments. The proposed section titles from the tentative order are used as headings. Any substantive changes to a section as a result of consideration of the comments are discussed immediately following the summary of comments for that section. The final interim guidelines, as revised under the discussion in the instant order, appear in Annex A of this order.
§ 59.91. Definitions.
Summary of Comments
PG Energy recommends revision of the definition of ''customer'' to limit it to the scope of the instant guidelines. PG Energy suggests the definition be revised to read as follows:
Customer - A purchaser of natural gas in whose name a service account exists with either a natural gas distribution company or a natural gas supplier. In addition, the term shall include all persons identified in writing by the customer, pursuant to the procedures set forth in these guidelines, as authorized to act on a customer's behalf in changing the customer's natural gas supplier.PG Energy also suggests that the term ''customer'' be used ''solely and consistently throughout the guidelines.''
Discussion/Resolution
We agree with PG Energy that the definition of ''customer'' is improved by wording that limits its applicability to the scope of this proceeding. We have, therefore, revised the definition of ''customer'' accordingly. However, we shall replace the word ''guidelines'' with ''regulations'' since these provisions are intended to become final regulations.
For residential customers who wish to designate a consenting individual to act on the customer's behalf for other matters relating to the customer's account, they may do so by utilizing applicable provisions of our Chapter 56 (relating to standards and billing practices for residential utility service), such as § 56.33(2) or § 56.131 (relating to third-party guarantor; and third-party notification). Since the guidelines contain this clear definition of the term ''customer,'' we have also adopted PG Energy's other recommendation to consistently use the term ''customer'' in place of terms such as ''customer of record,'' ''customer or a person authorized to act on the customer's behalf'' and ''customer or authorized party.''
§ 59.92. Customer contacts with the natural gas.
Distribution Company (NGDC).
Summary of Comments
T. W. Phillips suggested that in addition to the customer contacting the NGDC, this section should also refer to a ''person authorized to act for the customer.'' United agrees with the proposed language of this section because it allows suppliers to not only manage their supply forecasts by controlling the enrollment timing, but also helps insure that customers with bad credit history are not given the opportunity to game the system by enrolling in a NGS's program without the NGS's consent, or securement of an appropriate security deposit.
Discussion/Resolution
With respect to T. W. Phillips suggestion, we will not adopt it because, as noted previously, the definition of the term ''customer'' in the guidelines has been revised to clearly include ''persons identified in writing by the customer, under the procedures set forth in these proposed regulations, as authorized to act on a customer's behalf in changing the customer's natural gas supplier.''
§ 59.93. Customer contacts with NGS.
Summary of Comments
The NFR recommended that subsection (a) be modified to clearly place the responsibility on the customer's new NGS to notify the NGDC of the customer's request to switch suppliers. To accomplish this, the NFR suggested replacing ''contacted NGS'' with ''customer's new NGS'' in the fourth line under the heading ''Customer Contacts with NGS.''
The NFR, PNG and United expressed concerns with the requirement in subsection (a)(1) that the NGS notify the NGDC ''by the end of the next business day following the customer contact.'' The NFR pointed out that this requirement conflicts with the customer's 3-day right of rescission found in the tentative interim customer information order [Docket No. M-00991249F000] entered by the Commission on August 27, 1999. The NFR suggested that the communication to the NGDC should be required no later than the end of the fourth day following the request. In NFR's opinion, this change will allow an NGS to wait for the rescission period to end, thereby avoiding the need to retract switch requests if a customer exercises the right of rescission. The PNG also expressed concerns that confusion could result from sending out confirmation letters before the customer's 3-day rescission right expires, along with the additional administrative burden this will place on NGDCs if the rescission right is exercised. United suggested that a customer request should not be forwarded to the NGDC until all statutory ''cooling off periods'' have expired; the NGS has completed the customer's credit review; and that any verification procedure a NGS might use has been completed.
The PNG suggests that NGSs should have the option of batching supplier requests and transmitting them to the NGDC on a monthly basis before the beginning of the next available billing cycle. The PNG claimed that this is a process that they have used in their Energy Choice Program since 1997 and that batching requests is easier for both NGSs and NGDCs ''without jeopardizing the timeliness of the customer's start date.''
Discussion/Resolution
We agree with the NFR recommendation that subsection (a) be modified to clearly place the responsibility on the customer's new NGS to notify the NGDC of the customer's request to switch suppliers. With respect to the parties' concerns with the requirement in subsection (a)(1) that the NGS notify the NGDC ''by the end of the next business day following the customer contact,'' we have altered the language in this guideline to recognize that NGSs may choose to apply the Chapter 56 credit provisions. Instead of requiring notification by the end of the next business day ''following the customer contact,'' we will require notification by the end of the next business day ''following completion of the application process.'' This new wording will allow NGSs to implement appropriate credit practices. Customers who contact an NGS that has chosen to apply the Chapter 56 credit provisions as part of the application process will not be disadvantaged since one of the requirements of these provisions is that applicants receive a full explanation of the credit and deposit procedures. See § 56.36(2). If a customer does not want to continue discussion with an NGS upon being informed by the NGS that its application process includes a credit check and possible request for a deposit, then the customer can shop elsewhere. We believe this revision in subsection (a)(1) more accurately conveys the intent of this guideline; that is, that the NGS inform the NGDC in a timely manner once the NGS and customer reach an agreement. We have rejected PNG's suggestion that NGSs should have the option of batching supplier requests and transmitting them to the NGDC on a monthly basis before the beginning of the next available billing cycle. We have rejected this suggestion because we believe it will unnecessarily delay some customer requests and, therefore, fail to reflect our desire to see that customer requests to change suppliers are processed without unnecessary delays. For the same reason, we have rejected the suggestion to allow NGSs to wait for the 3-day rescission period to end before informing the NGDC of the customer's request to switch. While we recognize that some rescissions will occur during this 3-day period and thus cause additional administrative activity, we do not want the overwhelming majority of customer requests to be delayed for this reason. With the revision noted above, we believe the guideline strikes the proper balance between the establishment of an appropriate application period, and our desire to see that customer requests to change suppliers are processed without unnecessary delays.
§ 59.94. Time frame requirement.
Summary of Comments
Columbia was concerned that by requiring NGDCs to make the change of suppliers effective at the beginning of the first feasible billing period following the 10-day waiting period, NGDCs will be placed in the position of ''facilitating the breach of existing contracts that customers may have had with other NGSs,'' and will place NGDCs in the inappropriate position of ''investigating and determining which NGS is the proper entity to provide service to the customer.'' Columbia recommends continuation of their current practice of rejecting an enrollment if an NGS submits a request to enroll a customer that is currently being served by another NGS. In such instances, Columbia's information system rejects the enrollment and sends a notice to the NGS. The NGS must then contact and inform the customer that their contract with their current NGS must first be terminated before service with the new NGS can be initiated.
United suggests that the term ''switch'' be changed to ''enroll'' to conform with utility operational rules already in place.
Discussion/Resolution
With respect to Columbia's concerns, we disagree with their analysis. Our experience to date with electric competition indicates that suppliers do not share with the distribution companies all of the terms of their contracts with customers. These terms, as well as any claims that one party has breached these terms, are clearly a matter between the customer and supplier. Suppliers may certainly pursue any complaints they may have regarding breach of contract, but that would be directed at the other party to the contract, not the NGDC who properly responds to an authorized customer request to change suppliers. We want the decision to change suppliers to remain with the customer, not the NGDC. In our view, the NGDCs would more likely become a party involved in disputes about switches if we modify the proposed method of NGDC processing of customer requests to change suppliers, and adopt in its place the ''gatekeeper-type'' model suggested by Columbia. Therefore, we have not modified the language in this guideline as recommended by Columbia.
Regarding United's suggestion to use the term ''enroll'' instead of ''switch,'' we decline to do so since we believe the term ''switch'' more accurately reflects that the focus of the instant guidelines is on ''change'' of natural gas suppliers, not initial enrollment.
§ 59.95. Persons authorized to act on behalf of a customer.
Summary of Comments
In addition to a signed authorization document, T. W. Phillips suggested that this guideline be modified to allow NGDCs to establish an electronic confirmation procedure for identification by the customer of third parties authorized to act on the customer's behalf.
Columbia is concerned that allowing third parties to change NGSs could increase slamming, and maintaining a record of authorized third parties would pose an increased administrative burden on NGDCs. This is especially a problem if the customer authorizes many different people to switch NGSs since the proposed guideline places no limit on the number of people a customer can authorize. Columbia suggests that this provision be eliminated from the guidelines, or at a minimum, customers should be limited to one authorized agent.
United ''does not believe that the proposed guideline is either feasible or even-handed'' and notes that ''the current practice is not for the NGDC to insure that their communications are with the customer of record, but to assume that a householder or spouse who suggests that they have the ostensible authority to bind the accountholder is sufficient.''
PG Energy believed that the proposed guideline is ''overly broad and should be revised to appropriately identify the narrow scope of authority vested in the third party by the customer.''
Discussion/Resolution
In regard to T. W. Phillips suggestion that this guideline be modified to allow an electronic confirmation procedure established by the NGDC for identification by the customer of a third party to act on the customer's behalf, we are reluctant to allow use of an electronic confirmation procedure without additional information. Therefore, we have not revised the guideline to allow electronic designation of third parties to act for a customer. However, we would be receptive to NGDC pilot programs for electronic designation of third parties to act for a customer. These pilots would help all parties identify and address any legal or technical issues that may be involved with electronic communications of this nature.
Regarding Columbia's comments, we disagree that this guideline would increase slamming, or pose an undue increased administrative burden on NGDCs. As noted previously in the instant order, Chapter 56 allows customers to designate third-party guarantors, as well as designate third parties to receive termination notices. These customer options have been in effect since 1978 without any indication from NGDCs that they pose an unreasonable administrative hardship. Nor is there any indication that this guideline has posed undue increased administrative burden on electric distribution companies in electric competition. Moreover, while Columbia asserts this practice may increase the incidences of slamming, we view it as an added protection against unauthorized switches since NGSs know in advance that they must deal only with persons authorized to make decisions on an account. For these reasons, we have not modified this guideline as recommended by Columbia.
We disagree with United that the proposed guideline is neither feasible nor even-handed. Our view is that it reflects a practice to ensure compliance with section 2206(b) of the act which states that ''The Commission shall, by order or regulation, establish procedures to ensure that a natural gas distribution company does not change a retail gas customer's natural gas supplier without direct oral confirmation from the customer of record or written evidence of the customer's consent to a change of supplier.'' [emphasis added]. The instant guideline allows NGDCs to verify that a person other than the customer of record has the customer's permission to act on behalf of the customer.
§ 59.98. Valid written authorization.
Summary of Comments
Both the OCA and NFR address the use of contracts in their comments. The OCA suggested the following:
''in certain types of sales circumstances, particularly door to door solicitations or offerings at public gatherings, the Commission should require that the customer sign the actual Terms of Service document itself and not an alternative document accompanying the Terms of Service document. In these types of sales situations, the opportunity for hard sell is obvious and it is possible that the written document will be presented to the customer as a mere formality or possibly even be misrepresented.''The NFR requested ''clarification as to whether or not a signed contract will be acceptable as authorization to switch.'' The NFR also suggested that the guidelines should let NGSs use their own discretion as to how verbal or electronic switch requests be validated.
T. W. Phillips suggested that the guidelines should be revised to allow NGDCs ''to utilize an electronic confirmation procedure to verify a customer's consent to a change of natural gas supplier.''
Discussion/Resolution
Regarding the OCA's suggestion that in certain types of sales circumstances, particularly door-to-door solicitations or offerings at public gatherings, the Commission should require that the customer sign the actual Terms of Service document itself, we disagree with this approach. We believe the best way to ensure that the purpose of a written authorization is clearly understood by a customer is to keep it limited to the sole purpose of obtaining the customer's consent to change supplier. A ''hard sell'' sales approach may actually be easier to close if the customer is asked to sign a form filled with extensive information since the customer may not take the opportunity to read the whole document before signing. A document whose sole purpose is to obtain the customer's consent to change suppliers is more likely to be read and understood in such circumstances.
With respect to NFR's request for clarification as to whether or not a signed contract will be acceptable as a valid written authorization to switch, it does not since it has purposes other than obtaining the customer's consent. For NGSs that intend to implement practices which rely on written rather than oral customer authorization, we advise that they develop a separate written authorization form whose sole purpose is to obtain the customer's consent to change suppliers.
In regard to T. W. Phillips suggestion that the guidelines should be revised to allow NGDCs to utilize an electronic authorization procedure, we are reluctant to include in the instant guidelines use of an electronic authorization procedure. Our reluctance is based, in part, on the difficulties parties have encountered setting up electronic communications between electric distribution companies and suppliers. Therefore, we have not revised the guideline to allow electronic authorizations. However, as previously stated in regard to T. W. Phillips' other suggestion to establish an electronic confirmation procedure for identification of third parties, we would be receptive to NGDC pilot programs for electronic authorizations to help all parties identify and address any legal or technical issues that may be involved with electronic communications of this nature.
§ 59.97. Customer dispute procedures.
Summary of Comments
The proposed guidelines under this section require that when a customer contacts a NGDC with a slamming allegation, the NGDC must ''consider the matter a customer registered dispute.'' The PGA objected to this requirement for numerous reasons. First, the PGA pointed out it would require the NGDCs to investigate and address slamming allegations in accordance with the Chapter 56 dispute provisions, which the PGA characterized as ''costly and detailed standards.'' Moreover, the PGA noted that the proposed guideline conflicts with the Chapter 56 definition of ''dispute'' and ''initial inquiry,'' since the guidelines require that customer contacts alleging unauthorized switching must automatically be considered a customer registered dispute. The PGA also argued that, if adopted, the NGDCs ''stand to have a significant number of registered disputes entered on their records, and to incur significant investigation costs, even where the NGDC does little more than change the name of the supplier on the customer's bill.'' Further, the PGA rejected the argument that this provision is necessary, in part, to prevent an NGDC from favoring an affiliate NGS by discriminating in their application of dispute procedures. The PGA asserted that existing and pending standards of conduct proceedings and the code's prohibitions against undue discrimination are sufficient to address these concerns. The PGA also rejected the imposition of dispute requirements in the name of maintaining a ''competitive balance between electric and gas service.'' The PGA urged the Commission to lift these requirements from the electric industry, instead of placing them on both industries. For all these reasons, the PGA recommended the guidelines be revised to allow the NGDC, once it has ascertained that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under the guidelines, to refer the customer to the NGS and not have to classify the contact as a dispute.
The NFR suggested that the procedures under subsection (b) of the proposed guidelines be made discretionary and applicable only in cases of repeated intentional slamming. The NFR believed that as proposed, this section could ''unjustly penalize'' an NGS for an unintentional error. In addition, since the customer receives written notice of an NGS switch and is provided an opportunity to cancel the switch, the customer should not ''be relieved of paying for gas it received after a switch.''
Discussion/Resolution
After careful consideration of the comments regarding these procedures, we are not convinced that it is in the public interest to alter the requirements in this guideline. Consumers who contact either the NGDC or the NGS and allege slamming will have their grievance addressed by application of procedures which fully reflect the Commission's firm intolerance for this practice. The Chapter 56 dispute provisions have been applied by NGDCs for 20 years and, therefore, can be applied by NGDC customer service representatives with limited additional training. Certainly, one clarification that customer service representatives will need to be informed of is the standard that all slamming complaints are to be considered disputes on the initial call from the customer. We believe this is reasonable and necessary to both ensure satisfactory resolution of the customer's claim, and to ensure that complaints against affiliated suppliers are not handled differently than disputes against nonaffiliated suppliers.
In regard to PGA's concern that NGDCs stand to have a significant number of registered disputes entered on their records and incur significant investigation costs, parties must recognize that we are attempting to establish a process that reflects our often stated ''zero tolerance'' to slamming incidences. Simply put, we do not intend to tolerate numerous slamming complaints. If PGA's concern is realized and a ''significant number'' of customers need to complain to the NGDC about unauthorized switches, the Commission will take immediate enforcement action. This action often requires Commission staff review of appropriate company records. Any increased costs associated with the investigation of slamming complaints or the retention of appropriate records, must be balanced against the benefit to be derived for consumers. We find that any increased costs are offset by the fact that this guideline enhances the Commission's ability to find and stop inappropriate practices relating to changing suppliers.
We also disagree with the PGA's contention that it is not important to maintain a ''competitive balance between electric and gas service.'' Some suppliers will offer both gas and electric supply to customers. It would be counterproductive to our goal of developing competitive gas and electric markets to impose substantively different rules for essentially the same activity.
Finally, in regard to the NFR's suggestion that the procedures under subsection (b) of the proposed guidelines be made discretionary and applicable only in cases of repeated intentional slamming, we have not altered this procedure as recommended since we believe the customer is entitled to relief so long as the customer's claim is filed in a timely manner, regardless of whether the customer was adversely affected intentionally or unintentionally.
§ 59.98. Provider of last resort.
No parties commented on this section of the guidelines. Therefore, we have retained them as proposed.
§ 59.99. Record maintenance.
No parties commented on this section of the guidelines. Therefore, we have retained them as proposed.
Information Needed to Process a Selection Request
Summary of Comments
In the preamble to the tentative order, the Commission invited parties to comment on ''what information a natural gas distribution company needs from a natural gas supplier to accurately process a supplier selection request.''
The PGA suggested that NGSs should be required to provide some form of customer identification, and that guideline (a)(1) should be revised by adding a requirement that an NGS ''provide such customer identification data as required by the natural gas distribution company or established by Commission order.''
The OCA, NFR and T. W. Phillips agreed that an NGS should have to submit a name, address and account number. The OCA stated that this ''will aid in preventing the situation where a customer is inadvertently switched due to an incorrect account number, or a transposition of an account number,'' and will also require a procedure for NGSs and NGDCs to address information that does not match. The NFR also suggested that mailing address and date of customer switch request should be added to the list of required information.
Columbia suggested that in addition to the account number, ''enrollment type and rate code'' are the only other pieces of information that ''allows it to properly match the NGS's record to Columbia's.'' Peoples claims that they do not need any information other than the account number to process a request.
Discussion/Resolution
The comments have helped clarify that, to aid in preventing unauthorized supplier selections caused by inadvertent errors, the ''information match'' by the NGDC is more important than the specific information required by each NGDC. Our current view is that specific customer identification data requirements will evolve on the basis of review of each natural gas distribution company's restructuring filing, or established with uniform requirements by Commission order. To help reduce the number of errors, however, we have revised guideline (a)(1) under the Customer Contacts with Natural Gas Suppliers section to require that NGDCs verify the accuracy of the information provided by the NGS by matching at least two data elements with their records. If, for example, an NGDC matches account number and customer name, it is more likely to identify errors than if the NGDC matches just one of these data elements with their records.
Third-Party Verification
Summary of Comments
Vice Chairman Bloom attached a statement to the tentative order inviting parties to comment on the use of a third party to verify NGS selection requests.
The PGA and Peoples objected to any third-party verification system which NGDCs would be required to financially support.
Columbia and T. W. Phillips suggested that third-party verification is unnecessary. T. W. Phillips ''sees no need for the Commission to establish an independent third-party verification procedure'' as long as customers receive a 10-day confirmation letter.
The OCA believed that ''independent third-party verification is an important protection and a good business practice to be implemented particularly by those suppliers receiving oral authorizations to switch'' and it ''would provide an additional layer of protection for both customers and suppliers.'' The OCA also ''submits that the Commission's clear policy of zero tolerance may prove to be the most effective deterrent to slamming.'' If third-party verification is used, the OCA suggests that the third-party verifier should be completely independent of the NGS, operate from facilities that are physically separate from the NGS, and should receive no compensation or commission of any kind based upon the number of confirmed sales. The cost of the third-party verification procedure should be incurred by the NGS that utilizes the procedure. The OCA also noted that the ''form and content of oral confirmation is not made clear, nor is the necessity for verification or for record keeping.'' The OCA went on to note the importance of record maintenance by the NGS in case the switch later becomes the subject of a dispute.
Discussion/Resolution
We greatly appreciate the comments of parties regarding third-party verification. Upon consideration of the comments, we have not revised the guidelines to include a third-party verification method. Essentially, we agree with the OCA's opinion that the proposed guidelines strike the proper balance between the need to assure that a customer's supplier is not changed without their consent, and the desire of all parties to create a market ''that does not unduly hinder the move to competitive natural gas supply.''
Conclusion
As we indicated in the tentative order (page 4), ''given the ambitious implementation of customer choice, which is to begin November 1, 1999, sufficient time does not exist to complete a rulemaking proceeding and have final regulations.'' Therefore, we shall finalize these interim guidelines which must receive mandatory compliance. At the same time, we shall initiate the rulemaking proceeding to establish final-form regulations.
Accordingly, this proposal is promulgated under sections 501 and 1501 of the 66 Pa.C.S.; sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769 No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201 and 1202) and the regulations promulgated thereunder in 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5; section 204 (b) of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act (71 P. S. § 732.204(b)); section 5 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5); and section 612 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 232), and the regulations promulgated thereunder in 4 Pa. Code §§ 7.251--7.725; Therefore,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The proposed rulemaking at Docket No. L-00990145 is hereby granted to consider the regulations set forth in Annex A.
(2) The Secretary shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of Attorney General for review as to form and legality and to the Governor's Budget Office for review of fiscal impact.
(3) The Secretary shall submit this order and Annex A for review and comment to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the Legislative Standing Committees.
(4) The Secretary shall certify this order and Annex A, and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. An original and 15 copies of any comments referencing the docket number of the proposed regulations be submitted within 30 days of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Attn: Secretary, P. O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265. The Secretary shall specify publication of the order in accordance with 45 Pa.C.S. § 727.
(5) The proposed regulations in Annex A are hereby adopted as Final Interim Guidelines at Docket No. M-00991249F0006 to provide mandatory guidance until a time as final regulations are approved at Docket No. L-00990145.
(6) A copy of this order and any accompanying statements of the Commissioners be served upon all jurisdictional natural gas distribution companies, the OCA, the Office of Small Business Advocate, the Natural Gas Competition Legislative Stakeholders, the Pennsylvania Natural Gas Association and all parties to this proceeding.
(7) A copy of this order shall be posted on the Commission's web site and shall be made available, upon request, to all interested parties.
By the Commission
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
SecretaryFiscal Note: 57-211. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.
Annex A
TITLE 52. PUBLIC UTILITIES
PART I. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Subpart C. FIXED SERVICE UTILITIES
CHAPTER 59. GAS SERVICE STANDARDS FOR CHANGING A CUSTOMER'S NATURAL GAS SUPPLIER Sec.
59.91. Definitions. 59.92. Customer contacts with the NGDC. 59.93. Customer contacts with the NGS. 59.94. Time frame requirement. 59.95. Persons authorized to act on behalf of a customer. 59.96. Valid written authorization. 59.97. Customer dispute procedures. 59.98. Provider of last resort. 59.99. Records maintenance. § 59.91. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section and §§ 59.92--59.99, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Act--The National Gas Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa.C.S. Chapter 22.
Customer--A purchaser of natural gas in whose name a service account exists with either a NGDC or a NGS. The term includes all persons identified in writing by the customer, under §§ 59.92--59.99, as authorized to act on a customer's behalf in changing the customer's natural gas supplier.
NGDC--Natural gas distribution company--A natural gas distribution company as defined in section 2202 of the act (relating to definitions).
NGS--Natural gas supplier--A supplier as defined in section 2202 of the act.
§ 59.92. Customer contacts with the NGDC.
When a customer orally contacts the NGDC to request a change of natural gas suppliers, the NGDC company shall notify the customer that the selected natural gas supplier be contacted directly to initiate the change.
§ 59.93. Customer contacts with the NGS.
(a) When a contact occurs between a customer and an NGS to request a change of the NGS, upon receiving direct oral confirmation or written authorization from the customer to change the NGS, the customer's new NGS shall:
(1) Notify the NGDC of the customer's NGS selection by the end of the next business day following completion of the application process. The NGDC shall verify the accuracy of the information provided by the NGS by matching at least two data elements with their records.
(2) Upon receipt of this notification, the NGDC shall send the customer a confirmation letter noting the proposed change of the NGS. This letter shall include notice of a 10-day waiting period in which the order may be canceled before the change of the NGS takes place. The notice shall include the date service with the new NGS will begin unless the customer contacts the NGDC to cancel the change. The 10-day waiting period shall begin on the day the letter is mailed. The letter shall be mailed by the end of the next business day following the receipt of the notification of the customer's selection of an NGS.
§ 59.94. Time frame requirement.
When a customer has provided the NGS with oral confirmation or written authorization to change NGSs, consistent with the Commission's data transfer and exchange standards, the NGDC shall make the change at the beginning of the first feasible billing period following the 10-day waiting period, as prescribed in § 59.93 (relating to customer contacts with the NGS).
§ 59.95. Persons authorized to act on behalf of a customer.
Any customer may identify persons authorized to make changes to the customer's account. To accomplish this, the customer shall provide the NGDC with a signed document identifying by name those persons who have the authority to initiate a change of the customer's NGS.
§ 59.96. Valid written authorization.
A document signed by the customer whose sole purpose is to obtain the customer's consent to change NGSs shall be accepted as valid and result in the initiation of the customer's request. Documents not considered as valid include canceled checks, signed entries into contests and documents used to claim prizes won in contests.
§ 59.97. Customer dispute procedures.
(a) When a customer contacts an NGDC or an NGS and alleges that the customer's NGS has been changed without consent, the company contacted shall:
(1) Consider the matter a customer registered dispute.
(2) Investigate and respond to the dispute consistent with the requirements in §§ 56.151 and 56.152 (relating to utility company dispute procedures).
(b) When the customer's dispute has been filed within the first two billing periods since the customer should reasonably have known of a change of NGSs and the dispute investigation establishes that the change occurred without the customer's consent, the customer is not responsible for any NGS charges rendered during that period. If the customer has made payments during this period, the company responsible for initiating the change of supplier shall issue a complete refund within 30 days of the close of the dispute. The refund or credit provision applies only to the natural gas supply charges.
(c) A customer who has had an NGS changed without having consented to that change shall be switched back to the original NGS for no additional fee. Charges involved in the switch back to the prior NGS shall be the responsibility of the company that initiated the change without the customer's consent.
(d) When a customer files an informal complaint with the Commission alleging that the customer's NGS was changed without the customer's consent, the Bureau of Consumer Services will issue an informal decision that includes a determination of customer liability for NGS bills or administrative charges that might otherwise apply, rendered since the change of the NGS.
(e) In addition to customer-specific remedies, the Commission may, after investigation and decision, assess fines under 66 Pa.C.S. Chapter 33 (relating to violations and penalties) and initiate proceedings to revoke the license of an NGS that demonstrates a pattern of violating §§ 59.91--59.96, this section and §§ 59.98 and 59.99. The Commission may order a particular NGS that has a pattern of violating §§ 59.91--59.96, this section and §§ 59.98 and 59.99 to obtain written authorization from every new customer as a condition of providing service in this Commonwealth. This section is not intended to limit the Commission's authority.
§ 59.98. Provider of last resort.
Sections 59.91--59.97, this section and § 59.99 do not apply in instances when the customer's service is discontinued by the NGS and subsequently provided by the provider of last resort because no other NGS is willing to provide service to the customer.
§ 59.99. Record maintenance.
Each NGDC and each NGS shall preserve all records relating to unauthorized change of NGS disputes for 3 years from the date the customers filed the dispute. These records shall be made available to the Commission or its staff upon request.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-12. Filed for public inspection December 30, 2000, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
