PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265
Public Meeting held September 13, 2012
Commissioners Present:
Robert F. Powelson, Chairman
John F. Coleman, Jr., Vice Chairman
Wayne E. Gardner
James H. Cawley
Pamela A. Witmer
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement
v.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation / M-2012-2264635
Opinion and Order
BY THE COMMISSION:
Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) for consideration and disposition is a proposed Settlement Agreement (Settlement) filed on April 23, 2012, by the Commission’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (I&E) and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) (collectively, the Parties), with respect to an Informal Investigation conducted by I&E. Both Parties submitted a Statement in Support of the Settlement Agreement. I&E submits that the proposed Settlement is in the public interest and is consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement at 52 Pa. Code
§ 69.1201, Factors and standards for evaluating litigated and settled proceedings involving violations of the Public Utility Code and Commission regulations—statement of policy (Policy Statement). I&E Statement in Support at 9. We will issue the Settlement for comment.
History of the Case
On October 21, 2011, at the request of the Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS), I&E instituted an informal investigation pertaining to PPL’s submission of a report on August 4, 2011, pursuant to the Commission’s Secretarial Letter of January 16, 2009, regarding Interim Reporting Requirements for Regulated Electric and Gas Utilities to File Reports Regarding any Incidents Involving Death at Locations Where Residential Utility Service Has Been Terminated at Docket No.
M-2009-2084013.[1] The informal investigation concerned a residential account that had been terminated for non-payment on May 24, 2011, and on June 20, 2011, when an unauthorized reconnection was discovered. PPL was informed by the property owner that the customer passed away at his residence on August 2, 2011.
Based on its investigation, I&E determined that PPL may have violated Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. § 1501, certain provisions of Chapter 14 of the Code, and certain provisions of Chapter 56 of the Commission’s Regulations, during contacts with the customer prior to and after termination of service. As a result of negotiations between I&E and PPL, the Parties have agreed to resolve their differences and urge the Commission to approve the Settlement as being in the public interest. Settlement ¶ 9, at 3-4.
Background
The proposed Settlement is attached to this Opinion and Order and has been filed by the Parties in order to resolve allegations of certain violations of Section 1501 of the Code relating to the failure to provide adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service, and provisions of Chapter 14 of the Code and Chapter 56 of the Commission’s Regulations concerning dispute and termination procedures. Had this matter been litigated, I&E would have alleged, inter alia, that PPL failed to: (1) exercise good faith and fair judgment in attempting to equitably resolve the matter; (2) restore service within twenty-four hours of the erroneous termination; (3) determine whether the customer was satisfied at the conclusion of contacts made with customer service representatives (CSRs); (4) fully investigate the customer’s dispute or initiate utility company dispute procedures; and (5) provide the customer with the information necessary for making an informed decision. Settlement ¶ 25, at 11-14.
While PPL fully cooperated with the investigation, PPL does not admit to any of these allegations. However, PPL recognizes the seriousness of the allegations and acknowledges that the acts alleged, if committed, may constitute violations of certain legal requirements. Id. ¶ 29, at 15.
Terms of the Settlement
Pursuant to the proposed Settlement, PPL will deliver targeted training to its call center personnel, including its CSRs, to review its policy and procedure for customers with disputes, including identification of what qualifies as a dispute and the handling of a customer dispute concerning erroneous termination of service. PPL will also provide to BCS copies of its monthly call monitoring reports, which contain results that assess CSR teams regarding their responsibilities to identify disputes and customer satisfaction levels. In addition to these call monitoring initiatives, PPL will host Commission staff on dates and times of the Commission’s choosing for the purpose of directly monitoring incoming calls to PPL’s call centers. Further, PPL agrees to conduct “situational workshops” for its Customer Contact Center supervisors for the purpose of presenting and discussing dispute identification and handling. Finally, PPL will pay a civil settlement amount of $30,000 and make a contribution of $15,000 to its Operation HELP hardship fund. The terms that have been agreed upon by the Parties are set forth in greater detail in the Settlement ¶ 33, at 16-20.
I&E agrees to forbear from initiating a formal complaint relative to the allegations that are the subject of the proposed Settlement. The proposed Settlement would not, however, affect the Commission’s authority to receive and resolve any formal or informal complaints filed by any affected party with respect to the incident, except that no further sanctions may be imposed by the Commission for any actions identified in the Settlement. Settlement ¶ 34, at 20. The Settlement provides that none of the provisions of the Settlement or statements therein shall be considered an admission of any fact or culpability. Id. ¶ 41, at 22. The Settlement makes no findings of fact or conclusions of law, and therefore it is the Parties’ intent that this document and the related Statements in Support not be admitted as evidence in any potential civil proceeding regarding this matter. Id. ¶ 42, at 23.
The proposed Settlement is conditioned on the Commission’s approval without modification of any of its terms or conditions. Id. ¶ 38, at 21. If the Commission does not approve the proposed Settlement or makes any change or modification to the proposed Settlement, either Party may elect to withdraw from the Settlement. Id. ¶ 39, at22.
Discussion
Pursuant to our Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §5.231, it is the Commission’s policy to promote settlements. The Commission must, however, review proposed settlements to determine whether the terms are in the public interest. Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. M-00031768 (Order entered January7, 2004); Pa.PUC v. CS Water and Sewer Assoc., 74 Pa. P.U.C. 767 (1991); Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 60 Pa. P.U.C. 1 (1985).
Conclusion
Before issuing a decision on the merits of the proposed Settlement, and consistent with the requirement of 52 Pa. Code § 3.113(b)(3), we are providing an opportunity for interested parties to file comments regarding the proposed Settlement; THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That this Opinion and Order, together with the attached Settlement Agreement and the Statements in Support thereof, shall be issued for comments by any interested party.
2. That a copy of this Opinion and Order, together with the attached Settlement Agreement and the Statements in Support thereof, shall be served on the Office of Consumer Advocate and the Office of Small Business Advocate.
3. That comments regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement and the Statements in Support thereof, will be considered timely if filed within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order.
4. That, subsequent to the Commission’s review of comments filed in this proceeding, an Opinion and Order will be issued.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Rosemary Chiavetta
Secretary
(SEAL)
ORDER ADOPTED: September 13, 2012
ORDER ENTERED: September 13, 2012
6
BEFORE THE
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
v.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Docket No. M-2012-2264635
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. Introduction
1. The parties to this Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") are the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement ("I&E" or "Prosecutory Staff"), P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation ("PPL" or "Company"), Two North Ninth Street, Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
2. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ("Commission") is a duly constituted agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania empowered to regulate utilities within this Commonwealth pursuant to the Public Utility Code ("Code"), 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 101, et seq.
3. Section 50I(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 501(a), authorizes and obligates the Commission to execute and enforce the provisions of the Code.
4. The Commission has delegated its authority to initiate proceedings that are prosecutory in nature to I&E and other bureaus with enforcement responsibilities. Delegation of Prosecutory Authority to Bureaus with Enforcement Responsibilities, Docket No. M-00940593 (Order entered September 2, 1994), as amended by Act 129 of 2008, 66 Pa.C.S. § 308.2(a)(11).
5. PPL is a jurisdictional electric utility headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. PPL is a public utility as defined by 66 Pa.C.S. § 102 and is engaged in, inter alia, the provision of public utility service for compensation as an electric distribution company.
6. Section 3301 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 3301, authorizes the Commission to impose civil penalties on any public utility or on any other person or corporation subject to the Commission's authority for violations of the Code or Commission regulations or both. Section 3301 further allows for the imposition of a separate fine for each violation and each day's continuance of such violation(s).
7. Pursuant to Sections 331(a) and 506 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 331(a) and 506 and Section 3.113 of the Commission's Practice and Procedure ("Regulations"), 52 Pa. Code § 3.113, Commission staff has the authority to conduct informal investigations or informal proceedings in order to gather data and/or to substantiate allegations of potential violations of the Commission's regulations.
8. This matter concerns an informal investigation initiated by the Bureau of Consumer Services ("BCS") upon the submission by PPL on August 4, 2011, of
9
electronic notification of the death of former PPL customer, Mr. Richard Eberly, pursuant to the January 16, 2009, Secretarial Letter re: Interim Reporting Requirements For Regulated Electric and Gas Utilities To File Reports Regarding Any Incidents Involving Death At Locations Where Residential Utility Service Has Been Terminated, at Docket No. M-2009-2084013.1 The Prosecutory Staffs investigation was conducted to examine PPL's treatment of an account where residential electric service was terminated for nonpayment on May 24, 2011, and then again on June 20, 2011, when an unauthorized reconnection was discovered. PPL was called by the property owner on August 3, 2011 to have service put in his name, advising that the tenant and former PPL customer, Mr. Eberly, had been found deceased in his residence on August 2, 2011. Thus, electric service to the residence had been terminated prior to the customer's death. BCS determined that PPL may have violated Chapters 14 and 56 provisions (52 Pa. Code) and Title 66 during contacts with the customer-of-record prior to and after termination of electric service to the residence.
9. As a result of negotiations between Prosecutory Staff and PPL (hereinafter
"Parties"), the Parties have agreed to resolve their differences as encouraged by the Commission's policy to promote settlements. (See, 52 Pa. Code § 5.231.) The duly authorized Parties executing this Settlement Agreement agree to the settlement terms set
1 This reporting requirement has since been incorporated into the Commission's regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 56.100(j).
3
forth herein ("Settlement") and urge the Commission to approve the Settlement Agreement as submitted as being in the public interest.
II. Background
10. The account in question was in the name of Richard Eberly with service
having been furnished to his residence, a trailer at the Red Maple Trailer Park, located at 200 West Burkholder Drive, Lot 9, Lititz, Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2011, electric service to Mr. Eberly's residence was disconnected for non-payment with an amount due of $5,325.71. From October 20, 2008 through June 1, 2011, Mr. Eberly made three (3) payments totaling $563.00. His actual bills for this same period totaled over $4,200.00. Between December 12, 2008 and April 29, 2011, Mr. Eberly claimed a medical condition six different times but did not provide a medical certificate from a licensed doctor or nurse practitioner to PPL. In addition, Mr. Eberly was formerly enrolled in PPL's OnTrack payment program on two separate occasions, but was removed from the OnTrack program on October 28, 2009 and June 30, 2010 due to non-payment of bills. On August 3, 2011, PPL was advised telephonically by Mr. Eberly's "landlord" that Mr. Eberly had died. The newspaper obituary indicated that Mr. Eberly had died of natural causes at the age of 45.
11. A notice of overdue balance was sent to the customer from PPL on May 2, 2011, with an amount due of $5,325.71 and termination scheduled for May 19, 2011. On May 9, 2011, Mr. Eberly initiated telephone contact with a PPL Customer Service Representative ("CSR") and agreed to a payment arrangement of $2,711.00 due May 18,
4
2011 and installments of $176.00 per month thereafter.2 PPL's account records indicate that on May 19, 2011 at 11:02 AM, the date for termination of Mr. Eberly's electric service was extended from May 19, 2011 to June 3, 2011. The account record notation "SC-grace extension" suggests that all service termination action was stopped. The account record notation for the 11:53 AM contact on May 20, 2011, states, in part, "cust has grace ext advd. satis". In the next phone call to a PPL CSR on May 20, 2011, at 12:10 PM (the final call from Mr. Eberly that day), the PPL CSR advised Mr. Eberly that
a hold had been placed on the termination of his electric service until June 3, 2011 (CD of recorded calls, May 20, 2011, 12:03:47 PM, 03:18/05:21). At the conclusion of that call, after the customer again inquired as to whether service would be cut off that day, the PPL CSR again confirmed that service would not be terminated that day stating, "no, it's not going to be turned off today because they do have a hold on the account right now." (CD of recorded calls, May 20, 2011, 12:03:47 PM, 05:05/05:21).
12. The Company had placed a grace extension on Mr. Eberly's account on
May 19, 2011 when another person had called to put service in her name. PPL Electric removed the grace extension when it discovered that she already lived in the house. The removal of the grace extension was not communicated to Mr. Eberly because the