DISCUSSION
The Commission should act on PG&E's AL 2581-G/2568-E to ensure that back billing is consistent with the correct interpretation of PG&E's tariff and applicable Commission requirements. PG&E's proposal in AL 2581-G/2568-E should be considered at this time.
While we deny TURN's protest that the AL be rejected, we require that PG&E file a report in A.02-11-017, et. al. relating to delayed and estimated bills. TURN's request that PG&E's past billing practices be reviewed in A.02-11-017, et. al. is subject to a future ruling on TURN's pending motion in that proceeding. If an investigation is conducted, the issues to be reviewed may include consideration as to whether refunds or other adjustments should be made to previously rendered bills, as well as any other issues specified by the assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in their disposition of TURN's pending motion in A.02-11-017, et. al.
PG&E's proposed change to Rule 17.1 to reflect that the failure to issue a bill constitutes billing error is approved. This change is consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs.
PG&E proposes to add the following language to gas and electric Rule 17.1 which we approve:
"Billing error shall also include failure to issue a gas, electric, or combined commodity bill, actual or estimated, in a timely manner in accordance with Rule 9A."
The change to the tariffs cited above is consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with applicable existing PG&E tariffs.
PG&E's proposed changes to Rule 17.1 concerning exclusions from billing error are modified.
PG&E also proposes to add the following language to gas and electric Rule 17.1 which we deny:
"Failure to issue a bill due to causes beyond the reasonable control of PG&E, including inaccessible roads, the customer, the customer's agent, other occupant, animal or physical condition of the property preventing access to PG&E's facilities on the customer's premise, the customer's failure to establish service with PG&E or other causes within reasonable control of the customer shall not be considered "billing error" for the purposes of this Rule."
In cases where roads are inaccessible or PG&E's access to the customer's property is prevented, PG&E should issue an estimated bill rather than no bill at all. When the customer fails to establish service with PG&E, the provisions of Rule 17.2 regarding unauthorized use apply; Rule 17.1 relating to billing error does not apply in such a case. However, where PG&E has been unresponsive to the customer's reasonable attempts to establish service, there is billing error, and Rule 17.1 does apply and PG&E may only back bill for 3 months in the case of a residential customer. We deny the proposed language cited above since it is unnecessary.
We grant TURN's protest regarding PG&E's proposed modification to Rule 17.1 to exclude from billing error, "causes beyond the reasonable control of the utility." The language as proposed by PG&E is overly broad and vague. Delayed bills resulting from a natural or man-made disaster should be excluded from billing error. We thus modify PG&E's proposed language as follows:
"Failure to issue a bill due to a natural or man-made disaster, such as a fire, earthquake, flood, or severe storms shall not be considered billing error for purposes of this Rule."
In the tariff changes that we require PG&E make to Rules 9C and 17.B.5 described below, we exclude certain circumstances from billing error when bills are estimated; we do not use the broad language "causes beyond the reasonable control of the utility" to describe those circumstances.
Billing error occurs and Rule 17.1 applies when failure to issue bills or estimated bills are due to circumstances involving changes to a billing system.
In instances where bills are not issued or are estimated due to problems related to an electronic billing system, the policy underlying Rule 17.1 would apply. Problems with the implementation of PG&E's new billing system should be treated as billing errors. Such problems are not circumstances in which PG&E may issue estimated bills indefinitely, i.e., in cases of a natural or man-made disaster, or inaccessible roads, the customer, the customer's agent, other occupant, animal, or physical condition of the property preventing access to PG&E's facilities on the customer's premise, or other causes within control of the customer. The customers in situations where bills are not issued or are estimated due to problems related to an electronic billing system should be back billed only for a period of 3 months in accordance with Rule 17.1.B.a.1
It would be improper to rely on the phrase "unusual conditions" in Rule 9C to justify estimating bills indefinitely when billing error occurred. In such cases PG&E should apply Rule 17.1. We instruct PG&E to remove that language from the tariffs since it is overly broad and vague. In addition Rules 9C and 17.B.5 should be clarified to identify those situations under which the issuance of estimated bills may be excluded from the provisions of Rule 17.1 relating to billing error.
The assigned Commissioner and ALJ may decide to review the billing delays and estimates resulting from the implementation of PG&E's new billing system as part of an investigation of PG&E's past billing practices in A.02-11-017, et. al. Such an investigation would also include any other issues specified by the assigned Commissioner and ALJ in their disposition of TURN's pending motion in A.02-11-017, et. al.
PG&E shall modify Rule 9C and Rule 17 to limit circumstances under which the issuance of estimated bills is not considered billing error; PG&E shall remove the phrase "unusual conditions" from Rule 9C.
PG&E shall modify gas and electric Rule 9C so that it reads as follows:
"If for reasons beyond the meter reading entity's control, the customer's meter cannot be read on the scheduled reading date, or if for any reason accurate usage data are not available, PG&E will bill the customer for estimated consumption during the billing period. Estimated consumption for this purpose will be calculated considering the customer's prior usage, PG&E's experience with other customers of the same class in that area, and the general characteristics of the customer's operations.
Unless estimated bills result from inaccessible roads, the customer, the customer's agent, other occupant, animal or physical condition of the property preventing access to PG&E's facilities on the customer's premise, other causes within control of the customer, or a natural or man-made disaster such as a fire, earthquake, flood, or severe storms, the issuance of estimated bills shall be considered "billing error" for the purposes of applying Rule 17.1."
Since Rule 17 also allows PG&E to estimate bills, PG&E shall add the second paragraph above in quotations to gas and electric Rule 17.B.5 to clarify when the issuance of estimated bills constitutes billing error.
These tariff changes are consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs.
We grant in part TURN's protest that failure to issue a timely and accurate bill whether due to reliance on estimated meter reads or other delays constitutes billing error. We also grant in part TURN's protest that extended reliance on an estimated bill constitutes billing error as the tariffs are currently written. The revisions that we require PG&E to make to Rule 9C and Rule 17 set forth when issuance of estimated bills constitutes billing error and when it does not.
We require PG&E to make additional revisions to Rules 9C and 17.B.5 as described below.
PG&E's estimated bills shall include a message that identifies the reason for requiring that the bill be estimated; when the meter reader codes a message in the field the bill message shall reflect the same reason for estimating as that coded by the meter reader.
We seek to minimize the need to estimate bills. On estimated bills, PG&E shall include a message that identifies the reason for requiring that the bill be estimated. When the meter reader codes a message in the field, the estimated bill shall reflect the same reason coded by the meter reader. This will notify the customer of the reason that the meter could not be read as scheduled.
We note that PG&E may disconnect service if the customer denies access to the meter for an extended period of time and the situation otherwise falls within the conditions of PG&E's gas tariff Rule 11.K.2 and electric tariff Rule 11.J.2. Thus any financial incentive of the customer to deliberately deny access is mitigated.
PG&E's proposed changes to Rule 17.2 clarifying use of PG&E service without compensation are approved with modifications; these tariff changes are consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs.
PG&E's current gas and electric tariff Rule 17.2 includes as one example of unauthorized use the following:
"Using PG&E service without compensation to PG&E in violation of applicable tariffs and/or statutes."
PG&E proposes to extend this language as follows:
"Using PG&E service without compensation to PG&E in violation of applicable tariffs and/or statutes, except for meter and billing errors as defined under Rule 17 and 17.1. If it is found that a meter or billing error has occurred, those tariffs, and not Rule 17.2, shall apply. Examples of using PG&E service without compensation include, but are not limited to, the customer, its agent, or other occupant reconnecting service after it has been discontinued in accordance with Rule 11 or the customer, its agent, other occupant, an animal, or the physical condition of the property preventing access to PG&E facilities on the customer's premise."
We grant in part PG&E's proposed tariff revisions. We deny PG&E's proposed additions relating to lack of access.
Lack of access does not constitute service without compensation.
We deny the tariff revisions to Rule 17.2 proposed by PG&E that includes the following examples of service without compensation: "the customer, its agent, other occupant, an animal, or the physical condition of the property preventing access to PG&E facilities on the customer's premise". In these cases PG&E should issue a bill based on estimated usage. They are not examples of unauthorized use.
PG&E shall revise gas Rule 17.2.A.5 and electric Rule 17.2.B.6 to read as follows:
"Using PG&E service without compensation to PG&E in violation of applicable tariffs and/or statutes, except for meter and billing errors as defined under Rule 17 and 17.1. If it is found that a meter or billing error has occurred, those tariffs, and not Rule 17.2, shall apply. Examples of using PG&E service without compensation include, but are not limited to, the customer, its agent, or other occupant reconnecting service after it has been discontinued in accordance with Rule 11."
The tariff changes that we require are consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements, tariffs, and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs.
PG&E shall modify Rule 17.2 to clarify that a person shall only be held responsible for unauthorized use from which that person benefited.
While we are considering changes to Rule 17.2 as proposed by PG&E, it is desirable to address another aspect of the rule. The rule currently states that PG&E shall have the legal right to recover from any customer or other person who caused or benefited from unauthorized use, the estimated undercharges for the full period of such unauthorized use.
It is possible that a customer may not have caused the unauthorized use to occur but benefited from that use. For example, a customer may start taking service at a location where the meter had been tampered with by a prior customer at that location. If PG&E subsequently determines that unauthorized use occurred, the new customer should only be responsible for the unauthorized use that took place from the time the new customer began taking service.
D.86-06-035 states that the Commission's sole purpose in resolving complaints from customers about back bills for unauthorized use "is to determine the value of any energy that can be shown to have been used by the customer but not metered or billed by the utility." (21 CPUC 2d, p. 273, emphasis added). We require PG&E to modify Rule 17.2 to clarify that a customer shall only be billed for unauthorized use of energy used by that customer. The first sentence of the paragraph immediately following gas Rule 17.2.A.5, and the first sentence of the paragraph immediately following electric Rule 17.2.A.6 shall be revised so that they read:
"Where PG&E determines there has been unauthorized use, PG&E shall have the legal right to recover, from the person who benefited from such unauthorized use, the estimated undercharges for the full period of that person's unauthorized use."
This tariff change is consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs.
PG&E's proposed Rule 17.3 is overly broad and vague and is denied.
PG&E proposes new Rule 17.3 as follows:
"For any situations where a customer's bill requires adjustment but is not defined as billing error, meter error, or unauthorized use, PG&E will apply Rule 17.3. Under Rule 17.3, billing adjustments for an undercharge or overcharge shall not exceed three years (36 months of energy usage)."
It is not clear from this proposed rule to what situations it would apply, i.e., what is "not defined as billing error, meter error, or unauthorized use". We deny this proposed rule as it is overly broad and vague. TURN's protest that we reject PG&E's proposed Rule 17.3 is granted.
PG&E shall file a report in A.02-11-017, et. al. to explain the reasons for the large number of delayed and estimated bills and a plan for reducing the number of these bills.
In AL 2581-G/2568-E PG&E states that the Executive Director's October 12 letter requested that PG&E discontinue collection of overdue accounts from its residential customers that exceed a three-month limit. PG&E further states that the AL modifies Rules 17.1 and 17.2 to implement the three-month limitation, and references PU Code Section 532. PG&E also states that the changes proposed in the AL would not affect customers' billing obligations for bills rendered prior to the proposed effective date of the AL (October 13, 2004). PU Code Section 532 prohibits a utility from refunding or remitting a portion of charges to a customer unless extended to all affected customers.
The tariff changes we authorize in this resolution are consistent with existing CPUC policy and requirements as set forth in D.86-06-035 and with existing PG&E tariffs. These changes simply reflect the proper interpretation of existing tariffs.
Within 15 days from today, PG&E shall file a report in A.02-11-017, et. al., explaining the reasons for the large number of delayed bills and estimated bills over the past five years and a plan for reducing the number of these bills. PG&E's report shall also contain its good faith estimate of the numbers of customers affected by delayed and estimated bills and the associated dollar amounts over the last five years, i.e., calendar years 2000 through 2004. TURN's protest regarding PG&E's assertion that bills rendered prior to the effective date of AL 2581-G/2568-E are not subject to the tariffs proposed in the AL, is denied without prejudice. The assigned Commissioner and ALJ have yet to rule on TURN's motion requesting that we formally investigate PG&E's past billing practices.
1 CAB over the past years has been contacted by PG&E customers questioning a deferred bill or back bill that exceeded the 3 month limitation in Rule 17.1. Until recently, CAB advised these customers that PG&E's bills were not inconsistent with its tariffs. Such informal advice provided by staff is not binding upon the Commission which issues formal opinions only through its decisions and resolutions.
