PG&E's Response
PG&E's response to TURN's motion is twofold. First, PG&E states that the Commission should deny TURN's request because delayed and estimated bills are not increasing, but in fact have been decreasing, and PG&E's practices are not harming customers. Second, PG&E argues that it has applied its tariffs consistent with Commission precedent, guidance of Commission staff, and sound public policy. In addition, PG&E states that TURN's request is unnecessary because the Commission staff is already covering the same ground.
PG&E states that during the spring of 2004, the Commission's Consumer Service and Information Division (CSID) notified PG&E of an increase in the number of complaints regarding billings practices. PG&E notes that over the past several months, CSID and the Commission's Energy Division have been in close contact with PG&E regarding billing issues.
PG&E asserts that the level of delayed and estimated bills is consistent with historical averages. PG&E reports that, since 1993, the numbers of bills not issued in 60 days or more has averaged about 39,000,5 which corresponds to less than three-quarters of 1% of the approximately five million bills issued by PG&E each month.6
PG&E admits that there was a temporary increase in delayed and estimated bills in 2003 associated with the rollout of PG&E's new customer information system (CorDaptix), but claims that this increase was neither severe nor unexpected. PG&E reports that the delayed billing numbers peaked at almost 60,000 in July 2003, about seven months after the implementation of CorDaptix.
PG&E maintains that customers were not harmed by the temporary increase in delayed and estimated bills, because PG&E voluntarily imposed a moratorium against any automated collections activity in the month preceding and in the four months7 following the rollout.8 PG&E suggest that if it if true, as TURN alleges, that customer complaints about PG&E's billing practices have increased in the recent past, these complaints are likely due to the fact that many customers were insulated from collection activities for the first four months of 2003.
PG&E also maintains that it has not become more likely to shut-off customer accounts for non-payment. PG&E reports that, since 1999, it has had to shut-off approximately 182,000 accounts per year for non-payment. PG&E admits that shut-off activity for 2003 and from January through November 2004, was slightly higher, with about 198,000 and about 187,000 accounts losing service for non-payment, respectively, but that these numbers are consistent with the average.
PG&E also disputes TURN's allegation that PG&E has required excessive or additional deposits from customers for undercollections related to delayed or estimated bills, noting that the percentage of residential customers that have posted deposits with PG&E in 2004, about 7%, is in line with historical averages.
PG&&E maintains that delayed and estimated bills do not constitute "billing error" within the meaning of Rule 17.1 and are therefore not subject to the three-month limitation on adjusting undercharges to residential customers. PG&E argues that the plain meaning of Rule 17.1 excludes delayed and estimated bills from the definitions of billing error. PG&E contends that public policy supports PG&E's practice of billing customers for all energy consumed at tariffed rates, regardless of when the billing occurs, arguing that this policy stems from Sections 532 and 3453 of the Public Utilities Code, which create a "legal duty" to backbill, citing D.90-01-018, and three other Commission Decisions. (D.89-05-012, D.03-10-089, and D.86-06-035).
PG&E also claims that because Commission Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) staff reached the same interpretation as PG&E on numerous occasions, the Commission should now be barred from questioning PG&E's practices. PG&E states that the Commission's existing procedures for addressing billing concerns are effective and already engaged and that the Commission cannot properly evaluate TURN's proposals without considering the associated financial implications.
5 Exhibit A-1 to PG&E's December 30, 2004, Response to TURN's Motion.
6 PG&E uses the term "delayed bill" to refer to those bills that are not sent to a customer within PG&E's typical 30-day cycle (the actual range is 27-33 days), but only includes in Exhibit A-1 bills that are not issued in 60 days or more.
7 PG&E states that while initially this suspension covered all customers, beginning in March 2003, PG&E gradually lifted the suspension, starting with commercial and industrial customers.
8 PG&E states that it continued to pursue manual collection activities with respect to a small number of customers representing high dollar, high risk exposures. (PG&E Response, p. 11)
