|
PUC mulls changing rules that govern utility shutoffs |
|
|
Friday, 30 November 2007 |
By JIM BARON
PROVIDENCE — Mulling new changes in the rules and regulations for gas and electricity shut-offs, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) agreed to modify some of its original proposals, delaying final adoption of the amendments until sometime in mid-January.
The commission had sought to remove itself from hearing emergency appeals from customers whose service has been shut off, moving that duty to the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (DPU).
Under the amendment being considered, the commissioners themselves would hear emergency appeals only when there is no one at the division eligible to do so.
Commissioners also want to close what they call a loophole that allowed some customers who defaulted on a payment plan to continue on the same plan without making the required down payment on their back bill.
According to PUC attorney Cynthia Wilson-Frias, the existing rule stated that a customer who is on a payment plan but gets a termination notice because he or she defaulted on it, could continue on the same plan as long as he or she made arrangements with the company before the service was actually shut off.
Some of those customers were on a plan that did not require an initial down payment. So, Wilson-Frias said, by contacting the company before the service was disconnected, those customers could keep their service for years without ever having to make a down payment.
Under the proposed revisions, those customers would be allowed to remain on their original plan, but would have to make a down payment toward their back bill to keep their service.
The commission had also proposed taking away the prerogative of a utility to negotiate a payment plan directly with a customer that is more lenient that allowed by PUC rules. That proposal was taken off the table.
Another change under consideration involves spokespersons for customers facing shut-offs at formal hearings before the PUC or the DPU.
Until recently. customers could have advocates such as Henry Shelton from Pawtucket’s George Wiley Center speak on their behalf at hearings. But recently a staff attorney ruled that doing so amounts to practicing law without a license.
Advocates could give information or encouragement directly to the customer, but anyone speaking directly to the commission or division on that person’s behalf would have to be an attorney, a service that people facing a utility shut-off might not be able to afford.
The commission will now consider compromise language that will allow customers to be represented “by legal counsel or another person in accordance with Rhode Island law.”
Wilson-Frias said after the hearing that such a change might not be enough to lift the requirement that the representative be an attorney. She said Rhode Island law on the practice of law “is so broad” that it may require anybody representing another at a formal proceeding be an attorney, although she said the attorney general’s office believes that public policy dictates that advocates be allowed to represent customers.
Addressing that issue in a memo to Wilson-Frias, Assistant Attorney General Paul Roberti said only the state Supreme Court can determine what constitutes the “practice of law” in Rhode Island.
“Thus,” he wrote, “only the Supreme Court can decide whether or not the commission’s existing regulation, and the particular circumstances under which non-lawyers assist utility customers, would qualify as the practice of law. Consequently, the commission’s proposal to promulgate a per se rule that requires licensed Rhode Island attorneys to represent claimants at formal termination hearings may unnecessarily restrict the ability of customers to draw assistance from non-lawyers.”
Roberti recommended that the commission contact the Supreme Court’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee “to determine the feasibility of promulgating a commission rule that strikes the proper balance between the needs of indigent claimants and the legal profession’s need to prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. …”
“We won some,” the Wiley Center’s Shelton said after the hearing. “We gained some ground but I’m still confused about some of the results.”
Shelton said the commission “backed off” from the idea of preventing utilities from negotiating more lenient plans. “I think that was a victory. I don’t think the company (National Grid is the principal utility providing both gas and electricity in Rhode Island) does it enough, but it is good that they have that power.
He also liked the idea that the commission is staying in the loop for emergency appeals. Shelton said he would much rather deal with the commission.
“The division is much worse than the commission,” he said. “They always rule that people have to pay much more than they can afford” to avoid shut-offs or get service restored. “Idiotic decisions are made day after day by the division,” Shelton said.” The decisions we get from the division are not fair, not just.”
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 05 December 2007 )
|
