House State Affairs Committee approves Idaho PUC customer-relations rule changes, keeps consumer clause

The Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted to adopt rule changes proposed by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on customer and telephone customer-relations, approving the dockets after questions about a consumer-protection sentence and how the rules reflect modern phone technology.

PUC policy strategist Stephen Goodson told the committee he brought the negotiated rule chapters to the panel for review and that one specific change replaces the word “may” with “shall” in a final-notice mailing requirement. "I am pleased to present to you today docket 3 1 20 1 12 4 1," Goodson said, and later described the edits as part of an effort to “make the rules clear and less burdensome.”

Committee members pressed PUC staff on several consumer-protection and modernization issues. Representative Dygert asked whether the termination-of-service rules include protections for customers whose loss of service would present a serious health risk; Goodson said he believed such protections were in the rule chapters presented in the 2004 filing. Representative Alfieri objected to language in section 205.02, saying, “With all the double negatives in here I still don't understand what you're trying to do,” and moved to approve the docket with the exception of 205.02. Representative Nicholson offered a substitute motion to accept the docket as written. After discussion about the Senate's prior action on section 205 and whether the House should mirror that action, the committee accepted the docket with the exception for section 205.

Members also raised questions about definitions and where they are sourced. Mr. Goodson told the committee that some terms removed from the rules had statutory definitions: he said the terms for local exchange carrier and message telecommunication service (MTS) can be found in Idaho Code and therefore were struck from the rule text to avoid duplication. Representative members asked whether removing definitions from the rule would change the PUC’s authority; Goodson replied it would not.

Several legislators pressed the PUC on whether the rules reflect modern telephone network technology. Representative Achilles and others noted that many calls are carried over Internet Protocol (IP) networks today and said the rules read like they were written for legacy circuit-switched infrastructure. Representative Achilles said, “we're spending a lot of time looking at rules related to how telephone networks were designed and built ... We're not really looking at how networks carry Idahoans' calls today.” Goodson said he was not a telecom expert but would arrange for subject-matter follow-up and that the PUC plans to revisit rules during its regular review cycle.

The committee also discussed the relocation of slamming provisions and certain forms. Goodson said the rules incorporate by reference federal material adopted in October 2011 (with modifications) and that some slamming-related language and forms were moved into that incorporation-by-reference section; he offered to confirm exactly where slamming provisions would be found and later agreed to help make them easier for the public to locate in a future revision.

Votes at the close of the item adopted the proposed PUC dockets as amended and approved two sets of committee minutes.

The committee asked the PUC to follow up on a number of technical points—where slamming provisions now reside, whether a financial-assistance program referenced in statute remains applicable to unclaimed deposits and advanced payments, and whether the PUC’s regulatory framework covers IP broadband or cellular services. Goodson agreed to provide additional detail on those points when the agency returns with further rule work.