Committee approves PUC telephone-customer rules after debate over definitions, 'slamming' and modernization

An Idaho legislative committee on the PUC’s telephone-customer rules voted to approve the PUC’s proposed rule chapter after debate over several provisions, including whether to retain a consumer-protection sentence in section 205, how statutory definitions are referenced, and where “slamming” protections are incorporated.

Stephen Goodson, policy strategist for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, told the committee the rules had been updated under the Governor’s executive order to streamline administrative rules and reduce regulatory burdens. “The PUC shares the Governor's goals to streamline the State's administrative rules and reduce regulatory burdens and cut the red tape,” Goodson said. He described negotiated rulemaking and said uniform edits had been applied across the PUC’s rule chapters.

Representative Alfieri said he objected to retaining the contested language in section 205 because it was difficult to parse. Alfieri read the line aloud: “A telephone company will not hold a customer responsible for paying an amount not billed for the customer's own service or through the use of the customer's own credit or facilities in whose own name does not appear on the bill or application for service unless,” and said the double negatives made the provision unclear. He moved to approve the docket with the exception of 205.02.

Other legislators raised separate concerns. Representative Achilles pointed to inconsistent references to legacy terms such as “local exchange carrier” and “MTS” in different parts of the proposed text and asked why some definitions were struck while the terms still appeared elsewhere. Goodson replied that the PUC removed definitions from the rules because those terms are defined in Idaho statute (Title 61 and Title 62) and can be referenced there.

Several lawmakers asked about where slamming provisions — rules addressing unauthorized carrier changes — now appear after edits. Goodson said the rule incorporates by reference a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) item adopted in October 2011 with modifications; he said he would confirm where the slamming provisions are located. Representative Crane asked the PUC to make slamming provisions easier to find when the rules are revisited next year; Goodson agreed.

Representative Achilles and others also urged the agency to reconsider how the rules address service quality in an era in which many calls are carried over internet protocol networks. “A lot of this we're spending a lot of time looking at rules related to how telephone networks were designed and built…and we're not really looking at how networks carry Idahoans calls today, right, which is largely over IP,” Achilles said. Goodson said he would arrange follow-up with a telecom expert and agreed the PUC would revisit modernization in future reviews.

Representative Barbieri argued against micromanaging companies’ equipment maintenance, saying it seemed unnecessary for the PUC to require detailed engineering practices. “It seems to me that we're kind of over managing… Why would the PUC want to kind of intrude in the way that the companies are maintaining their own equipment?” Barbieri said.

After several procedural motions and a request for unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment, the committee approved the docket as presented with an exception tied to section 205; the transcript records the motion carrying by voice vote.

The committee asked PUC staff to follow up on where slamming provisions are located and to consider clearer organization and modernization of the rules when the agency returns for future rule review.