Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Customer Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves PUC rule requiring utilities to mail final written termination notices
Summary
An Idaho legislative committee voted to adopt Docket 3121012401, a rule change from the Public Utilities Commission that replaces permissive language with a requirement that utilities mail a final written notice before terminating service.
Get email alerts on the Utilities Customer Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
An Idaho legislative committee voted to adopt Docket 3121012401, a rule change from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission that replaces permissive language with a requirement that utilities mail a final written notice before terminating service.
The change, presented by Stephen Goodson, policy strategist for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, revises section 304 of the customer-relations rules by changing the word “may” to “shall” for mailing a final written notice to customers. “This entire rule chapter was actually negotiated… and Chairman Crane asked that we make the addition to or the change to section 304 by changing the word may to shall and that is reflected in the pending rule before you,” Goodson said.
The rule affects procedures for termination of gas, electric and water service. Representative Dygert asked whether the rule includes safeguards for customers whose loss of service could pose a serious health risk. Goodson replied that he believed the rule as presented in the earlier negotiated rulemaking (02/2004 session) did include such safeguards.
Representative Crane moved to adopt the docket; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. The record in the transcript shows an oral “aye” vote and no roll-call tally was recorded.
The action formalizes a small but specific change in statutory drafting that makes a previously discretionary mailing a required step in the PUC’s customer-termination procedures. The committee did not detail additional changes to the text beyond the substitution of “shall” for “may.”
The PUC staff indicated they are available to answer follow-up questions but no further amendments to this docket were made at the meeting.
