PSE billing violations, complaints ballooning
The utility now admits the $1,700-plus bill was high by several hundred dollars because of snafus.
To this day, Rivers is not positive Puget Sound Energy (PSE) accurately calculated her bill. But faced with the utility's threat to shut off her gas if she didn't start paying, Rivers reluctantly agreed to a 12-month payment plan.
The Renton woman's grievance with the way the state's largest private utility handled her billing is among a growing number of "back-billing" complaints on file with the state Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC).
The regulatory agency has noticed an upturn in the number of such consumer complaints. It logged more than 60 in the first six months of this year, more than triple the total for 2001. Most involve the utility's gas customers.
As of last month, the commission staff had cited PSE with 85 state-code violations since January 2001, such as failing to bill customers on a timely basis and failing to give customers sufficient notice before disconnecting their service. The utility with the next-highest number of violations, four, is Spokane-based Avista.
Vicki Elliott, the UTC's assistant director of consumer services, says the total number of complaints against PSE amounts to a drop in the bucket in view of the 1.3 million gas and electric bills the utility generates monthly.
That's why she is not poised to recommend a full-scale investigation into the utility's billing practices. Still, Elliott wants to talk with PSE to see if there's an explanation for the upsurge in back-billing complaints.
A review of the complaints shows they typically result from the utility's staffing and equipment problems, or some other failure to recognize a customer's existence.
Complaints of rudeness
Utility officials initially denied there was a jump in such complaints but after further checking acknowledged the problem. Spokeswoman Dorothy Bracken said the utility had not paid attention to "some routine utility billing procedures" because the staff was focused on converting to a new billing system the winter before last.
"In recent months," she added, "Puget Sound Energy has stepped up efforts to catch up with the backlog of those routine processes that capture unbilled services. An increase in the number of back-bill complaints has resulted from these efforts. In a very short time we expect the 'backlog hump' to flatten out."
But Nancy Novak, the utility's manager of revenue, recently maintained that many customers who turn to the UTC do so to avoid paying what they owe and to prevent disconnection of service.
That dismissive tone has trickled down to some customer-service reps.
Some consumers complained they were treated disrespectfully when they contacted PSE to question high "catch-up" bills, or asked for consideration in view of the utility's role in creating the problem.
|
But Dolan's case, among others, illustrates that it is not flawless. Other AMR-related back-billing complaints involved customers whose wireless modules kept resetting to zero or just stopped working.
The utility contended it could not get a manual read because a locked gate blocked access to Dolan's meter, and it was therefore forced to estimate her usage. Dolan maintains that access was "totally available to them."
After reviewing her complaint, state regulators cited PSE with five violations of state code — one for each month after the utility exceeded the four-month maximum for estimating bills for no good reason.
Not all violations binding
The significance of such "violations" is a bit murky. Technically, only the agency's commissioners are authorized to make a binding determination of a formal violation, which can carry a fine and include orders forcing a company to change the way it does business.
By contrast, when commission staff cites a violation — as occurred with Dolan and many other consumers who file what are technically "informal complaints" — it is nonbinding. That means the company can choose to correct the problem or disagree that a violation occurred.
Either way, the violation is kept in agency records. And since commission staff upgraded their record-keeping methods 18 months ago, the data are now easily retrievable to help decide if a formal inquiry is justified.
"Violations are important to us," PSE's Novak said. "It makes us review our internal practices to make sure that we are serving our customers as best we can and that our procedures and practices meet our standards."
Lack of information
In a number of complaints, consumers said they would have adjusted their energy-usage levels if they had received bills on a regular basis.
Customer Phil Mogen of Seattle, for example, got socked with a bill for nearly $1,000 earlier this year after 18 months without receiving a gas bill. Mogen said he and his wife recalled filling out paperwork to get gas when they purchased their home in May 2000.
"By failing to send regular and timely invoices to my address, PSE has deprived me of the opportunity to regulate my use of its product, gas," Mogen stated in his complaint.
"Had I known the amount of my monthly gas charge, I would have lowered my thermostat, reduced the temperature of my hot water, reduced the time I used my gas fireplace, and/or not converted my fireplace to gas at all. I would have known the amount of my gas charge had PSE taken reasonable steps to contact me."
Mogen asked PSE to reduce his bill. He was rebuffed, as were a number of other complainants who asked for similar relief.
In each case, the utility asserted that state law required it to collect for all gas or electricity consumed at the state-filed rate, "even though its own mistake or negligence" may have been responsible for consistent undercharging.
Elliott, of the UTC, said the commission upholds PSE and other utilities when they make that argument because it's a reasonable interpretation of state law. At the same time, Elliott does not believe the utility's hands are tied, and says it could be more lenient.
"I can tell you that other public-service companies, most notably telecommunications companies, offer 'goodwill credits' ... in amounts that more closely align with disputed bill amounts when the companies feel it is reasonable to do so," Elliott said.
By contrast, PSE's practice is to give the occasional $50 goodwill credit in cases where it acknowledges it erred. By law, utilities are obliged to give customers as long to pay off debt due to an undercharge as it took to accumulate, and to charge no interest.
'Squeaky wheel'
For Rivers, the Renton woman lost by the utility for more than a year, this will mean monthly payments of $35.06 for a year, on top of charges for new usage.
Rivers' case was complicated by the fact that hers used to be a model home. When the utility finally generated a bill, it failed to separate gas she started using in April 2001 from gas used by the contractor for the previous nine months.
Rivers' case was perplexing, too, because she also is a PSE electric customer and the utility had no problem transferring that account over from the contractor.
Rivers was nothing if not persistent. Working through the UTC, she managed to extract an exceptional 15 percent discount from PSE on her bill, and also managed to have late charges reversed. In addition, the agency slapped PSE with a dozen violations of state code for failing to bill her regularly.
"I guess there's something to that squeaky-wheel thing," she said.
Peter Lewis: 206-464-2217 or plewis@seattletimes.com.