New Law on termination of Utility service, effective January 1, 2005

[happyslug]

Up till now the Public Utiltiy Commission (PUC) had regulations on when a Public Utility could terminate services to a tenant. So now the State Legislature has overrided those regs by passing a Statute that covers the same area. The GOP controlled legislature had the nerve to call the Statute "Responsible Utility Consumer Protection Act".

To see the Statute that was passed see:
http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2003/0/SB0677P1996.pdf

Harry Geller of Pennsylvania Legal Serivces Says it better than I can so this is his take on this statute:


To emphasize just a few of the more troubling issues presented by this Act:

1. Process- Although the utility companies were in active and direct negotiation with the Governor, there was no such direct negotiation with low-income advocates and consumer representatives regarding the amendments that went into SB 677. This bill also sets the precedent of bypassing the PUC and the entire hearings and orderly processes of the Legislature in addressing complex and sensitive utility regulation. It is a short-circuiting procedure which, now successful, utility companies are likely to exploit in coming years.

2. Deposits- All Pennsylvanians who apply for utility service will be required to pay a security deposit up-front in full prior to receiving service if their creditworthiness is not established to the satisfaction of the utility using a credit scoring methodology. The PUC has no control over which of the various forms of methodology the company is permitted to use. Many low-income individuals or young people starting out may fare poorly using a non-PUC designated standard and will be subject to unaffordable deposit requests prior to receiving service.

3. Winter Shut-offs- Winter protections for elderly, sick, and children are absent for those above 250% of the poverty level, although income is no barrier to the harm that can ensue to these vulnerable populations.

In Philadelphia, winter terminations may take place at an even lower level - any household above 150% of the poverty level (just $13,965 for an individual; $23,505 for a family of three). Although in Philadelphia there are circumstances in which individuals,150% and 250% of poverty are able to avoid winter shut-off, these protections will prove to be illusory since the burden of moving ahead with this proof lies entirely with the consumer; there are no requirements that the utility provide notifications concerning these protections; and utilities have no way of screening out individuals at these income levels from termination status. These problems are exacerbated
because the legislation becomes effective in 14 days, even in the absence of PUC regulations that will specify how customers are supposed to be informed of their rights to prevent termination under the specified exceptions.

4. Payment arrangements- Although the time period of debt payment
payback is based upon income, there is no requirement that the payments required to be made will be affordable, nor any check on whether an arrearage was, in whole or in part, due to utility collection neglect or mismanagement.

5. Privacy issues- An applicant is required to provide to the utility
the names of all adults residing in the premises; In Philadelphia, DPW is required to provide to PGW, the names of all residents who receive public benefits. Moreover, while the definition of "applicant" has been changed in the amendment to include only adult occupants whose name appears on the deed or lease, the operative provision of the legislation regarding the requirement to pay all the outstanding balances in order to receive service applies to anyone who "resided at the property" for which service is requested during the time the outstanding balance accrued.. Section 1407 (g).

6. Payment arrangements for low-income CAP participants- Low-income CAP customers are not permitted to enter into payment arrangements. This harsh procedure is imposed in spite of the fact that this is the population least able to pay, despite the fact that the PUC has found many CAP payments to be unaffordable, and without regard to whether or not the CAP payments were in accord with the PUC CAP affordability guidelines.

7. LIHEAP issues- This legislation directs DPW to provide Crisis grants to any water, gas or electric public utility customer who receives a termination notice. It appears to be discriminatory in that it doesn't apply equally to rural electric or municipal utility customers who may be in the same situation.

8. Implementation- This legislation takes effect in two weeks with no
regulations in place. This is now the cold weather period. We are concerned that without PUC oversight, each utility company will be implementing these procedures in whatever manner it chooses. The customer will have no recourse at the PUC to ensure that the utilities use the vast discretion they are granted under this bill to carry out its terms in a fair and reasonable manner.

Please Note New E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>

Harry S. Geller
Pennsylvania Utility Law Project
118 Locust St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1414
Phone - [phone]
Fax- [phone]

[movonne]

1. When do you think this country is going to get fed up with this crap??

[Anakin Skywalker]

2. Not Anytime Soon.

As long as gays aren't allow to marry, that's all that matters to these "moralists".