Chapter 4Consumer Affairs, Consumer Education, and Public Information
(Continued)PROPOSAL 13
PUC should reorganize its consumer affairs functions to concentrate responsibility for consumer inquiries and education under a single manager.
Background
PUC's organization has changed several times in the last few years. In November 1996, the agency created a new consumer affairs position to administer both the Customer Protection and Enforcement Office and the Customer Services Office. This director (not yet appointed at this writing) will report to the executive director (See Exhibit 6). In addition, PUC considered a proposed reorganization of consumer functions in December, 1996. The analysis and recommendations below are based on the structure in place on November 1, 1996.
The major functions of Customer Protection and Enforcement are compliance audits and investigations, while Customer Services oversees consumer complaints and responds to general consumer inquiries. The remaining PUC division with consumer-related responsibilities, the Public Information Office, also handles some general consumer inquiries, as well as media/press relations and a variety of other duties.
Need for clear consumer focus
No single office in PUC currently has clear responsibility either for general consumer inquiries or consumer education. In the past, Consumer Affairs and Public Information shared these responsibilities. In a typical case, Consumer Affairs would identify a need and Public Information would issue a press release.
In fiscal 1997, PUC plans to devote 1,376 hours of staff time to answering consumer inquiries, or about three-quarters of one full-time position.[ 30 ] Customer Services rotates an average of three employees to handle consumer inquiries.[ 31 ] Agency records indicate, however, that the Public Information Office also handles general inquiries; in other words, responsibility for an important function is shared rather than concentrated in a single point of accountability.
Another key consumer function--education and outreach--also is not specifically assigned to a single organization. Instead, this function is performed informally, largely by the Public Information Office and the Customer Services Office.[ 32 ] Again, accountability for an important task is diffused across organizational boundaries.
Other states
TPR surveyed utilities agencies in several other states and found that the New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois utilities commissions align all consumer-related functions under a single organizational unit, with consumer education, consumer inquiry, and consumer complaint functions reporting to a single manager. Recently, New Jersey raised consumer affairs to full division status.[ 33 ]
Unrelated duties
PUC's Customer Services Office performs two functions that are unrelated to consumer affairs: it processes payphone registrations and Caller ID/per-line blocking requests. Yet the agency's Legal Administration Office registers other entities such as power marketers and exempt wholesale generators, and payphone registrations and blocking requests essentially are a regulatory function. TPR found no compelling reason to place these functions in Customer Services.
RECOMMENDATION
PUC should assign responsibility for all general consumer inquiries and consumer education to the Consumer Affairs Office, and transfer the office's two registration functions to the Legal Administration Division.
Accountability and focus would be greatly improved by clearly assigning responsibility for related consumer functions to a single organizational unit. Exhibit 7 illustrates a proposed organization for consumer affairs for the agency. Sections under the Director of Consumer Affairs should be responsible for all consumer-related activities, including consumer education and all general consumer inquiries and requests for information. This office also should take lead responsibility for developing consumer brochures and other consumer-related publications. The office should retain responsibility for responding to consumer complaints and answering the toll-free number.
The Public Information Office should continue to have core responsibility for media/press relations and retain all its other existing functions except for consumer inquiries. The two offices should work closely in developing consumer brochures, PSAs, and Internet information. Specifically, Consumer Affairs should take responsibility for developing consumer publications and consumer information, while Public Information should determine how to publicize this information in the appropriate media (television, radio, print, or the Internet). The consumer education plan discussed in Proposal 12 should clearly document these duties and confirm the need for coordination between Consumer Affairs and Public Information.
The Legal Administration Division should assume responsibility for caller ID and per-line blocking registrations. (PUC indicated at the time of this review that these functions would likely be transferred in the future).[ 34 ]
Proposal 7 details TPR's proposal to combine audit functions currently included with consumer functions.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal effect is expected from implementation of this recommendation.
PROPOSAL 14
PUC should take a more active role in addressing and resolving consumer complaints.
BACKGROUND
PUC has two mechanisms--one informal and one formal--for handling consumer complaints. PUC first directs consumers through an informal written complaint process in an attempt to resolve their problems. If the complaint cannot be resolved in this manner, the consumer can file a formal action with PUC that is "docketed" for a hearing before the commission. Nearly all consumer complaints are informal. In fiscal 1996, only 21 formal complaints were filed, while 3,689 informal complaints were received in the same year.[ 35 ]
The Customers Services Office is staffed with seven full-time positions and presently has one vacancy. These staff members oversee consumer complaint processing, respond to general consumer inquiries, staff the toll-free number, and process per-line blocking and pay phone registrations. Customer Services normally dedicates two staff members on average to handling complaints.[ 36 ] The office receives written complaints and tracks key information on an automated complaint tracking system.
Customer Services collected $162,518 in credits and refunds on behalf of consumers in 1996.[ 37 ] Such credits and refunds generally are the result of overbilling or other billing errors.
Written complaint process
PUC's substantive rules describe the written complaint process.[ 38 ] These rules state that a consumer first should complain directly to the utility. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the utility's response, the utility is required to tell the consumer about PUC's complaint process and provide PUC's phone number and address. Consumers then submit a written complaint to PUC, which in turn forwards the complaint to the utility; the utility then has 30 days to respond. The utility is required to keep a record of complaints and their disposition for two years.
The Customer Services Office acts as a broker to manage the complaint process, but does not actively research or process complaints. The only written complaints not routed to the utility involved are those in which the consumer is clearly incorrect. In these rare instances, the office responds directly to the consumer.[ 39 ] And in some cases, complaints are forwarded internally for enforcement purposes.
Customer Services receives the utility's written response; a copy also goes to the customer. Staff members then review the response and prepare a written answer to the customer that indicates whether PUC agrees with the utility's findings and provides information on the agency's formal complaint process. Thus the Customer Services Office's role, as outlined in current rules, is fundamentally passive. The office does not intervene on the consumer's behalf.
Other states
Some other state utility agencies play a more active part in resolving consumer complaints. Those in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Illinois, for example, process consumer complaints directly.[ 40 ] Pennsylvania's agency investigates complaints and issues its own decisions.[ 41 ] The Texas Department of Insurance's (TDI) Consumer Protection staff also researches complaints directly.
As in the previous two recommendations, TPR's survey found that PUC's complaint process seems substantially understaffed. While PUC devotes just an average of two employees to complaints, staffing for this function at other agencies surveyed was uniformly much higher. New York's utility agency has 49 employees associated with its complaints process (including 11 informal hearing officers). Pennsylvania has 30 employees, Ohio has 14, Florida has 12, and New Jersey has 10, although some staff time in the latter three states is devoted to answering public inquiries. Finally, TDI has 43 full-time employees dedicated only to responding to consumer complaints. While TPR did not look at the efficiency of the other operations, it is reasonable to assume that the disparity shows a need for an increase at PUC.
Due to its staffing, PUC's complaint workload per employee is significantly higher than that experienced by the other agencies surveyed, as is shown in Exhibit 5. The ratio of written complaints to consumer affairs employees at PUC in 1996 was 1,845 to one. By comparison, in the same year Pennsylvania's ratio was 224 to one; TDI's was 419 to one; Illinois' was 402 to one; New York's was 500 to one, and Florida's was 701 to one.[ 42 ]
Formal complaint process
As noted above, complaints not resolved through the written process can be filed with PUC as formal, docketed cases and receive hearings before the commission or an administrative law judge. A formal complaint often requires the consumer to hire an attorney and travel to Austin for a hearing. As a result of these barriers, less than 1 percent of all informal complaints reach the hearing stage.[ 43 ]
Alternative dispute resolution
Consumer advocacy organizations interviewed for this project support a "middle-ground" option for complaints that cannot be resolved informally.[ 44 ] The Customer Services Office's 1994 goals statement noted the agency's need for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods such as mediation instead of formal, legalistic processes, but PUC has not taken any steps to develop rules for an ADR process.
At least two Texas agencies and several other state utility agencies use ADR methods such as mediation to resolve disputes. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) adopted a rule in June 1996 to encourage the use of ADR in resolving disputes among parties, and created an ADR office reporting directly to the TNRCC commissioners to hear disputes.[ 45 ] TDI also encourages complainants and regulated companies to enter into mediation if the complaint cannot be resolved through a written complaint process.[ 46 ] The utility agencies of Connecticut and Illinois also use mediation to resolve consumer complaints.[ 47 ]
New York's agency conducts informal hearings before advancing disputes to formal hearing status.[ 48 ] In Michigan, complainants may request an informal hearing, to be held by the company, if the complaint is not resolved after initial efforts.[ 49 ] Similarly, in Indiana, the utility or the consumer can request a face-to-face meeting between utility employees, consumer affairs staff members, and the customer at any time during the process, at a location chosen by the Consumer Affairs Office.[ 50 ] Florida's utilities commission allows for face-to-face meetings between parties at one of four locations in the state that offer video-conferencing technology if the parties cannot be at the same location.[ 51 ]
Two agencies responding to TPR's survey attempt to resolve complaints at the time the initial call is received. In Illinois, a Consumer Affairs representative can initiate an immediate three-way telephone call with the complainant and utility.[ 52 ] Maine's utilities agency is considering a similar three-way call program.[ 53 ]
A more active and expanded complaint processing function could result in additional credits and refunds for consumers. Florida's larger and more active complaint resolution function collected nearly $763,000 for consumers in fiscal 1995, while PUC collected less than $152,000 in the same year.[ 54 ]
Nonjurisdictional complaints
Another major issue for PUC involves "nonjurisdictional" complaints from consumers--complaints involving services that PUC has no authority to regulate. Data from the Consumer Affairs Office indicate that about 26 percent of its complaint workload involves nonjurisdictional issues.[ 55 ] These include long-distance "slamming" (in which a consumer's long-distance service is switched without his or her authorization), billings for services not regulated by PUC (such as voice mail, call notes, paging services, and cellular and other wireless services), and municipal electric service. PUC's Internet site provides general information on nonjurisdictional complaints and indicates which agencies to contact. However, the Internet site does not provide consumers with specific contact information such as addresses, names, and phone numbers.
State law and PUC's substantive rules do not describe what PUC should do to assist customers with these type of complaints.[ 56 ] In view of this lack of guidelines, and the agency's limited resources, PUC has not been aggressive in dealing with these complaints. Employees of the Customer Services Office told TPR they have a 360-case backlog of nonjurisdictional complaints that are awaiting a written response from PUC.[ 57 ]
TPR found that other state utilities agencies have been more active in handling nonjurisdictional complaints. Pennsylvania's agency, for instance, will contact the long-distance or local phone company involved and attempt to resolve the problem.[ 58 ] Florida has established rules requiring the local company to switch service back within 24 hours, and to give the customer a credit that the local company can collect from the long-distance company. Florida's rules also require the long-distance company guilty of slamming to issue a credit for any difference between its rates and the rates of the customer's preferred company.[ 59 ] Florida has published a brochure to help customers choose a long-distance carrier and consumer affairs staff assist consumers with questions about long-distance service.[ 60 ]
Recommendations
A. PUC should develop rules to make the Consumer Affairs Office responsible for directly and actively participating in resolving consumer complaints by September 1, 1997. PUC should seek additional appropriations for the 1998-1999 budget period to expand this function.
Detailed rules should clearly state the office's expanded role in processing consumer complaints. These rules should require utilities to cooperate fully with PUC as it conducts its analysis. This change should result in a more objective complaints process and may increase the amount of credits and refunds Texas consumers receive.
B. PUC should develop rules to allow the use of alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR) such as mediation to resolve consumer complaints by September 1, 1997.
This effort could include, for example, the use of an ADR Section within PUC to mediate unresolved complaints and other disputes (See Proposal 16).
C. PUC should develop rules specifically prescribing the role its Consumer Affairs Office should play in processing nonjurisdictional complaints.
More specific direction in substantive rules, along with a deadline for clearing the backlog, would give PUC's staff clear authority and direction for handling nonjurisdictional complaints. Individual consumers would be more satisfied with the service they receive, since they would no longer simply be routed to another agency.
D. Before every regular legislative session, PUC should provide a report to the Legislature on the consumer complaints it receives. The report should also include recommendations regarding consumer problems, if any, that PUC lacks the statutory authority to address (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional complaints).
FISCAL IMPACT
The Consumer Affairs Office would need additional staffing to implement these recommendations. Various yardsticks could be used to estimate this need. For instance, TPR found that other state utility agencies average over 481,000 customers per employee charged with resolving consumer complaints (see Exhibit 5). A similar ratio at PUC would require nine additional positions. However, TPR suggests a more conservative approach at least initially, suggesting that six positions be filled.
Assuming average salaries similar to TDI's of $29,000, PUC's total annual expenditure for these positions, including benefits, would be about $217,500. Savings identified in Proposal 1 could fill the equivalent of four of these positions, leaving a cost of $72,500. PUC's precise staffing requirements for these recommendations would depend upon its approach to implementing new methods of complaint resolution.
PROPOSAL 15
PUC should make better use of complaint information to support its regulatory and education functions.
BACKGROUND
Since September 1996, PUC's Consumer Affairs Office has collected written complaints and tracked key information with an automated complaint database. This database tracks information such as dates, information about the complaint and complainant, and contacts with the complainant. The system also can generate and modify several standard form letters. The database is extremely useful, but PUC is still learning about its capabilities and has not yet taken full advantage of the system.
For example, at present the new system only records that a case is closed out, but does not note whether or not the complaint was valid. If PUC were to change the system to collect these data, it could generate statistics on the percentage of valid complaints by company, by type of complaint, and so forth.
Similarly, PUC has not yet made full use of the system's automated reporting features. For example, the agency has not developed standard reports to monitor utilities' adherence to the 30-day limit for responses to consumer complaints, or to judge PUC's own compliance with the 45-day limit for an agency response.[ 61 ]
Instead, Consumer Affairs employees download complaint data to another software program and then make ad-hoc queries to compile management information. Yet the complaint database has the capability to produce such reports and offer them on a menu of standard reports. Examples of reports that could be delivered in this way include complaints by company; complaints by type of complaint; trends in complaints by company or complaint type; filed complaints versus valid complaints; utility responses against the 30-day standard; overall response against the 45-day standard; and backlogs and trend data on workload, as well as any other standard information PUC's managers desire.
Two regulatory agencies contacted by TPR--the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Texas Department of Insurance (TDI)--have made particularly good use of complaint databases. Pennsylvania's PUC uses its database to track valid complaints and identify problem companies.[ 62 ] TDI's complaint database records whether a complaint is deemed valid and can generate reports on the number and percent of valid complaints by company and type of complaint.[ 63 ]
Access to information
At the time of TPR's review, PUC's complaint database was not available to all agency staff members. The agency noted, however, that it would send an electronic mail message to PUC staff concerning the availability of the data. However, no structured efforts were planned to systematically train staff in how to access and query the system.[ 64 ]
Furthermore, PUC does not publish complaint information. TPR found that the utility agencies of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut routinely publish complaint information by company and type of complaint.[ 65 ] Florida publishes complaint information monthly in addition to an annual publication.[ 66 ] Some states also rank utilities on this measure. Connecticut, for instance, publishes a utility scorecard based on utilities' response to customer complaints. Pennsylvania also publishes an annual report on utility response.[ 67 ]
Moreover, PUC's information on the resolution of consumer complaints is not available on-line. PUC could provide this information through the Internet, as does the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.[ 68 ]
Regulatory data
At the time of TPR's review, the agency recently had reorganized its consumer protection function. This transition provides an appropriate opportunity for the agency to decide how to use valid complaint information to support its core consumer protection and regulatory functions. For example, the agency could develop formal methods to use complaints to target companies for audit or investigation, focus its consumer and provider education efforts, assess overall qualifications during certification or recertification, or consider penalties such as certificate revocation or fines and penalties.
For example, Pennsylvania's PUC uses its automated complaint database to track complaints and identify problem areas.[ 69 ] TDI has developed an automated Early Warning System that uses complaint and financial information to identify potential problem companies. TDI's Technical Analysis Section analyzes data and trends, cross-checks information from complaint and financial databases, and prepares management reports to identify troubled or troublesome companies.[ 70 ]
Hard-copy complaint handling
The Customer Services Office also maintains hard-copy files on each complaint, typically including the consumer's original complaint, supporting documentation, and correspondence from the utility and the agency. This manual complaint handling process is paper-intensive, yet many staff members are forced to consult the paper files regularly because the automated database does not track important items of information.
As noted elsewhere in this report, PUC recently initiated an electronic document and imaging system and ultimately plans to use it for all filings with the agency. TPR found, however, that PUC has not planned how to use this new technology to improve its consumer affairs activities.[ 71 ]
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. PUC should modify its automated consumer complaint database to generate a series of management reports and offer them through a standard reports menu.
The complaint database should be modified to:
- code and track complaint resolutions as valid or invalid;
- generate standard 30-day utility response reports, 45-day standard response reports, age of open cases reports, and case backlog information;
- develop a utility "scorecard" of valid complaints by industry and company and publish it on a regular basis;
- define and develop other management reports needed by commissioners and executive managers;
These reports would enhance the system's abilities to meet the information needs of management, industry, and the public. They would improve the agency's monitoring of complaint processing standards and, more importantly, greatly strengthen the agency's oversight function.
B. PUC should make complaint data readily available to internal and external customers.
PUC should provide these data on the agency's Internet site and through periodic printed documents and reports, automated telephone access, and other sources.
While letters to the PUC or any agency are public records, reports based on complaint data available to the public need not include information on the consumer filing the complaint. The published information could be limited such measures as valid complaints by company and type of complaint, and response times to answer complaints.
Widespread availability of complaint information would help educate consumers and would aid both PUC and other agencies like the Office of Attorney General and Office of Public Utility Counsel in their duties.
C. PUC should develop formal procedures for using complaint resolution information in on-site audits, investigations, certification and revocation processes, and the application of fines and penalties.
PUC should develop automated systems like TDI's Early Warning System, which analyzes complaint data and other key performance indicators to identify potential problem companies.
D. PUC should develop a program to train its employees in the use of the consumer complaint database.
A formal training program would ensure that PUC employees make the most effective use of the information available to them.
E. PUC's Information Systems and Services Division should convene a working group to determine how the new electronic document/imaging system can be used to improve consumer affairs functions.
The working group should include representatives of the Customer Services Office, Customer Protection and Enforcement Office, and any other pertinent groups.
FISCAL IMPACT
These recommendations would entail no additional costs if implemented by PUC personnel. Agency programming time would be needed to modify the complaint database, develop the management reports menu, and put the data on the Internet. These tasks could be accomplished within existing resources.
Endnotes [ 30 ] Public Utility Commission of Texas, "Schedule A: Projected Workload for Fiscal Years 1997-1999."
[ 31 ] Interview with Christina Morris.
[ 32 ] Public Utility Commission of Texas, "Schedule A: Projected Workload for Fiscal Years 1997-1999."
[ 33 ] New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, 1995 Annual Report (Trenton, New Jersey, 1996), p. 9.
[ 34 ] Interview with Brenda Jenkins, executive director, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, November 13, 1996.
[ 35 ] Memorandum from Christina Morris, manager, Customer Services Division, Public Utility Commission to Anita Fourcard, Senior Economic Analyst, Public Utility Commission of Texas, November 21, 1996; and memorandum from Christina Morris, manager, Customer Services Division, Public Utility Commission of Texas, to John Casey, director of accounting, Public Utility Commission of Texas, September 20, 1996.
[ 36 ] Interviews with Christina Morris.
[ 37 ] Memorandum from Christina Morris to John Casey, director of accounting, Public Utility Commission of Texas, September 20, 1996.
[ 38 ] 16 T.A.C. SS23.41c.
[ 39 ] Interview with Customer Services Office staff members, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, October 24, 1996.
[ 40 ] Texas Performance Review survey of eight state utility commissions, November 1996.
[ 41 ] Interview with Mitch Miller.
[ 42 ] Interviews with Mitch Miller; interview with Mike Gibson, Consumer Affairs staff, Illinois Public Utility Commission, Springfield, Illinois, December 5, 1996; Gene Connell, Consumer Services Division, New York Department of Public Service, Albany, New York, December 4, 1996; interview with Vic Durbin; interview with Audrey Selden, associate commissioner for Consumer Protection, Texas Department of Insurance, Austin, Texas, November 19, 1996.
[ 43 ] Memorandum from Christina Morris to Anita Fourcard; and memorandum from Christina Morris to John Casey.
[ 44 ] TPR focus group with consumer organization representatives, Austin, Texas, November 6, 1996.
[ 45 ] TNRCC rule 40.6, implemented June 12, 1996.
[ 46 ] Interviews with Audrey Selden.
[ 47 ] TPR survey of eight state utility commissions; and interview with Mike Gibson.
[ 48 ] Interview with Gene Connell, Division of Consumer Services, New York Department of Public Service, December 6, 1996.
[ 49 ] Michigan Public Service Commission, "Utility Disputes and Service Problems: A Customer's Guide to Resolving Utility Complaints," November 23, 1996 (http://emisweb.state.mi.us/mpsc/csd/disputes.htm). (Internet document.)
[ 50 ] Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, "Consumer Affairs Division, Consumer Complaints by Type of Utility", December 11, 1996 (http://www.state.in.us/iurc/html/com.rep.html). (Internet document.)
[ 51 ] Interview with Vic Durbin.
[ 52 ] Interview with Mike Gibson.
[ 53 ] Maine Public Utility Commission, "Internal Draft Proposal Prepared by Consumer Affairs Staff" (Augusta, Maine,
October 27, 1996).[ 54 ] Florida Public Utility Commission, 1995 Annual Report, p. 70; and Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1995 Annual Report, p. 15.
[ 55 ] Memorandum from Christina Morris, customer services manager, Public Utility Commission of Texas, to Anita Fourcard, Office of Policy Development, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, October 19, 1996.
[ 56 ] 16 T.A.C. SS23.41c.
[ 57 ] Interview with Christina Morris, Customer Services manager, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, November 25, 1996.
[ 58 ] Interview with Mitch Miller.
[ 59 ] Florida Public Service Commission, "Slamming; the Problem, the Protections, the Solutions," Tallahassee, Florida. (Brochure.)
[ 60 ] Florida Public Service Commission, "How to Choose a Long Distance Carrier," Tallahassee, Florida, June 1996. (Brochure.)
[ 61 ] Interviews with Customer Services staff members, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, October 16
and 24, 1996.[ 62 ] Interview with Mitch Miller.
[ 63 ] Interviews with Audrey Selden.
[ 64 ] Interview with Dennis Vacula, Information Systems and Services Division, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, October 25, 1996.
[ 65 ] Interview with Mitch Miller; and Texas Performance Review survey of eight state utility commissions.
[ 66 ] Florida Public Utility Commission, "Monthly Consumer Report," October 1996 (brochure); and Florida Public Service Commission, 1995 Annual Report, pp. 70-93.
[ 67 ] Texas Performance Review survey of eight state utility commissions, November 1996.
[ 68 ] Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, "Consumer Affairs Division: Consumer Complaints by Type of Utility," November 20, 1996 (http://www.state.in.us/iurc/html/com.rep.html). (Internet document.)
[ 69 ] Texas Performance Review survey of eight state utility commissions.
[ 70 ] Texas Department of Insurance, 1997-2001 Agency Strategic Plan (Austin, Texas, June 14, 1996), p. 45; and interviews with Audrey Selden.
[ 71 ] Interview with Greg Romines, director, Information Systems and Services Division, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, November 27, 1996.
| Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts | Window on State Government Contact Us Privacy and Security Policy |