Summary - California

?ALJ/KK2/jnfPROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID #19451Decision __________BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIARashid El Malik,Complainant,vs.Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E),Defendant.(ECP)Case 19-08-009DECISION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTSummaryThis decision dismisses the expedited complaint filed by Rashid El Malik against Southern California Edison Company. This proceeding is closed.Procedural BackgroundOn August 16, 2019, Rashid El Malik (Complainant) filed the abovecaptioned complaint against Southern California Edison Company (SCE) requesting that SCE reinstate his account on the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program for the three-months billing periods from October?18,?2018 through January 18, 2019, and for the Commission to open an investigation of SCE’s CARE recertification process for potential discriminatory practices as against veterans (Complaint). On September 24, 2019, SCE timely filed its answer. After multiple settings and resettings upon parties’ requests and stipulations, a hearing was held on January 10, 2020, in Junipero Serra State Office Building – Hearing Room, 320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, California 90013. Complainant appeared and testified on his behalf. SCE appeared through Prahba Cadambi, from SCE’s Regulatory Affairs - State Regulatory Operations. During the January 10, 2020 hearing, Complainant spent a large part of the hearing directing questions to the SCE representative instead of providing testimony and evidence on his behalf to support his claims in the Complaint. He asked numerous questions regarding the type of income information that should be provided during the recertification process and the types of income verifying documentation that should be provided with recertification paperwork. He also indicated that he suspected there is a potential discriminatory practice pattern against veterans and indicated that he may be filing a claim against SCE, in a separate civil proceeding, for which he is seeking all of the continuing discovery. During the hearing and after, Complainant was informed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the scope of the permitted discovery in this proceeding is limited to the issues in his Complaint. He was also reminded that the discovery period for this case ended before the commencement of the hearing and that if he has no evidence to present and is merely seeking additional discovery for this potential pattern of discriminatory practice for his anticipated civil claim against SCE, that is not proper discovery request the Commission is able to entertain during the hearing in this matter.Although the hearing adjourned on January 10, 2020, as a courtesy to Complainant and at the request of the assigned ALJ, SCE’s representative further reviewed SCE’s record and provided additional and follow-up courtesy responses to the Complainant’s request for certain information that were in SCE’s record, where such information was available, including the following:How many CARE recertification application related documents are reported as lost or missing? SCE provided its record of Monthly Recertification Application Related Complaints (2018-19) as filed in our monthly reports to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). (Source: MONTHLY REPORT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U?338E) ON LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS)2018 Recertification Application Related Complaints(involving missing document)MonthMissing DocsTotalJan02Feb00Mar00Apr00May00Jun00Jul02Aug01Sep00Oct11Nov00Dec00Total162019 Recertification Application Related Complaints(involving missing document)MonthMissing DocsTotalJan01Feb14Mar12Apr00May12Jun00Jul22Aug00Sep01Oct00Nov11Dec00Total613What types of income is considered in SCE’s review of fixed income customers (e.g., medical income?)In response, SCE provided the following list from its CARE Policies and Procedures:Fixed income includes:DividendsInterest on assetsPensions – Private (payments or withdrawals)Pensions – Government (payments or withdrawals)Pension – IRA distribution, andSocial Security payments.Does SCE have any hard copy recertification application or voice recordings between SCE representative and Complainant? ? In response, SCE provided the zip files of the voice recordings in its custody to Complainant by email via Kitework system, with copy to the assigned ALJ. SCE also confirmed that SCE was “unable to find any recert[ification] activity on . [SCE does] not have a scanned or hard copy of a recert[ification] document on file. Mr. Malik as he was approved for CARE through our VRU (voice response) on 2/20/19.” Due to the impact of the pandemic, the conclusion of this matter has been delayed and the deadline to resolve this proceeding is June 30, 2021.Factual BackgroundIt is undisputed that Complainant has been a customer of SCE and has been served under SCE’s Schedule D-CARE, California Alternate Rates for Energy, Domestic Service, since February 17, 2005. Schedule D-CARE provides for a discount of approximately 30 percent on monthly electric bills for eligible customers. Decision (D.) 89-07-062 provides: “Program [CARE Program] participants will be required to recertify their eligibility every three years, and utilities may verify customer eligibility either randomly…”. Complainant’s ContentionsComplainant is a disabled veteran on a fixed income consisting of Veterans Administration and Social Security income. Complainant testified that he had mailed some “application” to SCE, sometime on or about July of 2018 (July 2018 Mailed Document). Complainant was uncertain as to whether that was a recertification document or income verification document. Complainant testified that, he had some follow-up telephone conversations with an SCE representative between July 2018 and December 2018, with the SCE representatives concerning that July 2018 Mailed Document; and on two occasions, after the July 2018 Mailed Document was sent to SCE, he had telephonic communications with SCE representative(s) who informed him that SCE did not receive the July 2018 Mailed Document. Complainant is also uncertain as to the specific timing of these telephonic communications. Complainant testified that, during one of his telephonic communications with an SCE representative, he requested SCE’s fax number so he could fax the recertification documents to SCE. Complainant testified that, in December 2018, he faxed the certification document to SCE and called SCE to confirm receipt and learned again, from an SCE representative, that SCE had not received the information. Complainant testified that there was a third telephonic call between July?2018 and December 2018, during which he informed a SCE representative that he had a copy of the confirmation number that confirmed that SCE had indeed received that fax transmission. Complainant claims that, only then, SCE acknowledged that SCE had the recertification document and that the effective date of the reinstatement to the CARE Program would be the date SCE completed the processing of the recertification document instead of the date SCE actually received it. Thus, Complainant filed this Complaint to seek Commission order to back date the reinstatement to the date his CARE Program reinstatement and to request that Commission investigate SCE’s potential pattern of discriminatory practice as against veterans.SCE’s ContentionsSCE contends that SCE has no record of any “applications” or documents having been submitted by Complainant to recertify on or about July 2018 nor any such submission between July 2018 to January 8, 2019. SCE also contends that it did not have the foregoing alleged three telephonic conversations with Complainant between July 2018 and December 2018. Instead, SCE presents the voice recordings and contends that SCE and Complainant had the following telephonic exchanges during following identified times:The first call on October 11, 2018, was related to a password reset for Complainant’s SCE account, MyAccount;The second call was on December 5, 2018, and it related to Complainant not being able to access the website to make a payment. The third and fourth calls were on December 10, 2018. Third call related to the Complainant’s request for his account being retroactively billed for CARE. The fourth call involved Complainant speaking with another SCE representative regarding his CARE recertification and being advised to send in income verification documents.The fifth and sixth calls were on January 15, 2019. In the fifth call, SCE informed Complainant that his fax had not been received by SCE, and then later that day, in the sixth call, SCE informed Complainant that SCE had in fact received the documents he faxed on January 8, 2019, which included bank statements, Medicare card, and Medi-Cal health card.In addition, SCE contends that it provided Complainant with multiple notices, reminders to timely complete the recertification process which he had failed to do. Notice/Reminder 1: On July 5, 2018, an automated call via SCE’s Voice Response Unit (VRU) was placed to the phone number on record with SCE, as provided by Complainant to SCE. That automated VRU message gave a 30-day advance notice to Complainant informing him to recertify for CARE and to expect a letter within the next 30 days or to call 1-800-890-1245 to complete the recertification process. Notice/Reminder 2: As of August 7, 2018, approximately a month after the July 5, 2018 automated VRU message was sent to Complainant’s telephone number on record with SCE, Complainant had not completed the required recertification process. There was also no evidence provided to show that Complainant had attempted to recertify before this date. On August 7, 2018, SCE e-mailed a Recertification Notice which directed Complainant to respond within 45 days (i.e., September 21, 2018). This email notification was sent to the email address on SCE’s record for Complainant, which was also one of the two email addresses Complainant had previously provided in this proceeding for official use.Notice/Reminder 3: As of September 6, 2018, approximately a month after the August 7, 2018 email notice, Complainant had not completed the required recertification process. There was also no evidence provided to show that Complainant had attempted to recertify before this date. On September 6, 2018, SCE provided Complainant with a third reminder to recertify by placing a second automated VRU call to the Complainant’s telephone number on record with SCE. This automated VRU message informed Complainant that he could recertify by using one of the three methods: (1)?calling 1-800-890-1245 and use the Interactive Voice Response, (2) visit to recertify, or (3) mail in the renewal application.Notice/Reminder 4: As of September 26, 2018, over two months after the initial July 5, 2018 automated VRU message was sent to the Complainant’s telephone number on record with SCE, Complainant had not completed the required recertification process. There was also no evidence provided to show that Complainant had attempted to recertify before this date. On September 26, 2018, SCE sent its final reminder to Complainant to recertify by emailing the Final Recertification Notice. This final email notification was also sent to the email address on SCE’s record for Complainant, which was also one of the two email addresses Complainant had previously provided in this proceeding for official use. This final notice gave Complainant additional time to complete the recertification and instructed Complainant to complete recertification within 45 days of that September 26, 2018 final notice (i.e., November 10, 2018).Notice/Reminder 5: In addition, on October 6, 2018, SCE left another automated VRU message for Complainant on the telephone number on record with SCE to provide additional reminder of the three methods: (1) calling 18008901245 and use the Interactive Voice Response, (2) visit to recertify, or (3) mail in the renewal application. This message also indicated that, as of October 6, 2018, SCE had not received his recertification through any of the three available recertification methods.Ultimately, SCE records show that, effective October 18, 2018, Complainant had failed to recertify through the channels offered and the Complainant’s account was removed from CARE Program, making his count ineligible for the CARE Program discount. On November 10, 2018, a letter was sent via U.S. mail to the Complainant’s service address notifying him that his account had been removed from the CARE Program.A full month after the November 10, 2018 notice, on December 10, 2018, Complainant finally called SCE, in an attempt to begin the recertification process. SCE Admissions: SCE representative admits that, during the December?10,?2018 telephone call (more than 45 days after Complainant was removed from the CARE Program for failure to recertify, as required), an SCE representative provided Complainant with misinformation regarding the need to provide proof of income and social security income information, which are not needed in the recertification process. SCE also admitted that, during the January?15,?2019 telephone call, an SCE representative erroneously advised Complainant that SCE had not received the faxed documents that Complainant had sent in. However, SCE did later confirm receipt of the said documents even though they were not required for recertification and acknowledged that it is possible that the receipt of the documents had not been recorded or noted on the Complainant’s account at the time of the first conversation. Although its above admitted error occurred long after Complainant was removed from the CARE Program for failure to recertify, as required, SCE acknowledges its culpability in adding some confusion to Complainant regarding the CARE recertification process from December 10, 2018 through and including January 15, 2019, with the income verification process. SCE acknowledges that the foregoing confusion contributed to some of the delay in SCE’s effort to recertify Complainant. On February 20, 2019, Complainant completed the recertification process using the Interactive Voice Response. Complainant’s account was reinstated on CARE as of January 18, 2019.SCE’s Courtesy and Remedial Actions: Although SCE had no evidence that Complainant made any attempt to complete the required CARE recertification process prior to the October 18, 2018 (the date his account was removed from the CARE Program), as a courtesy and in recognition of its subsequent errors during the December 10, 2018 and January 15, 2019 telephonic communications, SCE took immediate remedial actions.On September 19, 2019, SCE retroactively reinstated the Complainant’s account on CARE Program, effective October 18, 2018. SCE contacted Complainant on September 19, 2019, via a telephone call, followed by an email message to inform him of the retroactive reinstatement to CARE Program. SCE provided the Complainant’s requested relief in this proceeding and a credit of $180.15 to his account. In addition, Late Payment Charges that Complainant received in the amount of $8.80 were also waived and credited back to his account. Burden of ProofCalifornia law has long held that the party bringing a claim has the burden of proving that claim. The Commission follows this rule in its complaint cases.This means that Complainant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a majority or 51 percent or more) that his or her allegations are true. DiscussionThe issues presented by this Complaint are whether Complainant should be granted the reliefs he is seeking: (1) reinstatement back on CARE Program for the three-months billing periods from October 18, 2018 through January 18, 2019; and (2) initiation of an investigation of SCE’s CARE recertification process for potential discriminatory practices as against veterans. As discussed below, this Complaint is dismissed as moot and for the Complainant’s failure to meet his burden of proof. As for the first relief sought by Complainant (whether Complainant should be reinstated back on CARE Program for the three-months billing periods from October 18, 2018 through January 18, 2019), we find that the issue is moot. As of September 19, 2019, SCE has already reinstated the Complainant’s account on CARE Program, effective October 18, 2018. Complainant has therefore been reinstated on the CARE Program for the billing periods of October 18, 2018 through January 18, 2019, and been provided a bill credit of $180.15 to his account. In addition, SCE has also reversed the applicable Late Payment Charges. As we explained in Decision (D.)?17-06-009, a case is moot when there is no longer an actual controversy for our review, and our review and resulting decision would have no practical significance. While the parties have presented competing evidence on the series of events which precede and underlie this Complaint, we find that there is no longer any actual controversy as to the reinstatement issue for which a Commission decision would have any practical significance. Complainant has been reinstated back on the CARE Program back to the date when his account was initially removed (October 18, 2018) and refunded with account credits, including waiver of late fees. Therefore, we dismiss that claim as moot.As for the second relief sought by Complainant (whether the Commission should consider initiating an investigation of SCE’s CARE recertification process for potential discriminatory practices as against veterans), we find that a Complaint is an improper vehicle to request such investigation, and that the Complainant, who carries the burden of proving his claim, has failed to meet his burden and has presented no competent evidence that shows any such pattern in this proceeding. Therefore, we deny the request to initiate an investigation of SCE’s CARE recertification process for potential discriminatory practices as against veterans.Conclusion The Complainant’s requested reliefs are denied and the case is dismissed. This proceeding is closed. Assignment of Proceeding Genevieve Shiroma is the assigned Commissioner and Kimberly Kim is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding. Waiver of Comment Period Pursuant to Rule 14.7(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure the 30-day public review and comment period is not applicable in expedited complaint proceedings.ORDERIT IS ORDERED that:Case 19-08-009 is dismissed with prejudice.Case 19-08-009 is closed. This order is effective immediately.Dated , at San Francisco, California. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download