Transcription
ALJ/KK2/jnfDate of Issuance 5/25/2021Decision 21-05-023 May 20, 2021BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIARashid El Malik,Complainant,vs.(ECP)Case 19-08-009Southern California EdisonCompany (U 338-E),Defendant.DECISION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTSummaryThis decision dismisses the expedited complaint filed by Rashid El Malikagainst Southern California Edison Company. This proceeding is closed.1.Procedural BackgroundOn August 16, 2019, Rashid El Malik (Complainant) filed theabove-captioned complaint against Southern California Edison Company (SCE)requesting that SCE reinstate his account on the California Alternate Rates forEnergy (CARE) program for the three-months billing periods fromOctober 18, 2018 through January 18, 2019, and for the Commission to open aninvestigation of SCE’s CARE recertification process for potential discriminatory385738584-1-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfpractices as against veterans (Complaint). On September 24, 2019, SCE timelyfiled its answer.After multiple settings and resettings upon parties’ requests andstipulations, a hearing was held on January 10, 2020, in Junipero Serra StateOffice Building – Hearing Room, 320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, California90013. Complainant appeared and testified on his behalf. SCE appeared throughPrahba Cadambi, from SCE’s Regulatory Affairs - State Regulatory Operations.During the January 10, 2020 hearing, Complainant spent a large part of thehearing directing questions to the SCE representative instead of providingtestimony and evidence on his behalf to support his claims in the Complaint. Heasked numerous questions regarding the type of income information that shouldbe provided during the recertification process and the types of income verifyingdocumentation that should be provided with recertification paperwork. He alsoindicated that he suspected there is a potential discriminatory practice patternagainst veterans and indicated that he may be filing a claim against SCE, in aseparate civil proceeding, for which he is seeking all of the continuing discovery.During the hearing and after, Complainant was informed by theAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the scope of the permitted discovery in thisproceeding is limited to the issues in his Complaint. He was also reminded thatthe discovery period for this case ended before the commencement of the hearingand that if he has no evidence to present and is merely seeking additionaldiscovery for this potential pattern of discriminatory practice for his anticipatedcivil claim against SCE, that is not proper discovery request the Commission isable to entertain during the hearing in this matter.Although the hearing adjourned on January 10, 2020, as a courtesy toComplainant and at the request of the assigned ALJ, SCE’s representative further-2-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfreviewed SCE’s record and provided additional and follow-up courtesyresponses to the Complainant’s request for certain information that were inSCE’s record, where such information was available, including the following:1. How many CARE recertification application relateddocuments are reported as lost or missing?SCE provided its record of Monthly RecertificationApplication Related Complaints (2018-19) as filed in ourmonthly reports to the California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC). (Source: MONTHLY REPORT OFSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)ON LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS)2018 Recertification Application Related Complaints(involving missing document)MonthMissing ep00Oct11Nov00Dec00Total16-3-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnf2019 Recertification Application Related Complaints(involving missing document)MonthMissing ep01Oct00Nov11Dec00Total6132. What types of income is considered in SCE’s review offixed income customers (e.g., medical income?)In response, SCE provided the following list fromits CARE Policies and Procedures:Fixed income includes: Dividends Interest on assets Pensions – Private (payments or withdrawals) Pensions – Government (payments or withdrawals) Pension – IRA distribution, and Social Security payments.3. Does SCE have any hard copy recertification application orvoice recordings between SCE representative andComplainant?In response, SCE provided the zip files of the voicerecordings in its custody to Complainant by emailvia Kitework system, with copy to the assignedALJ. SCE also confirmed that SCE was “unable tofind any recert[ification] activity on sce.com. [SCE-4-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfdoes] not have a scanned or hard copy of arecert[ification] document on file. Mr. Malik as hewas approved for CARE through our VRU (voiceresponse) on 2/20/19.”Due to the impact of the pandemic, the conclusion of this matter has beendelayed and the deadline to resolve this proceeding is June 30, 2021.2.Factual BackgroundIt is undisputed that Complainant has been a customer of SCE and hasbeen served under SCE’s Schedule D-CARE, California Alternate Rates for Energy,Domestic Service, since February 17, 2005. Schedule D-CARE provides for adiscount of approximately 30 percent on monthly electric bills for eligiblecustomers.Decision (D.) 89-07-062 provides: “Program [CARE Program] participantswill be required to recertify their eligibility every three years, and utilities mayverify customer eligibility either randomly ”.1Complainant’s ContentionsComplainant is a disabled veteran on a fixed income consisting of VeteransAdministration and Social Security income. Complainant testified that he hadmailed some “application” to SCE, sometime on or about July of 2018 (July 2018Mailed Document). Complainant was uncertain as to whether that was arecertification document or income verification document.Complainant testified that, he had some follow-up telephoneconversations with an SCE representative between July 2018 and December 2018,with the SCE representatives concerning that July 2018 Mailed Document; andon two occasions, after the July 2018 Mailed Document was sent to SCE, he had1Id., Finding of Fact 24.-5-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnftelephonic communications with SCE representative(s) who informed him thatSCE did not receive the July 2018 Mailed Document. Complainant is alsouncertain as to the specific timing of these telephonic communications.Complainant testified that, during one of his telephonic communicationswith an SCE representative, he requested SCE’s fax number so he could fax therecertification documents to SCE. Complainant testified that, in December 2018,he faxed the certification document to SCE and called SCE to confirm receipt andlearned again, from an SCE representative, that SCE had not received theinformation.Complainant testified that there was a third telephonic call betweenJuly 2018 and December 2018, during which he informed a SCE representativethat he had a copy of the confirmation number that confirmed that SCE hadindeed received that fax transmission. Complainant claims that, only then, SCEacknowledged that SCE had the recertification document and that the effectivedate of the reinstatement to the CARE Program would be the date SCEcompleted the processing of the recertification document instead of the date SCEactually received it. Thus, Complainant filed this Complaint to seek Commissionorder to back date the reinstatement to the date his CARE Program reinstatementand to request that Commission investigate SCE’s potential pattern ofdiscriminatory practice as against veterans.SCE’s ContentionsSCE contends that SCE has no record of any “applications” or documentshaving been submitted by Complainant to recertify on or about July 2018 nor anysuch submission between July 2018 to January 8, 2019. SCE also contends that itdid not have the foregoing alleged three telephonic conversations withComplainant between July 2018 and December 2018. Instead, SCE presents the-6-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfvoice recordings and contends that SCE and Complainant had the followingtelephonic exchanges during following identified times:1.The first call on October 11, 2018, was related to a passwordreset for Complainant’s SCE account, MyAccount;2.The second call was on December 5, 2018, and it related toComplainant not being able to access the sce.com website tomake a payment.3.The third and fourth calls were on December 10, 2018.Third call related to the Complainant’s request for hisaccount being retroactively billed for CARE. The fourth callinvolved Complainant speaking with another SCErepresentative regarding his CARE recertification and beingadvised to send in income verification documents.The fifthand sixth calls were on January 15, 2019. In the fifth call,SCE informed Complainant that his fax had not beenreceived by SCE, and then later that day, in the sixth call,SCE informed Complainant that SCE had in fact receivedthe documents he faxed on January 8, 2019, which includedbank statements, Medicare card, and Medi-Cal health card.2In addition, SCE contends that it provided Complainant with multiplenotices, reminders to timely complete the recertification process which he hadfailed to do.Notice/Reminder 1: On July 5, 2018, an automated call via SCE’s VoiceResponse Unit (VRU) was placed to the phone number on record with SCE, asprovided by Complainant to SCE. That automated VRU message gave a 30-dayadvance notice to Complainant informing him to recertify for CARE and toexpect a letter within the next 30 days or to call 1-800-890-1245 to complete therecertification process.SCE admits that these documents are not required for Recertification and unfortunately wererequested in error by SCE.2-7-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfNotice/Reminder 2: As of August 7, 2018, approximately a month after theJuly 5, 2018 automated VRU message was sent to Complainant’s telephonenumber on record with SCE, Complainant had not completed the requiredrecertification process. There was also no evidence provided to show thatComplainant had attempted to recertify before this date.On August 7, 2018, SCE e-mailed a Recertification Notice which directedComplainant to respond within 45 days (i.e., September 21, 2018). This emailnotification was sent to the email address on SCE’s record for Complainant,which was also one of the two email addresses Complainant had previouslyprovided in this proceeding for official use.Notice/Reminder 3: As of September 6, 2018, approximately a month afterthe August 7, 2018 email notice, Complainant had not completed the requiredrecertification process. There was also no evidence provided to show thatComplainant had attempted to recertify before this date.On September 6, 2018, SCE provided Complainant with a third reminderto recertify by placing a second automated VRU call to the Complainant’stelephone number on record with SCE. This automated VRU message informedComplainant that he could recertify by using one of the three methods:(1) calling 1-800-890-1245 and use the Interactive Voice Response, (2) visitsce.com to recertify, or (3) mail in the renewal application.Notice/Reminder 4: As of September 26, 2018, over two months after theinitial July 5, 2018 automated VRU message was sent to the Complainant’stelephone number on record with SCE, Complainant had not completed therequired recertification process. There was also no evidence provided to showthat Complainant had attempted to recertify before this date.-8-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfOn September 26, 2018, SCE sent its final reminder to Complainant torecertify by emailing the Final Recertification Notice. This final emailnotification was also sent to the email address on SCE’s record for Complainant,which was also one of the two email addresses Complainant had previouslyprovided in this proceeding for official use. This final notice gave Complainantadditional time to complete the recertification and instructed Complainant tocomplete 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 anotherautomated VRU message for Complainant on the telephone number on recordwith SCE to provide additional reminder of the three methods: (1) calling1-800-890-1245 and use the Interactive Voice Response, (2) visit sce.com torecertify, 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 thethree available recertification methods.Ultimately, SCE records show that, effective October 18, 2018,Complainant had failed to recertify through the channels offered and theComplainant’s account was removed from CARE Program, making his countineligible for the CARE Program discount. On November 10, 2018, a letter wassent via U.S. mail to the Complainant’s service address notifying him that hisaccount 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 theDecember 10, 2018 telephone call (more than 45 days after Complainant wasremoved from the CARE Program for failure to recertify, as required), an SCE-9-
C.19-08-009 ALJ/KK2/jnfrepresentative provided Complainant with misinformation regarding the need toprovide proof of income and social security income information, which are notneeded in the recertification process. SCE also admitted that, during theJanuary 15, 2019 telephone call, an SCE representative erroneously advisedComplainant that SCE had not received the faxed documents that Complainanthad sent in. However, SCE did later confirm receipt of the said documents eventhough they were not required for recertification and acknowledged that it ispossible that the receipt of the documents had not been recorded or noted on theComplainant’s account at the time of the first conversation.Although its above admitted erro
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 .
