PPL Says Customer List "Status Quo" Different for Its Service Area Email This Story February 28, 2011
PPL Electric Utilities urged the Pennsylvania PUC to reject the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence's (PCADV) request that the PUC require PPL to change its current practices regarding the release of customer information, and allow customers to withhold all information from being shared with retail suppliers, as PPL said that such a modification would be inconsistent with the "status quo" ordered by the Commonwealth Court.
In Docket M-2010-218412, a generic proceeding on eligible customer lists, the PUC ordered that customers may only restrict the sharing of their telephone number, billing address and historic usage, and not any other information.
Although the Commonwealth Court granted a supersedeas requested by PCADV regarding implementation of the PUC's order in Docket M-2010-218412 (see 2/17), PPL noted that, prior to this generic proceeding, the PUC had already modified the customer list provisions at PPL in a PPL-specific proceeding in M-2009-2104271. Specifically, in M-2009-2104271, the PUC ordered that customers at PPL may only restrict their historical billing information, and that customer phone numbers would not be shared. Customers could not restrict all of their information.
PPL noted that the final order in M-2009-2104271 was not appealed and remains a valid Commission order with which PPL must comply. Therefore, unlike at most utilities, the status quo at PPL is that customers may only restrict their historical billing information, as the PUC's order in M-2009-2104271 superseded the original finding in Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Association v. Pa. PUC, in which customers were permitted to restrict all of their information.
"Requiring PPL Electric to ignore this order and change its existing procedures regarding the release of customer information plainly does not preserve the status quo as mandated by the Court's order," PPL said.
PPL also said that allowing its customers to restrict the sharing of all of their information would cause PPL to incur several million dollars in potentially unnecessary costs with no mechanism for recovery, and could cause substantial confusion among customers.