Minnesota PUC Clears Frontier Settlement Amid Concerns

The settlement “won’t remedy all the wrongs that Minnesotans face,” due to the PUC’s limited regulatory authority, said Chairman Katie Sieben. But it’s “a path toward righting the wrongs and correcting some of the inequities” consumers face, the Democrat said.

A separate Frontier investigation by Minnesota’s attorney general continues, an AG spokesperson said Thursday. The AG office, which revealed the probe earlier this year (see 1903060033), raised concerns that the Frontier/Commerce settlement lacked teeth. The AG wasn’t a signing party, though a representative at Thursday’s meeting said that was never an option.

The Aug. 2 settlement with Commerce includes a process by which Frontier will offer customer remedies for past problems, take steps to improve future service quality, customer service and billing practices, and meet ongoing service-quality performance standards. Frontier and Minnesota Commerce reached the agreement after a Commerce report found the carrier possibly violated at least 35 laws and rules. Frontier issues worried Minnesota lawmakers and upset customers but didn't surprise workers (see 1901140002).

Commissioner Dan Lipschultz proposed some edits that were adopted, including to say the terms are enforceable through civil penalties under state law, and to allow the PUC to resolve disputes under expedited process. The Democrat asked many questions about how requirements in the settlement differ from what Frontier was previously required to do, but he later said he's satisfied the pact had a “good chance of changing Frontier’s behavior.”

Frontier problems left Commissioner John Tuma (R) “second-guessing” his vote for deregulation when he was in the legislature. “I am really struggling with this settlement,” and “I just don’t want people to think that this is the answer,” he said. Tuma is skeptical the settlement will fix all plant problems. “I don't see any tool" for a mayor from a place with poor network plant other “than to just come to us,” he said. Tuma said he wishes he could address Frontier internet issues for which the PUC lacks authority.

“To say that I was troubled” by issues consumers reported at hearings is “an understatement,” said Commissioner Valerie Means (D). She supported the settlement because it provides “some relief.”

Frontier remains “committed to working to improve” telephone service quality in Minnesota, and “we believe the settlement agreement … will do exactly that,” said Frontier General Counsel Kevin Seville.

The settlement’s teeth are in the remedies for consumers, with many exceeding what was previously available, Seville said. It was “difficult” to hear customer complaints at public hearings, he said. Frontier “apologized to those customers” and followed up with those who gave the carrier more information, he said. Frontier thinks it helped most customers eligible for credit, but the settlement provides a “backstop,” so customers not yet assisted can call in and get remedy, he said.

A new 1-800 number and web contact form -- which even non-customers can use for reporting plant issues -- will help prioritize repairs, said Seville. “One of the problems we've had in the past” is reports “get lost in the shuffle internally,” but the new process will ensure it gets to senior management's attention for prioritized review, he said.

The pact compensates subscribers for past harms while holding Frontier accountable in the future, said Minnesota Commerce Assistant Attorney General Katherine Hinderlie. It doesn’t reduce PUC authority, while preserving consumer rights to get relief, she said. There are better remedies now for customers, and clearer and more detailed reporting required by settlement will ensure future compliance, she said.

The proposed settlement “does not guarantee that Frontier will provide its customers with any relief,” but “merely provides a procedural framework for the types of remedies available to Frontier customers in the event Frontier later agrees with a customer’s complaint regarding past conduct,” the Minnesota AG office commented in August. It "offers certain customer relief for past Frontier conduct that is identical to the types of customer remedies already provided for by Frontier’s now-expired” Alternative Form of Regulation plan, signaling “that the remedies provided for in the Proposed Penalty for certain past conduct by Frontier are not commensurate with the gravity of the allegations by the Department Report."

Vermont Probe

Consolidated failed to meet a Vermont metric for clearing problems within 24 hours last month due to staffing issues, Vice President-Regulatory Mike Shultz told the Vermont PUC at a Friday hearing, said a transcript released Wednesday in docket 18-3231-PET. A pending deal put a freeze on 10 service splice technician positions, while the company lost 30 percent of its contractors who left to help handle Hurricane Dorian, he said.

The 24-hour metric is “outdated,” Shultz said. If customer call at midnight to say their phone is out, the schedule is already set for the next 24 hours, and if they call first thing in the morning, that day's schedule is "typically set." Also, customers sometimes like choosing a repair time that’s not within 24 hours to better fit their schedule, he said.

Consolidated opposes automatic bill credits to consumers in places where the company misses service-quality metrics, Shultz said. Consolidated gives bill credits only to people who call in to complain. Rules don’t require automatic credits, and “it's not going to change whether it's 24 or greater in terms of the prioritization,” he said.

Vermont PUC Chairman Anthony Roisman asked if the company would be OK with putting money into a special fund dedicated to addressing problems in the area where it failed a service-quality metric. Consolidated “would have to understand how that arrangement is set up and how it works,” Shultz replied.

Bill credits give financial incentive for Consolidated to “adequately staff their garages and make sure that consumers are put back into service within the 24-hour period,” said Vermont Public Service Department Telecommunications Director Clay Purvis. Roisman’s proposed fund might work, but Purvis said a downside is, if it doesn't solve the problem, “there's still no compensation for the customer.”