PUC upholds Order for GTT to revert to detailed paper bills

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in Order 1 of 2020 dated October 19, 2020, refused a request by the GTT for a variation/ review of Order 2 of 2019 made by the Commission relating to the issuance of detailed paper billing as opposed to summarised e-billing.

The PUC heard extensive arguments in the matter on August 19, 2020, during which submissions were made by GTT; PUC; the Guyana Consumers Association; and Raymon Gaskin, a GTT landline customer who had complained about changes to the format of his paper telephone bill for May 2019.
In August 2019, Gaskin had complained to the Commission that the format of his paper tax invoice (telephone bill) for his landline service for May 2019 was changed. He said the new submission omitted from his bill details which were now available only via GTT’s online portal.
As a consequence, he noted, this unilateral change resulted in the exclusion of substantial billing information which was contained in previous paper bills. These were the Calling Party Call Table and overseas call details.
The PUC facilitated a hearing on the matter, during which GTT officials acknowledged failure to notify Gaskin of the change to the billing system and apologised.

Criticised
The PUC upbraided GTT for its failure to give prior notification and hold effective educational campaigns for its customers in relation to the change in the billing format. Further, the PUC criticised the utility company for embarking on this new method of billing without even notifying the Commission. The Commission rendered its decisions in October 2019 via Order 2 of 2019.

In Order 2 of 2019, the PUC ordered that GTT revert to its old system of dispatching detailed paper bills to customers. It ordered that the choice to cancel online billing and resume paper billing must be clearly stated on the GTT online portals. It ordered that the company must ensure that its billing platform, over which paperless billing is offered, is uptime and experiences minimum latency.
In the event that the platform fails during any billing period or cycle, GTT is required to inform all paperless customers, and dispatch to said customers physical bills.
The PUC further ordered that any customer who was issued a summary bill from May 2019, but is desirous of receiving a detailed bill, is to be issued same by GTT free of charge upon request by that customer. This particular order is guided by the PUC’s view that an invoice which conforms to commercial practices should include, among other things, an itemised breakdown of all charges on the invoice, and the charges for the consumer.
Among other things, GTT has also been ordered to place notices, disseminated prominently via online-media and Short Messaging Service (SMS), to notify consumers of the new billing format, and give them the choice to remain with paper billing.
Notwithstanding Order 1 of 2019, the PUC commended GTT for its efforts in moving towards a green economy in utilizing technology for its billing systems.

Review
In a letter dated June 24, 2020, GTT, among other things, requested that the Commission review/vary Order 2 of 2019 in accordance with Section 77 of the PUC Act. The PUC, in August 2020, convened a hearing in relation to GTT’s application. During the hearing, GTT informed the Commission that its online portals allow consumers to access details of their transactions free of cost. It posited that it is compliant with Order No. 2 of 2019 which mandates that an option must be provided by the company to allow customers to opt out of receiving the new billing format and to receive the detailed paper bills free of cost.
GTT submitted that since Order No. 2 of 2019 was enforced, GTT had received approximately 120 applications from its customers for detailed paper bills, and, to date, 114 applications have been successfully processed. The company maintained that, with respect to the issuance of bills, it is guided by section 51 of the PUC Act, No. 10 of 1999, and that nowhere in the Act does it state either format or the content to be contained in the bill.
The company informed the Commission during the virtual hearing that electronic billing has become an international best practice, and provided examples of several countries where electronic billing has subsumed paper billing.
International best practices evolve over time, and are never universally uniform. Socio-economic conditions of jurisdictions are contributory factors, the GTT contends.

Order stands
In declining to vary Order 2 of 2019, the PUC noted that the summarised paper bill version as issued by GTT since May, 2019 lacks sufficient detail, as it fails to set out the requisite information for the consumer. In the decision, signed by its Chairman, Attorney-at-Law Dela Britton, the PUC maintained that GTT is required to issue detailed paper bills to all persons who are desirous of receiving same.
“Consistent with Order 2 of 2019, since GTT shall provide detailed paper bills to all persons desirous of receiving or reverting to the same, free of cost, the proposed categories of persons as contemplated by the company, namely the elderly and disabled, for whom the company requested the issuance of paper bills free of charge, does not arise for consideration.”
The Commission emphasised that GTT’s opt-out request form is applicable only to consumers who had received the new billing format (summary bill) from May 2019 and who were requesting to access GTT’s online portal in order to view their detailed bills.
“All customers who had not opted for the electronic format of the bills are to receive their detailed paper bills. In light of the aforementioned, the Commission declines to vary Order 2 of 2019, and that Order stands,” PUC noted in Order 1 of 2020.
It said that, in arriving at a decision, it examined Section 51 of the Public Utilities Commission Act, which provides as follows:
“Every public utility shall supply every consumer every month, or at such other intervals as may be agreed to by the Commission or provided for in a licence or any written law in relation to any consumer or class of consumers, a bill showing the sum payable by the consumer on account of any service provided by the public utility during the preceding month, or other relevant period as may be agreed to by the Commission, or for such other intervals and periods as may be prescribed by its licence.”
It said that whilst the Commission cannot be presumptuous to clothe itself with the apparent role of interpreting statutes, which is solely within the purview of the Court of Appeal, it noted that at the time of the promulgation of the Act, the concept of electronic billing was not within the contemplation and spirit of the framers of the law, as the technology had not advanced to embrace the electronic billing format, and as such was in reference to paper bills.
“We [PUC] believe that with technological changes, the section is sufficiently broad to cover what obtains today, that is both the electronic and paper billing formats. The Commission’s position is that either format is acceptable, once the consumer is in receipt of a detailed bill. For clarity, by detailed bill we mean the bill that is issued inclusive of the Calling Party Pay Call tables and overseas call details.”
The Commission therefore held that it has no objection to the company issuing detailed bills on its electronic billing platform. It said, too, that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a paradigm shift in the way businesses are conducted.
The PUC noted that if it is to hold true to the adage that regulation must not stifle innovation, it must use this opportunity to emphasise that the Commission has no objection to the electronic billing formats, provided that it is the consumer who voluntarily determines the medium for same.