In a heated exchange, the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) trustees have taken a sharp aim at PSEG's preliminary findings regarding its aggressive collection tactics. This comes as a surprise, given that the probe was initiated in response to reports of aggressive collection practices by PSEG, the utility company that operates the electric system for LIPA. The trustees' criticism highlights a critical oversight: the absence of customer interviews in the probe, which raises questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.
The trustees, led by Anthony La Pinta, expressed frustration over the methodology and early conclusions of the probe. La Pinta questioned the validity of the report, stating, "Why would anyone come up with conclusions if you’re in a preliminary stage of something?" This sentiment underscores the trustees' belief that more work is needed to address the issue effectively.
Vanessa Baird-Streeter, another trustee, pointed out the lack of customer interviews, noting that the probe focused primarily on back-office staff and supervisors. She questioned the intention to reach out to the 1.2 million customers, emphasizing the importance of understanding the customer's perspective.
Dan Shapiro, the deputy general counsel at PSEG who led the probe, acknowledged the customer complaints review and the ride-along with a field collector. However, the trustees remained skeptical, especially regarding the action item that involves managers reviewing materials before employees speak at conferences. Mili Makhijani, a trustee, argued that such a policy could gag employees and prevent negative information from coming to light.
Tracey Edwards, the LIPA chairwoman, pressed PSEG on the depth of its workforce interviews, demanding to know more about how employees are rewarded and disciplined. She emphasized that reviewing process documents alone is not sufficient to address the issue.
Scott Jennings, president and chief operating officer of PSEG's Long Island division, defended the company's swift action in launching the internal probe. He assured the board that any positive findings do not mean the matter is closed, indicating a commitment to ongoing cooperation.
The meeting also revealed that PSEG met 75% of its performance targets for 2025, forfeiting $5.14 million of a potential $23.89 million bonus. However, PSEG missed key measures of reliability, including outage duration and frequency, residential customer satisfaction, and worker safety.
The trustees' criticism of the probe highlights a deeper concern about the effectiveness of PSEG's self-investigation. It raises questions about the company's ability to address aggressive collection tactics and the need for a more comprehensive and customer-centric approach. As the probe continues, the trustees' demands for transparency and accountability will be crucial in ensuring that PSEG takes the necessary steps to improve its collection practices and customer service.
