Case Background
On
April 27, 2026, Kerry Lutz (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Rulemaking
to Require All Florida-Licensed Utilities to Provide Immediate Live-Agent
Access in Automated Telephone and Artificial Intelligence Customer Service
Systems (Petition). The Petition requests that the Commission initiate
rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54(7), Florida Statutes (F.S.), to adopt a
new rule. Petitioner requests that this new rule require “all utilities
licensed to do business in the State of Florida — including electric, gas,
water, wastewater, and telecommunications utilities —to provide an immediate
live-agent bypass option in all automated telephone menus and artificial
intelligence customer-service systems.”
Pursuant
to Section 120.54(7)(a), F.S., any person regulated by an agency or having a
substantial interest in an agency rule may petition an agency to adopt, amend,
or repeal a rule. In
accordance with Section 120.54(7)(a), F.S., Petitioner alleges he has a
substantial interest in an agency rule and the Petition specifies the proposed
rule and action requested.
Procedural
Matters
Section
120.54(7)(a), F.S., requires that within 30 calendar days of the filing of a petition
to initiate rulemaking, the Commission must either initiate rulemaking or deny
the petition with a written statement of its reasons for the denial. However, Petitioner
agreed to waive the 30 day deadline in Section 120.54(7)(a), F.S., until June
5, 2026, and allow the Commission to consider the Petition at the June 2, 2026,
Agenda Conference.
This
recommendation addresses whether the Commission should initiate rulemaking or
deny the Petition. This recommendation does not address the merits of
the Petitioner’s suggested rule, or whether it satisfies the requirements of
Section 120.52 and 120.54, F.S. The
Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 120.54, 350.127(2), 366.05(1),
and 367.121, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the “Petition for
Rulemaking to Require All Florida-Licensed Utilities to Provide Immediate
Live-Agent Access in Automated Telephone and Artificial Intelligence Customer
Service Systems” (Petition)?
Recommendation:
No. The Commission should deny the Petition.
(Sapoznikoff, Kendrick)
Staff Analysis: Below is a discussion of the rule language requested by the
Petitioner, his stated reasons for filing the Petition, and staff’s analysis.
The Requested Rule Language
The Petition
requests that the Commission adopt the following rule language:
Any utility regulated by or
licensed through the Florida Public Service Commission that utilizes an
automated telephone menu system, interactive voice response system, or
artificial intelligence assistant for customer service purposes shall:
(a) Provide a clear, audible,
and conspicuous option for the caller to be transferred immediately to a live
human representative. This option must be presented within the first sixty (60)
seconds of any automated interaction;
(b) Honor the selection of
the digit ‘0’ or the spoken word ‘agent,’ ‘representative,’ or ‘human’ at any
point during the automated interaction as a command to route the caller to a
live-agent queue, without further automated interrogation;
(c) Not require a customer to
complete automated screening, disclose account credentials, or submit to
biometric or AI-driven identification as a precondition to live-agent access;
(d) Post estimated live-agent
wait times within thirty (30) seconds of queue placement; and
(e) Maintain records of
monthly average live-agent wait times and call abandonment rates, which shall
be reported to the Commission quarterly and made available for public
inspection.
The Petition
Petitioner
states that he is a Florida resident and ratepayer of Commission-regulated
utilities. He alleges:
The proliferation of automated telephone trees
and AI-gated customer service systems – deployed by virtually every utility
licensed to operate in Florida – has created systemic barriers that prevent
ratepayers from: (a) reporting safety emergencies in real time; (b) disputing
erroneous billing charges; (c) requesting service disconnection deferrals under
hardship; and (d) accessing basic account services without surrendering
personal data to third-party artificial intelligence platforms. These barriers
constitute a failure of adequate and efficient service within the meaning of
Chapters 364, 366, and 367, Florida Statutes.
The Petition states that the Commission has the
“authority under Sections 364.01, 366.04, 366.05, 367.111, and related
provisions of Florida law to adopt and enforce customer service quality
standards,” and that the draft rule he provides in his petition “falls squarely
within the Commission’s existing jurisdiction and requires no additional
legislative authorization.” In support of his petition, he states that the
Commission has a statutory mandate under Chapters 364, 366, and 367, Florida
Statutes, to ensure that the services Florida utilities supply are provided
“adequately” and “efficiently” and that “[s]ervice that is inaccessible by
human telephone contact during an emergency is, by definition, neither adequate
nor efficient.”
Petitioner claims that current automated
systems are “frequently engineered to discourage live-agent contact rather than
facilitate it, creating ‘infinite loop’ architectures that exhaust callers.” He
states that “[i]ndustry evidence and ratepayer experience confirm that current
automated systems are architecturally optimized to minimize live-agent call
volume – a cost-reduction strategy implemented at the direct expense of service
quality and customer protection.” He alleges that “[s]enior citizens, persons
with disabilities, non-English-speaking ratepayers, and those in crisis
situations are systemically disadvantaged by AI-generated service
architectures.”
The Petition also states that “AI-driven
customer service systems collect, process, and retain biometric voice data,
call metadata, and behavioral patterns.” He asserts that “[c]onditioning
live-agent access on submission to such systems imposes an uncompensated
data-extraction toll on ratepayers as a condition of receiving services they
have already paid for” and that “[t]his practice implicates the Florida Digital
Bill of Rights.”
Petitioner asserts that the Commission’s
existing rules do not address the concerns set forth in the Petition. He states
that the “regulatory gap has grown significantly as utilities have accelerated
AI-driven automation of customer contact,” and that “[r]ulemaking is the
appropriate vehicle to close the gap prospectively and uniformly across all
regulated entities.”
Analysis:
Staff recommends that the Commission deny the
Petition for the following reasons. First, staff notes the Petition alleges
that under Chapter 364, F.S., the Commission has the authority to regulate telecommunications
companies in the manner requested in the Petition. This is incorrect. Chapter
364, F.S., does not grant the Commission the authority to regulate the quality
of service of telecommunications companies. Thus, the Commission cannot adopt a
rule, such as is requested in the Petition, with regard to telecommunications
companies.
As for
Commission-regulated utilities, there is significant variation in the size,
staffing, and structure not only between water, wastewater, gas, and electric
companies, but also within each industry. Accordingly, the Commission
historically allows its regulated utilities to determine how to manage their
day-to-day business, including customer service, because in many cases a
universal rule is impracticable. The Commission typically does not regulate
utilities on the granular level requested by the Petition, unless there is a
demonstrated reason to do so.
The Commission already has rules requiring all
Commission-regulated utilities to have s system for receiving and promptly
responding to emergency calls on a 24-hour per day basis. From staff’s
experience and knowledge with customer complaints, there does not appear to be any
broad-based issue with customers being unable to reach their utilities to (a)
report safety emergencies in real time; (b) dispute erroneous billing charges;
(c) request service disconnection deferrals under hardship; or (d) access basic
account services. Nor has there been any issue with customers voicing concern
over “surrendering personal data to third-party artificial intelligence
platforms.” If those are issues, customers have not been addressing them to the
Commission. Many of these activities can be adequately handled without use of a
live agent and many customers may prefer that mode of interaction. That is not
to say that the Commission does not receive complaints from utility customers regarding
billing charges, service disconnection issues, or other service complaints. In
those instances, however, the issue is with the customers not liking the
outcome of the interaction, not an allegation that they were unable to
sufficiently interact with the utility. Accordingly, staff does not believe it
is necessary for the Commission to initiate rulemaking at this time.
Alternatively, staff notes that were the
Commission to grant the Petition, that decision does not mean that the
Commission has proposed, or would be required to propose, the adoption of any
rule. Rather, a decision to grant the Petition would merely begin the
rulemaking process. Staff would return at a later date with a recommendation
for the Commission on whether to propose a new rule.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Commission should deny the “Petition
for Rulemaking to Require All Florida-Licensed Utilities to Provide Immediate
Live-Agent Access in Automated Telephone and Artificial Intelligence Customer
Service Systems.”
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. If the Commission approves staff’s
recommendation in Issue 1, this docket should be closed. (Sapoznikoff)
Staff Analysis:
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in
Issue 1, this docket should be closed.
