Oden complaint advances; CPUC gives CUC 20 days to answer or offer relief

Dr. Gene Eagle-Oden pressed his case before the Commonwealth Public Utilities Commission last Feb. 13, arguing that he has been subjected to back-billing without ever receiving a proper, itemized bill—a claim that prompted the commission to find a prima facie case and give the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. 20 days to respond or offer relief.

Meeting at the CPUC office at Marianas Business Plaza, commission chair James Sirok moved to take up the Oden complaint out of order, so Oden and his attorney would not have to wait until later in the day.

“I’d like to be able to go down to the agenda… so that they don’t have to wait for, and probably even come back at 2 o’clock to deal with this very short issue,” Sirok said, after commissioners agreed to vary from the agenda—an exception he said was being made so the parties present could address the matter immediately.

Sirok said he received Oden’s complaint last Feb. 2 and described it as “voluminous.” After reviewing the filing and attachments, including a Superior Court decision involving similar back-billing issues, he said the threshold under the commission’s rules had been met.

“I’m finding that the complaint provides a prima facie case for us to consider,” Sirok said, citing Rule 13 and Rule 14.

Under Rule 13.1, once a prima facie case of an unlawful or unreasonable act by a regulated entity is established, the matter proceeds as a formal complaint and must be served on the utility, which then has 20 days to answer.

“Here’s how I’m going to handle this,” Sirok said. “I requested Mr. Oden to serve a copy of his complaint on CUC before the end of next week. I’m going to take Friday, next Friday, as the start of that 20-day period.”

He outlined CUC’s options—resolve the issue under Rule 14, file an answer, or submit a proposed statement of relief before the commission sets the matter for hearing.

“So within that 20 days, CUC has the ability to say, ‘Okay, there’s been a complaint established that we are going to take action on, and here’s what we’re going to do with it,’ versus a general denial,” Sirok said.

As Sirok framed it, the core issue is that Oden “has never received an actual billing. He’s only gotten demand letters.” He added that if back-billing is pursued, there must be “some kind of a mechanism or formula that’s used and described on how you got to the number.”

CUC counsel Michael Ernest noted that the Superior Court decision referenced by Sirok is currently on appeal before the CNMI Supreme Court and cautioned that the utility may face limitations while that appeal is pending.

Sirok responded that the commission was not ruling on the merits.

“No, I said he provided a prima facie case. I don’t know whether his case is valid or not. We haven’t made any decision on it,” he said. “It doesn’t mean you’re going to succeed. It doesn’t mean you’re going to fail. It just means that right now, that’s how we’re going to deal with this as a commission.”

In his prepared remarks and public comments to the commission, Oden said his complaint centers on what he described as the absence of due process in billing. He maintained that he had repeatedly asked for a detailed, itemized statement explaining the basis for the charges and the methodology used to calculate them, but instead received demand letters.

Oden told commissioners that without a proper bill, he has been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review, verify, or dispute the amounts claimed. He argued that transparency in billing is not only required under court guidance but fundamental to fairness and accountability in a regulated utility.

He thanked the commission for taking up the matter while he was present.

“I’d just like to say at least thank you for your time and thank you for everyone’s attention,” Oden said.

“I feel that… we have the opportunity, the opportunity for justice to be done, and that’s all we can ask for in our democratic judicial system,” he added. “Thank you, everyone, for hearing our case and giving us our time and our opportunity to speak out on something we thought was out of kilter and wrong.”

The commission will determine its next step after the 20-day response period expires or earlier if CUC elects to provide relief.