Topeka ? There could be cold winters ahead for Kansans who consistently fail to pay their natural gas bills, as regulators study suggested changes in the state’s “cold weather rule.”

The Kansas Corporation Commission on Wednesday heard proposals from both its own staff and several companies on how to modify the rule, which prohibits disconnections of gas and electricity for nonpayment from Nov. 1 through March.

At issue is how much customers who are disconnected during warmer months must pay to be reconnected. Under current rules, utilities can charge a maximum 8.3 percent or one-twelfth of a customer’s outstanding bill.

Both the KCC staff and utilities propose raising the reconnection fee to at least 15 percent of the outstanding bill. But they differ on how to price reconnections for customers who are shut off year after year with unpaid balances.

Officials from 10 utilities and four other agencies and consumer advocacy groups attended Wednesday’s hearing. The commission is to meet May 1 to begin writing an order.

The KCC agreed to examine the cold-weather rule after rejecting a request from Kansas Gas Service last August to force customers to pay outstanding balances before receiving gas service for the winter.

Commissioners acknowledged that some customers may abuse the rule to keep their service in winter months while making only token efforts to pay what they owe.

Utility officials contend that unless the rule is modified, bad debt caused by people “playing the system” will be passed on to other consumers.

In 2001, which brought an unusually cold winter and a sharp spike in natural gas prices, Kansas Gas Service wrote off $11.5 million in bad debt double its typical write-off. About 28,000 customers owed an additional $4.5 million, the company reported.

“The phenomenon of noncompliance would occur but not as consistently if the cold weather rule was fixed,” Paul Raab, a consultant for Kansas Gas Service, told the KCC on Wednesday.

“It is the rule itself that is imposing the behavior,” he said.

But consumer advocates question whether modifying the rule would cut off service to customers on fixed incomes who are using the rule legitimately.

Nikki Christopher, attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayers Board, which represents residential and small-business customers, said any proposal must state how utilities would distinguish between people who are poor and can’t pay and those who are taking advantage of the rule.