|
Search |
Ontario Energy Board Intends to Fine Six Retail Suppliers
August 26, 2011
Email This Story
The Ontario Energy Board intends to fine six retail suppliers for alleged violations of the consumer protection rules. Suppliers may request a hearing on the allegations. In the following notices of penalty (all $ Canadian), the Board is not seeking suspension of sales or licence revocation, as it is for several other marketers (see related stories linked at bottom).
Planet Energy (Ontario) Corp.
The Board intends to fine Planet Energy (Ontario) Corp. $35,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
- Planet Energy's standard form Identification Badge issued to all salespersons who meet in person with low-volume consumers fails to state that the salesperson is (a) not associated with any electricity or gas distributor or government contrary to section 6 of Ontario Regulation 90/99; and (b) not a representative of the consumer's electricity or gas distributor and is not associated with the Ontario Energy Board or the Government of Ontario; contrary to section 2.4 (a) of the Codes.
- In 16 of 26 electricity cancellation transactions reviewed, it was observed that Planet Energy issued the required written confirmation of the cancellation to the consumer in excess of 10 days following the cancellation call. The Board alleged that this is contrary to the requirement to issue the written confirmation promptly following the cancellation call contrary to section 22(4)(b) of Ontario Regulation 389/10 and section 19 of the ECPA.
Superior Energy Management
The Board intends to fine Superior Energy Management Electricity LP and Superior Energy Management Gas LP $30,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
- Superior's contract fails to contain a statement that "nothing in the contract negates or varies the consumer's rights to cancel the contract under and in accordance with the Act and this Part"; contrary to section 12 of the ECPA and section 7(1)(11) of Ontario Regulation 389/10.
- Contrary to section 12 of the ECPA and sections 16(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Ontario Regulation 389/10, the Superior contract has not been amended to give the consumer the right to cancel the contract at any time during the renewed or extended term of the contract:
a. Without cost or penalty, if the supplier engages in an unfair practice with respect to the consumer;
b. Without cost or penalty if the supplier does something described in clause 21(a) of Ontario Regulation 389/10; and
c. Without cost or penalty if the consumer does something described in clause 21(c) of Ontario Regulation 389/10.
Bullfrog Power Inc.
The Board intends to fine Bullfrog Power Inc. $25,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
- Bullfrog's contract states the consumer can cancel the contract within 10 days after they receive a written copy of the agreement but the contract fails to state that the contract can be cancelled without cost or penalty during this 10 day period; contrary to section 7(1)8 of Ontario Regulation 389/10 and section 12 of the ECPA.
- Bullfrog's contract fails to contain a statement that if the consumer cancels the contract within that 10-day period, the consumer is entitled to a full refund of all amounts paid under the contract; contrary to section 7(1)9 of Ontario Regulation 389/10 and section 12 of the ECPA.
- Bullfrog's contract fails to state that the consumer may cancel the contract without cost or penalty up to 30 days after receiving the first bill under the contract; contrary to section 7(1)10 of Ontario Regulation 389/10 and section 12 of the ECPA.
- Bullfrog's price comparison being used by Bullfrog contains the following promotional statement: "In Ontario, Bullfrog Power's generators inject EcoLogoM certified wind power and low-impact hydro power into the Ontario Electricity grid to match the amount of power your home uses." The Board alleged that this is contrary to section 4.8 of the Electricity Retailer Code of Conduct.
Direct Energy Marketing Limited
The Board intends to fine Direct Energy Marketing Limited $20,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
- Direct Energy provided the Board inspectors with a system-generated list which indicated that 393 notices of a pending transfer request were received by Direct Energy from a distributor for the period January 1 to February 14, 2011. For each notice of pending transfer received from the distributor, Direct Energy, in response to inquiries made by the inspectors, confirmed that it did not notify the consumer of the pending transfer request contrary to sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the Electricity Retailer Code of Conduct and sections 3.6 and 3.7 of the Code of Conduct for Gas Marketers. The inspectors also confirmed that in each of the 393 cases Direct Energy confirmed that it decided not to send a notice as it was not charging the consumer any cancellation fees.
Summitt Energy Management Inc.
The Board intends to fine Ontario-based Summitt Energy Management Inc. $15,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
- Board staff noted that in one of the 25 electricity transactions reviewed, the price information in the electricity price comparison template provided to the consumer did not match the price of the program selected by the consumer under the contract. The price comparison template given to the consumer indicated time of use prices over five years as opposed to the fixed price over five years as selected by the customer
Canadian RiteRate Energy Corporation The Board intends to fine Canadian RiteRate Energy Corporation $10,000 for, among other things, the following allegations:
See Related Stories Today on Ontario Energy Board Compliance Action:
Ontario Energy Board Intends to Revoke MXenergy Licence
Ontario Energy Board Intends to Suspend Sales Activities of Four Retail Suppliers
Email This Story
Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing
Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters
Call Paul Ring
954-
|
Search |
