PSC Staff Seek Show Cause Orders Against Three Retail Suppliers For Alleged Slamming, Misleading Statements

May 15, 2019

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Staff of the Maryland PSC, in separately filed complaints, have requested that the Commission issue show cause orders to three retail suppliers alleging instances of slamming and misleading statements

Maryland Gas & Electric

Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland ("Staff") filed a complaint pursuant to § 20.07.03 of the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") requesting that the Commission issue an order directing that U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc. d/b/a Maryland Gas & Electric ("U.S. Gas") and Energy Services Providers, Inc. d/b/a Maryland Gas and Electric ("Energy Services") (collectively "MG&E" or the "Companies") show cause why their licenses to provide electricity and electricity supply services, and natural gas or natural gas supply services, should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Companies should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers, and why MG&E should not be subject to a civil penalty under §§ 7-507 and 13-201 of the Public Utilities Article ("PUA") of the Annotated Coded of Maryland for what Staff alleged was, "committing fraud and engaging in deceptive practices, and for failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations contained in COMAR 20.51.07 and 20.53.07."

Maryland Gas & Electric provided the following statement to EnergyChoiceMatters.com:

"Maryland Gas & Electric has reviewed the cause order from the Maryland Public Service Commission and intends to fully investigate the complaints that were filed, and will immediately begin the process of responding to the Commission." -- statement from Maryland Gas & Electric

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "The Commission's Consumer Affairs Division ('CAD') received 23 complaints where CAD found MG&E enrolled a customer without proper authorization."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "CAD received nine complaints in which a customer claimed an MG&E made false or misleading statements and where CAD fpound [sic] for the customers."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "CAD received complaint number 518338462 alleging a delay in service cancellation where CAD found for the customer."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "Each and every one of the above actions constitutes a deceptive practice or other prohibited act in violation of the Commission's consumer protections regulations, for which a civil penalty or other remedy may be assessed."

Staff requested that the Commission require MG&E to, "fil[e] evidence showing just cause as to why its license to provide natural gas or electricity services should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Company should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers, and/or why MG&E should not be subject to a civil penalty under PUA §§ 7-507 and 13-201 for (a) committing fraud (b) engaging in deceptive practices (c) slamming, and (d) failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations as contained in COMAR 20.59.07. PUA § 7-507(1) states that an electricity supplier or person selling or offering to sell electricity in the State in violation of this section, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for the violation; or license revocation or suspension."

Atlantic Energy

Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland ("Staff") filed a complaint pursuant to § 20.07.03 of the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") requesting that the Commission issue an order directing that Atlantic Energy MD, LLC ("Atlantic Energy") show cause why its licenses to provide electricity and electricity supply services, and natural gas or natural gas supply services, should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Company should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers and why Atlantic Energy should not be subject to a civil penalty under §§ 7-507 and 13-201 of the Public Utilities Article ("PUA") of the Annotated Coded of Maryland for what Staff alleged was, "committing fraud and engaging in deceptive practices, and for failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations contained in COMAR 20.51.07 and 20.53.07."

Atlantic Energy provided the following statement to EnergyChoiceMatters.com:

"Atlantic Energy is reviewing the complaint filed today by the Staff of the Maryland PSC. Atlantic previously responded to each of the customer complaints referenced in the staff complaint, and has taken steps to fully address each of them. Atlantic takes sales and marketing compliance very seriously and intends to fully cooperate with the PSC staff to satisfactorily resolve the complaint." -- statement from Atlantic Energy

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "The Commission's Consumer Affairs Division ('CAD') received eight complaints where CAD found Atlantic Energy enrolled a customer without proper authorization."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "CAD received 19 complaints alleging delays in service cancellation, often due to supplier reported technical difficulties where CAD found for the customers."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "CAD received four complaints alleging a customer claimed an Atlantic Energy representative made false or misleading statements and where CAD found for the customers."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "CAD received complaint number 318337340-W alleging unwanted solicitation and trespassing where CAD found for the customer."

In the complaint, Staff alleged that, "Each and every one of the above actions constitutes a deceptive practice or other prohibited act in violation of the Commission's consumer protections regulations, for which a civil penalty or other remedy may be assessed."

Staff requested that the Commission require Atlantic Energy to, "fil[e] evidence showing just cause as to why its license to provide natural gas or electricity services should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Company should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers, and/or why Atlantic Energy should not be subject to a civil penalty under PUA §§ 7-507 and 13-201 for (a) committing fraud (b) engaging in deceptive practices (c) slamming, and (d) failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations as contained in COMAR 20.59.07. PUA § 7-507(1) states that an electricity supplier or person selling or offering to sell electricity in the State in violation of this section, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for the violation; or license revocation or suspension."

Direct Energy

Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland ("Staff') filed a complaint pursuant to § 20.07.03 of the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") requesting that the Commission issue an order directing that Direct Energy Services, LLC ("Direct Energy") show cause why its licenses to provide electricity and electricity supply services, and natural gas or natural gas supply services, should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Company should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers, and why Direct Energy should not be subject to a civil penalty under §§ 7-507 and 13-201 of the Public Utilities Article ("PUA") of the Annotated Coded of Maryland for what Staff alleged was, "committing fraud and engaging in deceptive practices, and for failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations contained in COMAR 20.51.07 and 20.53.07."

Direct Energy provided the following statement to EnergyChoiceMatters.com:

"We take all complaints seriously and we will work with the Maryland Public Service Commission to resolve these issues." -- statement from Direct Energy

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "The Commission's Consumer Affairs Division ('CAD') received complaint number 118335794-L where CAD found the account was slammed by Direct Energy as prohibited by COMAR 20.53.07.08B(l) and C(1) & (2)."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number 518338782-W alleging 'slamming' where Direct Energy could not provide proof of a 'wet signature' and did not confirm the person on the Third Party Verification was the customer of record."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number 718339838-W alleging slamming where CAD determined that the customer had been slammed."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number number 1218342260-L alleging slamming where CAD found for the customers."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number number 119342590-L alleging slamming where CAD found for the customers"

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number 318337149-W alleging that Direct Energy made misrepresentative statements. Direct Energy responded to CAD and stated that the agent in question acted inappropriately and was terminated."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number 318337379-W where CAD determined a customer's enrollment was not valid as the customer was not provided with all the correct terms and conditions during the TPV. In addition the copy of the welcome letter was not dated or addressed to the customer as required by COMAR 20.53.06.05.A."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "CAD received complaint number 1218342214-W where the customer claimed Direct Energy charged a price over twice the contract price. CAD found for the customer."

Staff alleged in the complaint that, "Each and every one of the above actions constitutes a deceptive practice or other prohibited act in violation of the Commission's consumer protections regulations, for which a civil penalty or other remedy may be assessed."

Staff requested that the Commission require Direct Energy to, "fil[e] evidence showing just cause as to why its license to provide natural gas or electricity services should not be suspended or revoked or, in the alternative, why the Company should not be precluded from soliciting additional customers, and/or why Direct Energy should not be subject to a civil penalty under PUA §§ 7-507 and 13-201 for (a) committing fraud (b) engaging in deceptive practices (c) slamming, and (d) failing to comply with the Commission's consumer protection regulations as contained in COMAR 20.59.07. PUA § 7-507(1) states that an electricity supplier or person selling or offering to sell electricity in the State in violation of this section, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for the violation; or license revocation or suspension."

Staff of the PSC also recently asked that show cause orders be issued against two other retail suppliers, see our exclusive stories on the requests here and here

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Quality Assurance and Customer Service Manager -- Retail Supplier
• Retail Energy Operations Analyst
• Retail Energy Operations Specialist
• Account Manager, Energy Choice
• Business Development Manager