People's Counsel Seeks To Publicly Identify Retail Suppliers In Association With Grandfathered Low-Income Customer Data Responses

December 22, 2023

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-23 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

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

The Maryland Office of People's Counsel has opposed a request from retail suppliers which would treat as confidential the identities of suppliers associated with specific data provided by the utilities and suppliers in response to Maryland PSC data requests regarding service to grandfathered energy assistance household customers (EAH), and rejected enrollments of EAH customers since a general prohibition on new supplier service to EAH customers took effect this summer

The issuance of the data requests had been first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com (see details here)

The Retail Energy Supply Association and NRG Energy, Inc. have sought confidential treatment of the individual retail supplier names provided in the data. RESA and NRG do not seek confidential treatment of any other data, only the name of a retail supplier associated with a set of data (e.g., supplier name redacted but all other data public)

"The information sought in the data requests is competitively sensitive for each supplier and should reasonably be labelled Confidential so as not to reveal the names of the individual suppliers and their sensitive information," RESA and NRG said

As summarized by the Retail Energy Supply Association and NRG Energy, Inc., the data requests included as follows:

"Staff’s Set 2 to Retail Suppliers seeks information about each supplier’s contracts with EAHs that were grandfathered under the new law. The supplier’s response would include the number of grandfathered contracts, the commodity type (electric, gas, or both), and the quarter in which each contract will expire. This is clearly competitively sensitive information," RESA/NRG said

"Staff’s Set 1-1(b) to Utility Companies would require the utilities to disclose the names of each supplier that had rejected or approved enrollments to serve EAH customers between July 1, 2023 and September 30, 2023. More specifically, Staff requests that the utilities complete a table, the first column of which includes “Supplier Company Name.” RESA and NRG submit that this column should be redacted and marked Confidential," RESA/NRG said

"Staff’s Set 2-1 to Utility Companies would require the utilities to identify the number of EAHs under service as of July 1, 2023, for each supplier in its service territory. More specifically, Staff requests that the utilities complete a table, the first column of which includes “Supplier Company Name.” RESA and NRG submit that this column should be redacted and marked Confidential," RESA/NRG said

"To reiterate, RESA and NRG do not oppose identifying the suppliers confidentially. RESA and NRG also do not oppose any stakeholder using the information in an aggregated fashion to monitor overall compliance with the new law. To the extent Staff finds a compliance problem, Staff can make further inquiry of the particular supplier(s). Until then, there is no rational or compelling reason to publicly disclose the names of every supplier or to require suppliers to reveal competitively sensitive information," RESA and NRG said

RESA/NRG represented that PSC Staff stated that Staff would treat as confidential any data submitted as confidential. However, as represented by RESA and NRG, several of the utilities, while not taking a position on the issue itself, stated that they would only mark supplier names as confidential if directed to do so by the PSC

RESA/NRG sought a PSC order directing that the supplier names be confidential

OPC opposed this request

"The Commission should deny the request because suppliers’ names are not competitively sensitive and the public interest in keeping Commission records open to public review outweighs any reputational interest RESA and NRG are seeking to protect," OPC said

"None of the information RESA and NRG are seeking to hide from the public involve sensitive pricing or other information that could conceivably give a competitor an unfair advantage ... A retail supplier name is unlike the sensitive pricing or workforce analysis information given confidential treatment under the National Parks test. Disclosing the names does not provide competitors, whose names will also appear in DR responses, with any unfair advantage. The primary -- if not exclusive -- interest possibly protected by affording confidential treatment to individual retail supplier names, then, is an affected supplier’s reputational interest in not being identified as a supplier selling high-priced supply contracts to Maryland’s most vulnerable households," OPC alleged

"The supplier groups have failed to provide any valid reason that records should be exempt from public disclosure, and the public is entitled to know the names of the retail suppliers that provide information to the Commission for the preparation of its legislatively required report," Maryland People’s Counsel David Lapp said in a statement

RM78

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Customer Care Specialist I & II- remote/hybrid -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst - Retail Power
• NEW! -- Electricity Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier
• Call Center Manager -- Retail Supplier

HOME

Copyright 2010-23 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.