|
|
|
|
|
PUC Rejects Settlement With Retail Supplier Which Included Up To $5 Million In Refunds
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Concerned that a settlement between Electricity Maine, LLC (EME)
and the Consumer Assistance and Safety Division (CASD) of the Maine PUC did not adequately protect customers from future harm, the PUC has rejected the settlement and ordered further proceedings
Electricity Maine, LLC provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"While we are disappointed with the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations, we respect the decision. EME will continue to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation and is committed to resolving these issues in a process that ensures all perspectives are considered."
--- Statement from Electricity Maine, LLC
The settlement would have resolved a complaint from CASD against Electricity Maine regarding alleged violations concerning the requirements for renewals and renewal notices, for a set of customers who were moved from a fixed rate to non-indexed variable rate at renewal. Among other things, CASD alleged that EME failed to provide renewal notices to the relevant customers
The settlement would have required Electricity Maine to issue, to a pool of 18,000 eligible customers, two separate refunds for the customer’s first and second month on the
variable rate supply service following the renewal. The refunds would have reflected the difference between the customer's cost under Electricity Maine's rate versus the Standard Offer rate
EME estimated that its financial exposure resulting from this
term of the stipulation could be as high as $5 million.
The settlement also included a requirement for EME to issue two letters to affected customers informing them of their ability to transition to standard offer service, an EME fixed-rate supply service, or a supply service offered by a
different competitive electricity supplier.
EME also agreed to renew customers currently on a fixed rate onto another fixed rate subject to the 20
percent cap imposed by 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4-B)(C).
EME also agreed to various remedial measures concerning its renewal notice practices and customer service
In a written order issued today, the PUC said that, "the Commission finds that the overall stipulated result is not in the public interest."
"While the Stipulation would have provided relief to existing customers, the Commission finds that the Stipulation did not go far enough in ensuring that EME will be unable to harm customers in the future. As with EME’s troubling history, the public interest demands more relief than that offered by the Stipulation," the PUC said
"The Commission shares the OPA’s [Public Advocate] concern that the Stipulation did not go far enough in deterring not only EME but other CEPs [retail suppliers] from violating Maine law and Commission rules ... the public interest demands that any CEP that violates statues and rules be held sufficiently accountable," the PUC said
"While the Commission is not making any findings at this stage of the proceeding regarding whether EME committed such violations, the public interest requires that a stipulation settling credible allegations such as the ones presented in this case contain serious consequences for the credibly accused. This Stipulation did not clear that bar," the PUC said
"The record reveals many troubling aspects of EME’s business and customer service practices," the PUC said
"The Commission agrees with the OPA that this investigation has revealed many alleged troubling aspects of EME’s business practices, some of which may not fully comply with Maine law. EME has faced sanctions in the past and the Commission has made it clear that EME must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Yet, the Commission is again faced with serious and credible allegations of wrongdoing on the part of EME. In the Commission’s view, the Stipulation did not sufficiently address these alleged concerns and could leave both current and future customers vulnerable going forward. The public interest demands that any stipulated outcome address these concerns," the PUC said
Among other things, OPA had objected to the settlement because the settlement did not require EME to refund its customers in full or impose any administrative penalty
The PUC directed that the case's Hearing Examiners establish a procedural schedule for further process in the proceeding.
Docket No. 2023-00024
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
PUC Says Settlement Didn't Go Far Enough As A Deterrent, Orders Further Proceedings
June 10, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Regulatory Specialist
• Sr. Market Risk Analyst -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|