Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Draft Order Would Fine Retail Supplier $2,000

February 19, 2015

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-15 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

An initial decision from a Pennsylvania ALJ would fine IDT Energy, Inc. $2,000 after the initial decision concludes, in a customer complaint case, that IDT Energy charged a customer a rate in excess of the Price to Compare when its sales agent had represented to the customer that the rate would be below the PTC.

The initial decision is not final and may be appealed by IDT Energy.

The customer alleged in testimony that a telemarketer for IDT represented that IDT would charge a rate that was 10% lower than PPL's rate.

While a third-party verification of the sale was presented in the case, IDT Energy did not provide a copy of the entire sales call. The ALJ also noted that IDT did not present testimony from the sales agent responsible for the sales call.

As a result, the ALJ said that IDT, "has no evidence regarding the specific sales call made to [complainant] to specifically rebut what [complainant] testified he was told by the sales agent."

Citing precedent, the ALJ said that, "if a complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the utility ... If a utility does not rebut that evidence, the complainant will prevail"

Given the complainant's unrebutted testimony, the ALJ would conclude that, "IDT's sales agent told him he would be charged 10% less than the PPL rate but that was not always the case."

The ALJ stressed:

"The conversation with the sales agent is a separate and distinct conversation from the conversation during the third party verification and is subject specifically to Section 111.10 of the Commission's regulations governing telemarketing. The conversation between the customer and the sales agent is critical in the development of a proper market for the competitive provision of electric generation service. Yet, in this case, unrebutted record evidence demonstrates that the total cost to purchase, receive or use electric generation service was not truthfully disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner or that all material restrictions, limitations or conditions were disclosed. The fact that [complainant] subsequently received a disclosure statement and had a right to rescind the contract does not negate the underlying violation of the Commission's telemarketing regulation by the sales agent."

The ALJ's initial decision would impose a civil penalty of $2,000 on IDT Energy related to its actions, concluding that the company violated Sections 54.4 (requiring the rate billed to reflect the marketed rate) and 111.10(a)(3) (relating to disclosure) of the Commission's regulations

IDT Energy had previously offered the customer a refund, and the initial decision directs IDT to issue a refund for the amount overbilled to the extent it has not yet done so

Docket C-2014-2409676

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Marketing Director -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Energy Supply Trader - Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sales Director -- Retail Supplier -- New York
• NEW! -- Sr. Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager – Broker Sales -- Retail Supplier -- DFW
• NEW! -- Senior Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Senior Risk Management Energy Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Energy Services Account Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Energy Consultant/Sales -- New York
• NEW! -- Director, Account Management
• NEW! -- Director of Business Development -- Houston
• NEW! -- PJM Pricing Manager/Director -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Project Analyst -- New York
• NEW! -- Supply Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• Broker Sales REP III - Mid-Markets -- Texas
• Senior Analyst, Front Power Supply -- Retail Supplier
• Accounts Management Director -- Retail Supplier