Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Retail Suppliers "Heartened" By Discussion To Include Yelp-Like Supplier Ratings on State's Retail Choice Website

March 17, 2015

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-15 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Karen Abbott • kabbott@energychoicematters.com

A working group of competitive retail suppliers said that it was "heartened" by discussions to include a Yelp-like rating system for suppliers on the in-development Massachusetts retail electric shopping website, though the working group did not reach a consensus on the issue.

In further comments on the Massachusetts energy shopping website and rate board, the retail supplier working group said that it, "was heartened by the discussion at the technical session around exploring ways in which to move beyond mere complaint statistics as the sole criterion in rating suppliers, and some suppliers would encourage the Department to endeavor to develop a mechanism through which Commonwealth consumers can provide one to five star ratings with a review similarly to how leading eCommerce websites such as Amazon and rating websites such as Yelp do."

"Successful implementation of such a system would represent first-of-its-kind functionality for a utility commission shopping website, consistent with the Department's goal of creating the best shopping site in the nation," the working group noted.

"Notwithstanding, other suppliers agree with the Department's position voiced at the February 4 technical session, that this type of consumer input and commentary may be fraught with issues, including management, oversight and vetting of consumer posts," the working group said.

The Working Group recommended posting supplier complaint metrics on the shopping website in two ways, substantively similar to the method used by the Illinois Commerce Commission (see http://www.pluginillinois.org/Complaints.aspx).

"The Massachusetts shopping website should present a scorecard using a graphical comparative scale (e.g., 1 to 5 stars). This provides a quick visual snapshot for consumers who now expect such information from shopping websites, in general. This general snapshot would be based on total complaints. The website would also provide a link to a detailed report, similar to the ICC Complaint Summary (see http://www.pluginillinois.org/ComplaintGrid.aspx), for customers who would like to explore complaint details further. The detailed report would display complaint statistics, by supplier, separated by category. The user would be able to view complaint history, by month, for the last 24 months. Suppliers generally prefer providing monthly statistics, as opposed to a rolling 12 month average, insofar as gains in service improvements will be apparent to consumers shortly after they are achieved," the working group said.

"As suppliers indicated in its presentation at the February 4 technical session, suppliers believe that there is substantial customer benefit to differentiating among the qualitative nature of a complaint. A complaint of a long hold time ought not be given equal emphasis as a slamming complaint; and providing a complaint ratio based upon undifferentiated consumer complaints is not best-in-class. New York's Complaint Statistics Report is a good example of how the Department could approach this issue. The New York Public Service Commission publishes two sets of complaint numbers: 'Initial' and 'Escalated'," the workgroup said.

For the purpose of presenting supplier performance information on the website, DPU Staff had proposed to limit complaints to those from existing customers, and questioned the relevance of posting marketing-related complaints on the shopping website. The working group was unable to reach consensus on whether or not the shopping website should also include marketing related complaints.

"The Working Group agrees with Department staff that complaints should be conveyed as a ratio of the number of customer complaints deemed by the Department as legitimate to the number of customers served by the supplier. This ensures that complaint statistics do not appear skewed for large versus small retail suppliers and is consistent with the types of ratings customers are accustomed to seeing online. It also preserves the confidentiality of non-publicly reported subscriber figures. The Illinois, Texas and New York Commissions all maintain complaint scorecards based on a ratio of complaints to customers. Department's staff's suggestion that it collect customer count information from the utility companies on a monthly basis is the best means to collect customer count information by supplier," the working group said.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Electricity Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Natural Gas Pipeline Scheduler -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Business Development - Energy Advisor -- Houston
• NEW! -- Billing & Transaction Analyst -- Houston
• NEW! -- Associate Counsel, Regulatory Affairs -- Retail Supplier
• 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