Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Citing Ongoing Complaints, Regulator Weighs New Changes To Retail Supplier Marketing Standards, Seeks Comments

Regulator Asks Whether "Minimum Customer Credit" Should Be Paid In Cases of Slamming

October 31, 2016

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-16 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Citing ongoing customer complaints, the Connecticut PURA has requested stakeholder comment on a series of questions related to retail electric supplier marketing standards

Among other things, PURA sought comment on potential changes to door-to-door sales, third-party verification, utility rate comparison, agent training and background checks, the timeline for the submission of enrollments by suppliers, and supplier recordkeeping

"The Authority continues to receive numerous customer complaints of slamming, i.e., where a customer is enrolled in a generation service contract without appropriate consent. In some cases, an agent obtains the customer’s electric bill information and can use that to process an enrollment. Additionally, the Authority has reviewed third-party verifications (TPVs) conducted without the customer of record, and received reports of forged signatures on enrollment paperwork," PURA said

In response, PURA asked, "Should the Authority mandate a particular minimum customer credit in the case of substantiated slamming?"

"The Authority has reviewed many TPVs which reveal customer confusion, obvious agent coaching of the customer, and clear language barriers where TPVs were nonetheless processed and customers enrolled," PURA added, and asked whether a standardized list of questions (including in PURA's notice, with nothing that generally isn't required in other states) should be used for TPVs.

Agents of suppliers not identifying the supplier via Caller ID is another area PURA seeks to address.

"The Authority notes a recent trend that has triggered significant customer complaints. Certain third-party marketers opt to solicit using telephone numbers that display either incorrect information on Caller ID or a vague description such as 'Customer Service' or 'Electric Choice.' In most cases, Caller ID does not properly identify the name of the licensed electric supplier (spoofing). Not only is this misleading, in many cases it stops the supplier from making a legitimate sale," PURA said

PURA also sought comment on whether to adopt restrictions on when comparisons to EDC Standard Service rates can be made, in light of when new rates are announced.

"Many customers describe promises and guarantees made by suppliers during the sales presentation that are difficult to define or prove, including pricing advantages and green energy guarantees in comparison to EDC standard service. EDC standard service is procured in six-month tranches. The final blended price must be announced no later than forty-five days prior to taking effect in January and July," PURA said

"Should there be a date restriction, i.e., using the current standard service rate only until May 15th and November 15th, and then all comparisons to EDC standard service must be on the new January/July standard service rate," PURA asked

Door-to-door sales, "remain problematic," PURA said, accounting for a substantial percentage of supplier-related customer complaints. "Customers have stated that DTD suppliers use intimidating tactics and misleading statements. Moreover, the Authority continues to find instances of misrepresentation, slamming and a failure on behalf of the licensed supplier to adequately train and police DTD agents," PURA said

That prompted PURA to ask whether it should require that all DTD sales must be accompanied by an independent TPV

PURA noted that Conn. Gen. Stat. §16-245s(a)(2), provides that no EDC shall change a customer’s electric supplier unless it receives confirmation, including an option to verify "written confirmation after a customer has received a telephone solicitation."

"Comment on the applicability of this kind of split between a solicitation and enrollment authorization as it could apply to door-to-door (DTD) sales," PURA requested

PURA also asked whether suppliers be required to perform background checks on all agents and employees before they are allowed to market to Connecticut customers

PURA said that it continues to field complaints of lagging enrollments, sometimes processed more than 30 days after a solicitation took place. In some cases, the "late" enrollment caused a customer to incur early termination fees that would not have been assessed if the enrollment were promptly processed, PURA said

PURA therefore asked whether it should require that suppliers must process enrollments within a certain amount of time after receiving them

Docket No. 14-07-20RE01

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Manager of Strategic Financial Planning & Analysis -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Indirect Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Manager, Mass Marketing Operations -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Digital Marketing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Credit Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Gas Scheduler II -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Financial Analyst -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Financial Reporting Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Internal Auditor -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Analyst, Training & Quality -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Vice President Sales & Marketing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston