Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Regulator To Conduct Investigation Of Allegations Against Retail Supplier Made By Industry Group

Industry Group Had Alleged Supplier Not Honoring Fixed Rates, Supplier Allegedly Cited Changing Market Conditions Which Made Contracts Unprofitable

April 19, 2018

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

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

The Connecticut PURA said that it will investigate allegations of unfair trade practices made against Mint Energy, LLC by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, as PURA denied a motion from Mint to not open a proceeding.

As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com (see prior story for full details), CBIA alleged, among other things, that Mint had informed CBIA, which runs an affinity program, that Mint would not be able to honor pricing in 65 previously negotiated contracts, which had not yet begun service, due to changes in the energy marketplace that would render those contracts unprofitable to Mint.

As previously reported (see story here), Mint requested that PURA take no further action on CBIA's petition, arguing that the dispute was contractual, which falls outside of PURA's purview.

In addressing Mint's motion, PURA said, "The Authority holds that it does have jurisdiction and in fact an obligation to conduct an investigation of the allegations proffered by CBIA. Conn. Gen. Stat. §16-245o (f) (2) requires, inter alia, a clear and conspicuous statement of the rates, how they may change, under what circumstances the supplier may cancel the contract and what penalties may apply. Conn. Gen. Stat. §16-245u (b) provides that the Authority, upon complaint and for cause shown, shall, inter alia, conduct an investigation of any possible unfair or deceptive trade practices. CBIA’s petition for investigation provided sufficient cause to warrant a full investigation of CBIA’s allegations. The Authority cannot determine whether Mint engaged in unfair trade practices until an evidentiary record is fully developed including any evidence to support CBIA’s allegations and any evidence Mint provides to the contrary. Accordingly, the Motion is hereby denied and the Authority will proceed with its investigation."

Mint Energy said in a statement to ECM that, "While Mint Energy is disappointed with PURA’s ruling, it continues to maintain that, as a matter of law, its actions did not violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and that this matter involves a simple contract dispute, which falls outside of PURA’s purview."

Docket No. 18-02-05

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Sales Support -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Natural Gas Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Energy Consultant
• NEW! -- Director, Retail Energy Supply & Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sales and Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- Broker -- DFW
• NEW! -- Commercial Energy Advisor
• NEW! -- Energy Broker
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager - Texas, Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Account Manager, Retail Energy -- DFW
• NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier