|
|
|
|
ESCO Under Marketing Suspension Says Enrollments Cited In New York PSC Show Cause Order Were Permissible Winbacks
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Atlantic Power & Gas (APG) has filed a response to a show cause order recently issued by the New York PSC, stating that the enrollments at issue were permissible reinstatements, and were not in violation of a prior marketing suspension
As previously reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the show cause order had alleged that, after a prior marketing suspension had been placed on APG, APG's total number of customers appeared to have increased during various months in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
"Further, additional information from Con Edison and National Grid showed that [Atlantic Power & Gas, LLC] continued to enroll new customers, contrary to the terms of the Suspension Order," the show cause order had said
In response to a notice of apparent failure prior to the show cause order, APG had said that the enrollments were permissible reinstatements. However, the show cause order noted that various reinstatements related to customers who had requested a return to default service, with the show cause order stating, "an ESCO cannot override such a customer’s request."
For APG reinstatements for customers who had sought to leave for another ESCO, the show cause alleged that APG had not produced "verifiable" customer authorizations, which the show cause order said is required under UBP §§5.D.6 and 5.K.3
In its response, APG alleged there has been "significant confusion and errors regarding implementation of the suspension order and reinstatement procedures."
In its response, APG alleged, "Importantly, since the issuance of the Suspension Order, there has been
considerable confusion and conflicting interpretations among the utilities regarding the
prohibition required by the order, its applicability to reinstatements/winbacks, as well
as the proper procedure for such reinstatements /winbacks. For example, on or about
February 27, 2019, representative Eric Heaton, a Senior Specialist at Con Ed, confirmed
to APG’s Michael Xirinachs in a telephone conversation that Con Ed did not place
restrictions on APG’s enrollment of customers as required by the Suspension Order, and
that Con Ed’s system was known to incorrectly display 'reinstatements' as
'enrollments.' Further, upon information and belief, certain of the above-referenced
reinstatements for which Mr. Xirinachs obtained specific authorization were incorrectly
coded in the Electronic Data Interchange ('EDI') system as new 'enrollments' when in
fact they were reinstatements. In the midst of this confusion, Con Ed unilaterally
dropped certain APG accounts as a result of the utility’s misunderstanding and
misapplication of the Suspension Order. (Affidavit of Michael Xirinachs, sworn to
August 19, 2019 ('Xirinachs Aff.'), at ¶¶ 10-11)."
In its response, APG alleged, "This was an unfortunate data entry error but does not reflect marketing to
or enrollment of new or additional customers. To the extent that Con Ed failed to comply with the terms of the Suspension Order -- as it was supposed to be enforced by the
Secretary -- these reinstatements of existing customers were processed without APG
knowing that: (1) they may have been coded incorrectly; and (2) without knowledge that
Con Ed could not be relied on to block any improperly processed 'enrollments.' (Id. at
¶ 13)."
In its response, APG alleged, "Similarly, there was confusion on the part of National Grid as well.
Initially, National Grid refused to process APG’s requests for reinstatements. As a result,
APG’s legal counsel sent a letter to National Grid’s counsel explaining that the
Suspension Order did not prohibit reinstatements/winbacks of existing customers. (Id.
at ¶ 14 & Exh. C thereto (Legal letter from APG to National Grid, dated Oct. 17, 2017))."
In its response, APG alleged, "Subsequently, APG received correspondence from National Grid noting
that: (1) it was waiting for a response from Department Staff regarding the issue of
reinstatements; and (2) confirming reinstatement of two accounts. (Id. & Exh. D thereto
(E-mail correspondence, dated Oct. 20, 2017, in which National Grid responds to a
reinstatement status inquiry, stating that '[w]e are waiting for a response from the PSC
in regards to this issue.'; and E-mail correspondence, dated Oct. 31, 2017, in which
National Grid confirms status of two reinstated accounts as 'in your pool'))."
APG said that it did not violate the suspension order, nor the UBP by reinstating
customers that were properly enrolled prior to the suspension order
APG said, "The Suspension Order prohibits APG from 'marketing to and enrolling
new or additional residential and non-residential customers until the Commission orders
otherwise.' Suspension Order, Ordering Clause 1. It also directed the Secretary 'to
provide notification' to each gas and electric utility in whose service territory APG
operates, 'so that each such company does not enroll any customers' with APG. Id. at
Ordering Clause 2. The Suspension Order does not prohibit APG from continuing to
serve its existing customers, nor does it prohibit APG from reinstating existing, duly
enrolled customer accounts."
APG said that it obtained "specific authorization" from each customer prior to
reinstating each customer with APG
"While the Suspension Order prohibited APG from enrolling customers, it
did not prohibit APG from reinstating existing customers pursuant to UBP Section 5.D.6,
which allows an ESCO, upon notification from a utility that the ESCO’s customer has
decided to switch providers, to obtain 'specific customer authorization' to cancel that
pending switch and reinstate that customer with the incumbent ESCO. This is
informally known as a 'winback' and is a commonly recognized and permitted action
in the retail market," APG said
Citing the UBPs, APG said, "The type of customer authorization required to effectuate a winback is
'specific authorization.' The term 'specific authorization' is in contrast to numerous
other types of authorization referenced in the UBP, such as 'verifiable authorization' --
which is required for original enrollments and sales agreements, or 'Third Party
Verification' -- which an ESCO must obtain for certain types of customer enrollments. In the case of a winback, only 'specific authorization' is required because at that point
in time, such customer has already completed the full, verifiable enrollment
authorization at the time of initial enrollment, well prior to the winback procedure. The
UBP does not require a customer to reengage in the original enrollment process to
merely continue the pre-existing relationship with the incumbent ESCO. This practice
is standard and typical across many industries, not just the retail energy market, where
terms and conditions and pre-existing agreements are routinely extended or modified
without starting over from scratch."
"DPS Staff has not provided any evidence suggesting that APG
reinstated a customer against his or her will, nor has DPS Staff provided any evidence
suggesting that a reinstated customer filed a complaint to any regulatory authority
whatsoever about APG’s reinstatement conduct.6 APG obtained specific authorization,
provided ample confirmatory documentation of that specific authorization, and no
customers complained or were harmed. The evidence does not suggest a violation of
the Suspension Order, nor UBP Section 5.D.6, nor of any bad intent," APG said
APG said that, "The Show Cause Order states that, with respect to customers who sought
to enroll with another ESCO but were reinstated by APG prior to the new enrollment
being processed, APG 'failed to provide the verifiable customer authorizations'. Show Cause Order, at 5. As described above, this is not the standard
of authorization required by the UBP for reinstatements."
The show cause order specifically raised the issue of reinstatements of customers who had requested to return to "full distribution utility service" (default service), with the show cause stating that reinstatements are not permitted in such cases (with reinstatements limited to switches to another ESCO)
APG said that it did not violate the UBP by requesting reinstatement of customers that requested to drop to the utility
APG said, "The Show Cause Order notes that four APG customers requested a return
to full distribution utility service (the 'Utility Customers'). Show Cause Order, at 4. It
also states that, '[w]hile the UBPs allow an ESCO to attempt to reinstate a customer who
enrolls with another ESCO while that enrollment is pending, reinstatement is not allowed
if the customer requests to return to full distribution utility service.' Id. at 6."
APG said, "Section 5.D.6 is not a model of clarity. There are at
least two ways to interpret the provision in a manner that does not render APG non-complaint with regard to alleged utility reinstatements. First, while the language of
Section 5.D.6 specifically discusses 'winback' of a customer during a switch to a pending
ESCO, it does not address utility winback procedures. Importantly, it does not expressly
prohibit utility winbacks either. The Department’s interpretation that utility winbacks
are prohibited is not the only interpretive conclusion that can be drawn from the omission
of specific language. Instead, it could be interpreted to allow utility winbacks using
roughly the same procedure, with the Commission simply intending such winbacks to
be permissible on the same terms. Importantly, since the UBP seeks to restrict free-market
ESCOs ability to contract with their customers in derogation of the common law,
the provision should be strictly construed. Artibee v. Home Place Corporation, 28 N.Y.3d
739, 748 (2017) (holding that 'a statute in derogation of the common law . . . must be
strictly construed')."
APG said, "Alternatively, Section 5.D.6 could be interpreted to mean that the utilities
involved in the four utility winbacks violated the UBP, rather than APG."
UBP Section 5.D.6 states, in full: "Upon acceptance of an enrollment request, the distribution
utility shall contemporaneously send a notice to the
incumbent ESCO that the customer's service with that ESCO
will be terminated on the effective date of the new enrollment.
In the event that the distribution utility receives notice from the pending ESCO, the incumbent ESCO (with specific
customer authorization for each cancellation), or the
customer, prior to the effective date that a pending enrollment
is cancelled, the distribution utility shall transmit a request
to reinstate service to the incumbent ESCO, unless the
incumbent ESCO previously terminated service to the
customer or the customer requests a return to full utility
service"
APG said that, "Broken into its individual steps, the process essentially works as follows:
(1) the utility is notified that a customer seeks to switch providers; (2) the utility sends
notice to that customer’s incumbent ESCO that their customer’s ESCO service is going to
terminate on an effective date; (3) either the pending ESCO, incumbent ESCO, or the
customer themselves, can send a notice to the utility prior to that effective date notifying
the utility that the pending enrollment should be canceled; and (4) if the utility receives
such cancelation notice, then the utility must reinstate the customer to the incumbent
ESCO. The final clause of UBP Section 5.D.6 prohibits the distribution utility from
canceling a pending enrollment if, in step one above, the customer’s initial request was
to switch to full utility service."
APG said that, "The onus is on the distribution utility to accept or cancel an enrollment
request. If a customer were to request to return to full utility service, and then changed
her mind and, of her own will, provided notice to the utility that she has decided to return
to her incumbent ESCO, she would be prohibited from doing so -- as a reinstatement --
but, of course, she could always re-enroll with that incumbent ESCO. That nuance would
likely go unnoticed, unless that incumbent ESCO, like APG, was suspended from enrolling customers. In that scenario, once the customer requests to return to full utility
service, she is locked into her decision. There is no mechanism of returning that customer
to her incumbent ESCO, even if the customer were to so choose. The customer can call
or notify the utility and make such a request―no one would argue that such conduct
violates any law, rule or regulation―but such request would be denied, as the onus is on
the distribution utility to accept or cancel an enrollment request in accordance with the
UBP. In the same vein, APG received specific authorization to reinstate certain customers
and subsequently made a request to the distribution utility that certain customers be
'reinstated' with APG. Some of those customers had requested to switch to another
ESCO, and were thus properly reinstated. Other customers had requested to switch to
utility service, and were thus locked into their decision and could not be reinstated to
APG. The mere act of obtaining specific authorization and requesting reinstatement of a
customer that, due to a nuanced reading of the UBP, cannot be 'reinstated' per se, is not
a violation of the UBP. No such violation on APG’s part could occur, as the distribution
utility serves as the decision-making gatekeeper. Further, to the extent that a
'reinstatement' was processed as a 'reenrollment,' such action appears be a result of the
utility’s violation of the Suspension Order, as a result of not being properly notified, or
failing to implement that notice, or simply an innocent clerical error."
Nevertheless, APG said that, consistent with Department Staff’s request, "APG promptly returned the relevant customers to their respective incumbent utility companies," and thus any violation was cured
Moreover, APG said no customers were harmed. APG
credited those customers for the difference between the cost of utility supply versus APG
supply during the relevant time period. No customer was harmed, and no customer has
complained to any regulatory agency or to APG in regards to this situation, APG said
In its response, APG stated that, "there is no rational basis or need for the
Commission to revoke APG’s eligibility to operate as an ESCO or impose other
consequences under these circumstances. If permitted to continue operating in New
York, APG is committed to furthering the Commission’s goal of enhancing the retail
energy marketplace by using its unique business model that provides a value proposition
for its customers and community and which is in alignment with the Commission’s goals
and policies for the retail energy marketplace."
James Denn, Public Information Officer for the PSC, issued the following statement concerning APG's filing: "New York’s Uniform Business Practices rules for ESCOs were developed to protect New York customers, and the staff of the Department of Public Service seek to ensure energy companies comply with those practices."
In its response, APG also alleged that the Department’s actions have prejudiced APG’s ability to respond to the show cause order
The show cause order identified the nature of the potential violations that the company needed to respond to, and an earlier Notice of Apparent Failure also identified the potential violations. However, APG said that such documents did not contain the studies, reports or analyses, and supporting data on which their conclusions were based.
In its response, APG alleged, "APG has not been provided with the predicate information and evidence upon which the show cause order is based, severely hindering the company’s ability to provide a full and complete response to the commission’s directives."
In its response, APG alleged, "APG has exhausted numerous formal and informal channels for obtaining
the 'Department’s evidence' so that it may prepare and provide a response to the specific
directive of the Show Cause Order to 'provide specific evidence that . . . the Department’s
evidence . . . is incorrect.' The Company’s efforts have been met with clear and sustained
refusals to provide that evidence. This peculiar agency action severely limits the
Company’s ability to comply with the Commission’s directives, thwarts its due process
rights, and is antithetical to the customary notions of fair play and the open government
decision-making process that underlies the Commission’s statutory authority."
In its response, APG alleged, "On July 3, 2019, APG requested a thirty (30) day extension3 to
provide its initial response to Ordering Clauses One and Two of the Show Cause Order
(the 'First Extension Request'), stating that it required additional time to gather data and
information referenced in the Show Cause Order that is not in APG’s possession but
instead is held by the Department of Public Service Staff and/or certain utilities, and that
an extension would aid in the fair and orderly resolution of this matter without any
negative customer impact so that APG could fairly prepare and provide a full and
complete response to the Commission’s directives. This information appears to include
data, reports, analyses, studies, and similar material, including 'migration data' and
'additional information' exchanged between National Grid, Consolidated Edison, and
Central Hudson (the 'Utilities') and DPS Staff which is referenced as the 'Department’s
evidence' upon which the Show Cause Order was based (collectively, the 'Predicate
Information') ... On July 10, 2019, the Secretary granted APG’s First Extension Request
until August 13, 2019 for APG to comply with the directives set forth in the Show Cause
Order."
In its response, APG alleged, "Having previously informally requested but not received copies of the
Predicate Information from the Department, on July 26, 2019, APG sent interrogatories
(the 'IRs') to National Grid, Consolidated Edison, and Central Hudson (the 'Utilities')
and separately to DPS Staff requesting the Predicate Information and other information.
True and accurate copies of the IRs are attached hereto as Attachment 3. In July and
August, APG’s counsel further reached out to Department Staff and the Utilities
requesting cooperation to obtain copies of the Predicate Information and other
information. On August 2, 2019, the Secretary sent APG a letter stating that '[DPS] Staff
will not be providing responses to [APG’s] IRs,' such that none of the Predicate
Information or other information was provided (the 'Secretary’s IR Denial'). A true and
accurate copy of the Secretary’s IR Denial is attached hereto as Attachment 4. On August
7 and 8, 2019 the Utilities similarly refused to respond to the IRs (the 'Utility IR Denials'),
and therefore, did not provide the Predicate Information or other information requested.
True and accurate copies of the Utility IR Denials are attached as Attachment 5."
In its response, APG alleged, "On August 5, 2018, APG sent a letter to the Secretary pursuant to SAPA
Section 104(1) requesting studies, reports, analyses, and supporting data that form the
basis for any currently proposed, or to-be proposed rule in this case, including the
Predicate Information (the 'SAPA Request'). A true and accurate copy of the SAPA
Request is attached hereto as Attachment 6. Importantly, the purpose of SAPA 104(1), as
described in the original legislation’s Introducer’s Memorandum, is '[t]o better protect
the public’s right to know by clearly providing a mechanism under which citizens may seek access to studies and data, which are relied upon by state agencies in the
promulgation, amendment or repeal of rules, regulations, ordinances or guidelines.' See
Introducer’s Memorandum in Support, L. 1999, Ch. 647. Somewhat surprisingly, on
August 9, 2019, the Secretary issued a letter stating 'there are no documents' responsive
to the SAPA Request (the 'SAPA Denial'). A true and accurate copy of the SAPA Denial
is attached hereto as Attachment 7."
In its response, APG alleged, "On August 5, 2019, APG also sent a letter to the Department’s Records
Access Officer (the 'RAO') requesting copies of the Predicate Information and other
information through the Freedom of Information Law (the 'August 5 FOIL Request'). A
true and accurate copy of the August 5 FOIL Request is attached hereto as Attachment 8.
On August 12, 2019, the RAO responded to the August 5 FOIL Request with an
acknowledgement letter stating that a response would be provided on or before
September 10, 2019 (the 'Aug. 12 Response'), notwithstanding that the deadline to
respond to the Show Cause Order was then August 13, 2019. A true and accurate copy
of the August 12 Response is attached hereto as Attachment 9."
In its response, APG alleged, "On August 8, 2019, in the absence of receiving the Predicate Information
and other information, APG requested a further thirty (30) day extension (the 'Second
Extension Request') to provide its initial responses to Ordering Clauses One and Two of
the Show Cause Order, again referencing the importance and necessity of having further
time to gather the Predicate Information and other information so that APG has a fair
opportunity review and respond to the 'Department’s evidence.' A true and accurate copy of the Second Extension Request is attached hereto as Attachment 10. The Secretary
eventually responded, on August 12, 2019 granting a brief extension until August 19, 2019
('Second Extension Ruling'). A true and accurate copy of the Second Extension Ruling
is attached hereto as Attachment 11."
In its response, APG alleged, "Thus, to date APG has not received the Predicate Information and likely
will not for several more weeks (at the soonest), and yet is required to respond to the
Show Cause Order without the benefit of such information. The Predicate Information
is relevant, critical, and necessary for APG to prepare and provide a full and complete
response to the directives in the Show Cause Order, particularly in light of the explicit
directive in Ordering Clause Two that APG 'provide specific evidence that (a) the
Department’s evidence . . . is incorrect.' In the absence of having the opportunity to
review and respond to the Predicate Information, APG cannot provide an adequate
response to the Show Cause Order. For example, it is possible that the Predicate
Information does not say what the Department thinks it stands for, that some other error
has occurred, or that it conflicts (as it appears is the case) with information that is in APG’s
possession."
In its response, APG alleged, "a decision by the Commission to impose
consequences based on the Show Cause Order and the Department’s actions that have
prejudiced APG’s ability to respond thereto will be procedurally defective, and in
violation of APG’s right to due process, as well as arbitrary and capricious."
In its response, APG alleged, "DPS Staff’s evidence does not exist."
In its response, APG alleged, "On March 13, 2017, the Commission issued the Suspension Order directing
APG to cease marketing to and enrolling customers unless the Commission authorized
the resumption of those activities.4 Since the date of the Suspension Order, APG has not
marketed to nor enrolled additional customers. (Orofino Aff. at ¶¶ 27-28). The Show
Cause Order alleges—based on undisclosed 'data' and 'additional information'—that
APGs 'total number of customers appears to have increased during various months in
2017, 2018, and 2019.' Show Cause Order, at 4. The Show Cause Order thus directs APG
to provide 'specific evidence that . . . the Department’s evidence . . . is incorrect.' Show
Cause Order, Ordering Clause 2. As outlined above, APG has attempted to obtain the Department’s evidence, through various formal and informal channels. One such
channel was the SAPA Request submitted on August 9, 2019 for any 'studies reports,
analyses, and supporting data,' pursuant to a statutory authority within the State
Administrative Procedure Act specifically for the purpose of providing sunshine on the
studies, reports and data on which agency rulemakings are made. On August 9, 2019,
the Secretary issued the SAPA Denial stating that 'there are no documents responsive to
your request.' This is a legal admission that there is no substantial evidence, in the form
of data, studies, or reports, to support the Show Cause Order -- and by extension -- any
rulemaking that is based on it will lack substantial evidence as well. To the extent that
the 'Department’s evidence' does not exist, APG respectfully requests that this matter
be closed immediately."
In its response, APG alleged, "To the extent that the Department’s evidence does exist, APG is unable to
comment on its substance without having the opportunity to review it. But nevertheless,
the conclusion drawn from the Department’s evidence -- namely, that APG’s 'total
number of customers appears to have increased during various months in 2017, 2018, and
2019,' -- is incorrect. Contrary to the Show Cause Order’s unsupported allegations, the
Company’s Electronic Data Interchange ('EDI') records indicate that no new customers
were enrolled after the Suspension Order." (as more further discussed above)
Case 16-M-0618
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-19 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
Says UBPs Allow Winback Process For Customers Dropping To Default Service, Contrary To Order's Interpretation
Says "Specific" -- Not "Verifiable" -- Authorization Is Required For Winbacks
August 21, 2019
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Operations/Settlement Analyst
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Supply RFP Coordinator
• NEW! -- Jr. Gas & Power Scheduler/Trader -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Marketing Coordinator -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Corporate Counsel - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Senior Counsel - Regulatory - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sales Representative -- Retail Supplier
• Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|