PSC Vacates Prior Order Which Had Closed Staff Complaint Against Retail Supplier; Expands Scope Of Inquiry

October 2, 2019

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 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 Maryland PSC, on rehearing, has vacated a July order (Order #89193) which had originally closed, without the Commission taking further action, a proceeding addressing a complaint filed by Staff of the PSC against Atlantic Energy MD LLC

In vacating the order, the PSC also expanded the scope of the case to address allegations raised by the Office of People's Counsel which were not included in the Staff complaint

As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the PSC's Technical Staff of the Maryland Public Service Commission on May 15, 2019, filed a complaint against Atlantic Energy MD LLC alleging that the Company had violated Maryland law governing retail suppliers’ activities. Staff cited 32 customer complaints in its complaint (see story here for details)

The PSC, in summarizing Atlantic Energy's answer to the complaint, had previously said that, "The Company’s Answer and Response explained, among other things, its business and products offered; its policies and procedures for handling agent training, enrollments, complaints, and refunds; and its understanding of the 32 customer complaints identified in Staff’s Complaint. The Company noted that 'The majority of the complaints related to delays in processing customer natural gas enrollment cancellations that were caused by an Electric Data Interchange ('EDI') issue between Atlantic’s EDI vendor and the utility (BGE), and which was corrected before the Complaint in this matter was filed,' and it supplied signed contracts and TPV call recordings for customers alleging unauthorized enrollments."

As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, in Order #89193 issued in July 2019, the PSC had originally closed the investigation without taking further action. "After reviewing the evidence before it, the Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence that the Company has engaged in a pattern or practice of systemic violations of the Public Utilities Article or Commission regulations. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no further action is required with regard to this matter," the PSC had said in July 2019 in dismissing the Staff complaint

OPC sought rehearing of the PSC's order dismissing the complaint, arguing that the PSC failed to consider other alleged violations

OPC alleged that, "The Services Contract provided by the Company to OPC fails to comply with the Maryland Door to Door Sales Act, Md. Ann. Code §14-301 et seq. Specifically, the Company is in violation of Md. Ann. Code §14-302(1)(ii), since it does not contain the required language regarding a consumer’s right to cancel the contract."

"Assuming, arguendo, that the Company’s statement that this contract form is the one used for all its residential customers, the failure to provide this notice to is a violation of Maryland law for all 6,500 residential customers in Maryland. This glaring omission is a clear violation of Maryland law, and may have deprived customers of a meaningful opportunity to terminate their variable rate agreement with Atlantic, should they have so chosen," OPC alleged

OPC also alleged that, "OPC has identified several deficiencies in the Company’s Answer with regards to unauthorized enrollment, as the Company cannot produce signed contracts for at least three customers who submitted complaints to the Commission."

OPC also alleged that, based on the response to a Public Information Act request submitted to the Commission, OPC, "is aware of eighty additional CAD complaints alleging misconduct on the part of the Company since 2017, including but not limited to: 38 complaints alleging unauthorized enrollment; 37 complaints alleging misrepresentations; [and] 24 complaints alleging delayed cancellation."

On rehearing, the PSC said that, "The Commission finds that OPC’s Motion for Rehearing has raised new allegations of facts and circumstances related to but not originally part of Staff’s Complaint, including issues only identified by OPC through discovery after the filing of the Complaint."

"Any harm to Atlantic by granting OPC’s Motion is outweighed by the need to investigate the alleged consumer protection violations. OPC’s Motion for Rehearing is therefore granted," the PSC said

The Commission vacated Order No. 89193, docketed a proceeding for a hearing on Staff’s Complaint, and delegated the matter to the Public Utility Law Judge Division.

"The Commission also directs that the scope of the proceeding be expanded to incorporate the additional claims identified in OPC’s Motion and listed above," the PSC said

Case 9624

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Channel Partner Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sales Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- DFW
• NEW! -- Channel Manager - Retail Division -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Accountant -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Counsel -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• 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
• Corporate Counsel - Retail Supplier
• Senior Counsel - Regulatory - Retail Supplier
• Sales Representative -- Retail Supplier