|
|
|
|
PSC Orders Retail Supplier To Issue Refunds To Customers
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Maryland PSC ordered Smart One Energy, LLC to issue refunds to its former customers
As previously reported, the PSC previously revoked the supplier license of Smart One Energy, LLC.
The ordering of refunds by the PSC is notable given that the case centered on only three specific customer complaints, though the PSC said that, in adjudicating the matter in its prior order, "SOE’s violations of law have been established and provide good cause to impose a remedy under PUA § 7-507(k)." See our prior stories for the violations found by the PSC, which included not having a signed contract for a non-exempt telephonic sale
As such, the PSC said that the only remaining substantive issue is
whether the Commission has a sufficient factual basis to order refunds to specific
customers
The PSC said that, "Through data requests to Maryland utilities, OPC has identified over 17,000
Maryland customers formerly enrolled with SOE and thus affected by SOE’s unlawful
customer enrollment practices—practices that SOE admitted affected all of its customers
in Maryland from the date SOE acquired its supplier license to the date its license was
suspended by the Commission.8 OPC and the utilities documented that nearly all of
SOE’s customers were located within the service territory of Washington Gas Light
Company ('WGL'), with the remainder in Baltimore Gas and Electric Company’s
('BGE') service territory. OPC attached to its filings confidential copies of records
received from WGL and BGE, identifying affected customers and the respective amounts
of the requested refunds."
The PSC said that, "Based on the records obtained from WGL, OPC calculated that '14,848 SOE
customers collectively had paid $14,186,409.81 more for gas supply than they would
have paid had they simply remained on WGL’s default service.' The records also
reflect that an additional 1,539 of SOE’s WGL enrollees saved money or broke even,
with the total amount saved among those customers being $4,332.76. Based on the records obtained from BGE, reflecting that 767 SOE customers were
enrolled through BGE, OPC calculated that '754 SOE enrollees collectively paid
$137,120.11 more for gas supply than they would have paid had they simply remained on
BGE’s default service.' BGE’s records also reflect that three SOE enrollees saved a total
of $26.02, with an additional 10 customers breaking even."
"The Commission finds that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that SOE
unlawfully benefited to the detriment of its affected customers, and this evidence
supports OPC’s request for refunds. Consistent with the Commission’s prior Order in
this case, Order No. 89219 -- in which the Commission ordered SOE to provide refunds
for three identified customers equal to 'any amount it charged those customers above the
applicable utility default service rates, calculated as a net difference over the period those
customers were receiving supply from SOE' -- OPC has for each SOE customer
presented evidence of both SOE and utility supply charges and the amount of usage by
the customer for each billing period, and based on that data calculated a net difference
between what each customer paid SOE and what they would have paid if they had
remained on utility standard offer service," the PSC said
"OPC has not, however, provided evidence of whether any of those customers
were taking service from another retail supplier at the time that SOE wrongfully enrolled
them, and therefore there are questions regarding the level of refund that have not been
resolved," the PSC said
"Accordingly, SOE is hereby directed within 10 business days of the date of this
Order, less any refunds already paid, to pay refunds for the customers identified in OPC’s
confidential attachments any amount it charged those customers above the applicable utility default service rates or, where applicable, the rate (or rates) that the customer
would have been charged under a prior contract between the customer and a retail
supplier but for the unlawful enrollment, calculated as a net difference over the period
those customers were receiving natural gas supply service from SOE. Because the
violations by SOE identified in Order No. 89219 -- including enrolling customers without
valid signed contracts -- constitute unauthorized enrollments, refunds shall follow the
process laid out in COMAR 20.59.07.05C(2)(a) where applicable. SOE is further
directed to submit a compliance filing within 30 days of this Order providing a status
report of refunds consistent with this Order," the PSC said
The PSC said that, "In issuing this Order, the Commission is aware that SOE is no longer an active
business in Maryland, and has been unresponsive to Commission correspondence since
the company’s license was suspended. In the event of a failure by SOE to comply with
this Order, the Commission will not be able to collect funds from SOE on behalf of customers. Affected former customers of SOE in Maryland may need to pursue in
court a private action against SOE to enforce this Order, or an action under the Maryland
Telephone Solicitation Act, which includes provisions for attorney fees under the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act. In such cases, the court will make the final
determination of the amount of any refund for each customer. Affected customers should
contact their utility directly if they wish to obtain their consumption and billing records
and applicable rates, and WGL and BGE are directed to accommodate those requests."
The PSC said that statute allows it to order refunds even though SOE is no longer licensed as a supplier.
"PUA § 7-507(k), states, in pertinent part: 'The Commission may ... order a
refund or credit to a customer ... for just cause on the Commission’s own investigation or
on complaint of the Office of People’s Counsel, the Attorney General, or an affected
party.' Although PUA § 7-507(k) also empowers the Commission to suspend or revoke
a license, it does not limit the power to issue refunds based on whether the supplier in
question holds a license from the Commission. In this instance, there is no question that
SOE committed the violations while operating under an active supplier license.
Therefore, the Commission has the authority to order refunds for the period during which
SOE did operate in Maryland with a license issued by this Commission," the PSC said
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-20 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
March 9, 2020
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Channel Relations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Senior Retail Energy Markets Pricing Analyst
• NEW! -- Energy Market Analyst -- DFW
• Senior Consultant - Competitive Energy Markets -- Houston
|
|
|