Retail Supplier To Pay $282,000 Under Settlement With Staff Of State Regulator
September 30, 2020 Email This Story Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Energy Plus Holdings, LLC ("Energy Plus") has entered into a settlement agreement with the Prosecutorial Division of the
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement
("Prosecutorial" or "EOE") to resolve issues regarding compliance with Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 16-245d regarding properly conveying supply summary information to the
electric distribution companies for display on customer bills.
Energy Plus issued the following statement concerning the matter: "After significant good faith discussions, Energy Plus has settled its case with PURA. Energy Plus fully cooperated with the inquiry and remains committed to being compliant with all PURA regulations. Energy Plus looks forward to having this matter behind it so it can continue to focus on serving its customers in Connecticut."
PURA's Prosecutorial Staff had alleged that Energy Plus, "(i) submitted inaccurate supply summary
information to the electric distribution companies in April 2020 resulting in 96 customers
being returned to standard service as a result of implementation of docket 14-07-19RE05,
which was to the financial detriment of 69 of the 96 customers and; (ii) despite participating
in the amnesty docket and being aware of the Authority's focus on supply summary
violations, failed to consistently submit accurate supply summary information to the
electric distribution companies resulting in numerous violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-
245d between January 29, 2019, and April 7, 2020, when docket 14-07-19RE05 was
Under the settlement, Energy Plus agrees to pay a total civil penalty of $282,200
Additionally, Energy Plus is to credit the 69 customers to whom
being returned to standard service resulted in a financial detriment (noted above) a total of $5,888.50