Parties In Broker Complaint Case Agree To Dismissal Of Proceeding In Which Complainant Had Sought Rescission Of Contracts Between Retail Suppliers, Customers Which Were Arranged By Competitor
February 12, 2021 Email This Story Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
H.P. Technologies, Inc., the complainant, and Ryan E. Boucher, et al., the respondents, have agreed to a dismissal of a complaint filed by H.P. Technologies against Boucher ('Boucher'), RES Consulting, LLC ('RES') f/k/a Energy Solutions Consulting, LLC ('ESC'), and Fidelis United Energy Solutions, Inc., which had been filed at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
The parties said in a filing with PUCO that, "It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the parties to the captioned matter that this proceeding
may be dismissed with prejudice, that Complainant relinquishes its claims against Respondent in
this proceeding, and that the Commission may enter its order terminating this complaint."
As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the case was notable because H.P. Technologies had sought, as part of its requested relief in an amended complaint, a PUCO order to, "rescind all contracts Respondents entered into with customers, including contracts entered into with customers with whom Complainant had entered into contracts for aggregation or brokerage services, or arranged for those services, and return those customers to their prior natural gas or electric supplier contracts."
In brief, as previously reported, H.P. had originally alleged that, "RES provided CRES [electric] and CRNGS [natural gas] aggregation and/or broker services in Ohio from a period beginning on or before July 2018 through at least May 2019, without obtaining certificates from the Commission." With respect to Fidelis, H.P. alleged that, "Fidelis' COO (and only acknowledged employee, Respondent Boucher) has engaged in conduct that makes Fidelis unfit to provide CRES or CRNGS [service]."
Among other defenses, the Respondents had previously said that Boucher was under contract with or acting on behalf of one or more entities with active Commission certificates to provide competitive natural gas and electric services. Additionally, the Respondents said that the activities alleged in the complaint do not require a broker license, based on PUCO precedent (PUCO's prior finding that operating as a 'consultant' on natural gas or electric supply issues does not require a certificate unless an entity’s conduct actually rises to the level of 'engaging in the ultimate decision making process and entering into contractual obligations on behalf of . . . clients with respect to the provision of a competitive service')