Retail Supplier To Pay $1.65 Million Under Consent Judgment With Attorney General -- EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Retail Supplier To Pay $1.65 Million Under Consent Judgment With Attorney General

June 30, 2022

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 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

Utility Expense Reduction, LLC (UER) has agreed to a consent judgment under which it will pay $1.65 million to resolve allegations that, as alleged by the Massachusetts Attorney General, "it knowingly failed to make payments to the state under three state environmental programs."

Of the $1.65 million, about $825,000 represents restitution.

Utility Expense Reduction neither admits nor denies the allegations made by the Attorney General.

The AG alleged in a news release that, "In a complaint and consent judgment filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the Attorney General and the Inspector General allege that New York-based company Utility Expense Reduction, LLC, (UER) violated the Massachusetts False Claims Act when it knowingly avoided its obligation to make required payments under the state’s renewable and clean energy programs. In addition, UER’s conduct also violated the Consumer Protection Act and several environmental statutes, including the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, the Alternative Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and the Clean Air Act."

UER operated as an electricity supplier in Massachusetts from 2016 to 2019.

The AG’s Office alleged, "UER failed to obtain the required renewable, alternative or clean energy for 2018 or 2019, and knowingly avoided its obligation to make the required payments for either year. Instead, UER left the Massachusetts electricity market in 2019, owing more than $825,000 to the state’s environmental programs."

As part of the consent agreement, UER also agreed to not operate in Massachusetts for five years.

The AG's complaint had specifically alleged that UER violated the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (M.G.L. c. 25A, § 11F), the Massachusetts Alternative Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (M.G.L. c. 25A, § 11F1/2), the Massachusetts Clean Air Act (M.G.L. c. 111, §§ 142A-142E), the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2), and the False Claims Act (M.G.L. c. 12, § 5B(9)), or, in the alternative, was unjustly enriched.

Email This Story

HOME