|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier Alleges "More And More Convoluted Interpretations" Of Enrollment Rules By PSC Staff To Invalidate Contracts, In Appealing Staff Decision
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In an appeal to the Maryland PSC of a decision from the Maryland PSC's Consumer Affairs Division (CAD), Stream Energy Maryland, LLC alleged that, "CAD continues to produce more and more convoluted interpretations of Commission
regulations in an attempt to incorrectly invalidate supplier contracts."
In response to a specific customer's complaint, prompted by a rate increase after the customer rolled over onto a variable at the end of a fixed price contract, CAD found that Stream's original enrollment was invalid
Stream alleged that the customer affirmatively consented to enroll
with Stream Energy and entered into a valid contract for electric supply service with Stream
Energy that contained all the materials terms and conditions as required by COMAR
20.53.07.08A(2). Upon the customer contacting Stream to cancel service, Stream, returned the customer to SOS in accordance with applicable regulations, Stream said
Stream alleged that in a September 26 decision, CAD found that the customer's enrollment with Stream Energy
was invalid because, "COMAR 20.53.07.08 B(1) requires a supplier to provide the customer with
a copy of the executed contract and the completed Contract Summary." Stream alleged that CAD stated that, "[t]he contract and contract summary are two separate documents
and the contract summary and the Terms and Conditions cannot be substituted for the actual
contract in order to create a valid supplier contract."
Stream alleges that it provided the customer with a valid contract, in the form of a document labeled Terms and Conditions but which met all applicable COMAR requirements for a contract and thus was the contract, which Staff allegedly ignores
Stream alleged that the customer, "affirmatively consented to enroll with Stream Energy and
entered into a valid contract with Stream Energy for electric supply service."
"Following his
enrollment, Stream Energy provided [customer] with his executed contract. CAD’s finding that [customer's] enrollment with Stream Energy was invalid is not reasonably based on the evidence in
this case nor is it based on a sensible analysis of Commission regulations and basic contract law," Stream alleged
"Stream Energy’s document titled 'Terms and Conditions' is [customer's] contract and
includes all required materials terms and conditions as required by COMAR 20.53.07.08A(2),
including the specific price, duration and early cancellation fee. CAD clearly did not bother to
read the Terms and Conditions, which does not incorporate any other document by reference and
does not even mention the Contract Summary which was provided separately," Stream alleged
Stream's appeal includes a list of each item required by COMAR and cited its specific location in the Terms and Conditions
"As the Terms and Conditions contain all required materials terms and conditions as
required by COMAR 20.53.07.08A(2), it appears CAD takes issue with Stream Energy’s labeling
of the contract as the 'Terms and Conditions' even though Commission regulations do not dictate
how supplier contracts must be titled, and even COMAR 20.53.07.08A(2) refers to 'terms and
conditions.' Additionally, the Contract Summary, which is on a form provided by the Commission,
instructs customers that if they need 'additional information, please refer to your Terms and
Conditions,'" Stream alleged
"Stream Energy provided [customer] with a completed
Terms and Conditions, which is his contract, and a completed Contract Summary. Moreover, the
Terms and Conditions includes all required terms and does not incorporate any other document.
In sum, CAD is flat-out mistaken in this particular case and seems to be applying a legal principle
without paying attention to the facts of this case," Stream alleged
Stream alleged, "Here, it is apparent that CAD
did not review Stream Energy’s Terms and Conditions; CAD’s decision reads like a form letter
that has been mass produced for use in multiple cases. CAD avoids any discussion of the merits
of [customer's name] complaint and, instead, seems intended as another in the growing line of CAD
decisions involving whether a supplier may incorporate documents by reference into a supply
contract."
"That may be a legal issue for other cases, but it’s not this case. Stream Energy’s Terms
and Conditions, provided timely to [customer's name] and to which he agreed: (i) is a contract; (ii) was
provided as a stand-alone document separate from the Contract Summary; and (iii) does not
incorporate or even reference the Contract Summary. Accordingly, the Terms and Conditions
complies with the Commission’s contracting requirements in COMAR 20.53.07.08A(2). [Customer's name]
had a valid contract with Stream Energy, and CAD’s September 26 decision is in error," Stream alleged
Stream alleged that following the enrollment, Stream
Energy sent the customer a welcome letter, along with copies of the Contract Summary and Terms
and Conditions.
Stream alleged that the customer's enrollment, which was completed online, complied with COMAR 20.53.07.08C(2), COMAR 20.53.07.08C(3), and the Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Stream alleged, "CAD’s decision is wrong because the contract was valid. The decision is also totally
divorced for the substance of [the customer's] complaint. In fact, [customer] did not dispute the
existence of his contract with Stream Energy, nor did he contend that he was enrolled without his
consent. His complaint is about an increase in rates due to his transition to a variable product,
which is addressed in the contract. CAD, however, took it upon itself to find, inexplicably, that no
contract existed."
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-22 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
Staff Found T&Cs Did Not Constitute Required "Contract"
October 12, 2022
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Sales Development Representative
• NEW! -- Operations Analyst/Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Customer Success
• NEW! -- Market Operations Analyst
• NEW! -- Operations Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Marketing Associate - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Supervisor-Commercial Operations
• NEW! -- Customer Data Specialist
• NEW! -- Director, Regulatory Affairs, Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Account Manager Project Manager
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Policy Analyst
• NEW! -- Incentive Specialists
• NEW! -- Utility Rates Specialist
• NEW! -- Customer Onboarding Specialist
• NEW! -- Energy Performance Engineer
|
|
|