|
|
|
|
|
Pa. PUC Vice Chair Concerned With "Fact Pattern" Of Customer Savings Under Initial Retail Supplier Choice Being "More Than Wiped Out" When Moved To Monthly Variable Rate At End Of Contract
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
During today's Pennsylvania PUC meeting, PUC Vice Chair Kimberly Barrow expressed concern with a "fact pattern" in customer complaints about shopping in which customers say their savings under an initial retail energy contract are, "more than wiped out," when the customer is defaulted onto a monthly variable or other rate at the end of the contract term, if the customer did not take an affirmative action in response to PUC-required notices from the retail supplier
"[W]hile the Commission's Regulations permit an EGS [electric generation supplier] to convert a non-responsive
customer to a month-to-month or fixed-duration contract, I caution the EGS industry to exercise
good faith and reasonableness when offering the new contract terms and prices," Barrow said
"I'm concerned about the fact pattern that I keep seeing time and time again in these [shopping] complaints," Barrow said
"Customers complain that any savings
experienced during the initial contract term are more than wiped out once they are moved to a
month-to-month or new fixed-duration contract," Barrow said
"It is important that shopping customers pay
attention to the notices sent near the end of the contract, but it is also important for EGSs to be
good ambassadors for their industry to retain customer confidence in the competitive market," Barrow said
Barrow added that, "Shopping for a supplier is not a passive act, and customers must remain vigilant and be aware of
contract terms and rates."
Barrow's comments came as the PUC addressed a customer complaint initially filed against both an EGS and a utility concerning the standard offer customer referral program. Generally, the customer alleged that their rate after the initial standard offer program term was high, and that the customer was not notified that the rate could increase to such an extent.
During the proceeding, the customer ultimately did not pursue their complaint against the EGS after having been satisfied with resolution of the matter by the EGS. The complaint proceeded against the utility, but the PUC found that the customer did not meet their burden of showing a violation of the Public Utility Code, Commission regulations,
or a Commission Order. The PUC found that the EDC provided the information and notices legally required under the standard offer program, and the complaint was denied
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-24 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
Urges Retail Suppliers To Use "Good Faith" In Rates For Rollover Customers, Warns About Confidence In Retail Market
April 25, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-24 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Regulatory Specialist
• Head of Retail Operations
• Sr. Market Risk Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• TPV Sales Executive
|
|
|
|