|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Customer Complaint Could Affect How All Fixed Retail Energy Contracts Are Defined
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A complaint from a Pennsylvania customer against SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC ("SmartEnergy") at the Pennsylvania PUC could impact all fixed rate retail energy contracts in Pennsylvania, with the complainant also seeking additional market-wide reforms
Specifically, a decision on the complaint could determine how to define the duration of fixed rate terms which are described, in whole or in part, by months (or "monthly"), given that utility billing cycles (or billing periods) may, under the PUC's rules, last anywhere from 26 days to 35 days
Indeed, the pro-se complainant is specifically seeking market-wide reforms, such as uniform definitions for fixed rate term lengths, as further discussed below
While a complaint case cannot serve as a forum to adopt new rules, a ruling on the meaning of terms such as "four months" and/or "four (4) monthly billing cycles" -- and for what time period they obligate a retail supplier to provide a fixed rate -- could potentially establish precedent for use in future complaint cases, and thus essentially require changes in supplier marketing and product language
Among other things, the complainant alleges that the complainant's SmartEnergy contract was required to provide a fixed rate for four months (on a calendar day basis). The complainant alleges that the use of the term "four (4) monthly billing cycles" in certain contract documents (including the contract summary) cannot be used to mean a period different than four months (on a calendar day basis).
Although the specific decision of the PUC's Bureau of
Consumer Services (BCS) in an informal complaint review regarding this same matter is not public, the filing of a formal complaint by the complainant (or "appeal" of the BCS case resolution) indicates that the resolution reached in the BCS process was generally in favor of SmartEnergy (as noted below, SmartEnergy states that the BCS informal complaint was reviewed and dismissed by BCS)
SmartEnergy provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"The Complainant's informal complaint was reviewed and dismissed by the PA BCS [PUC's Bureau of Consumer Services], as SmartEnergy demonstrated that all applicable notices were delivered before the expiration of the Complainant's fixed rate term, in compliance with the Commission's regulations. Regarding Complainant's interpretation of his contract's 'four (4) monthly billing cycles' to mean a fixed calendar day period (i.e., 120 days), SmartEnergy maintains that Complainant's position is inconsistent with the standardized utility 'Billing Period' as defined by regulation and will likely create uncertainty in supplier contract duration. While SmartEnergy believes the complaint should be dismissed, we remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of regulatory adherence and customer care.
--- Statement from SmartEnergy
It appears that the complainant in part argues that the term "four (4) monthly billing cycles" means four months (by calendar days), and not four billing cycles
The product's contract summary lists the rate as, "Fixed during the first four (4) monthly billing cycles." The product's contract summary lists the Contract Duration/Length as: "Four (4) monthly billing cycles."
However, regardless of the interpretation of the term "four (4) monthly billing cycles", a telephonic verification conducted to enroll the complainant appears to only use the term "four months" to describe the fixed rate, implicating issues beyond the specific interpretation of the phrase "four (4) monthly billing cycles"
A hearing exhibit in the proceeding lists the verification as including the following question, to which the complainant affirmed, "Yes":
"So do you understand that by enrolling this SmartEnergy's 100% renewable energy plan you will
receive the fixed rate of 6.79 cents per kilowatt hour for four months and after that, the rate
mentions from month to month based on market conditions, including cost, weather, and other
business factors."
Additionally, a customer welcome letter included as an exhibit in the proceeding describes the product as follows:
"You have selected our 4 months fixed product with a fixed rate of 6.79 cents per kilowatt hour for 100%
renewable electricity supply."
Thus, while the complainant does not focus on the verification or welcome letter, alleging that even a description using the term "monthly billing cycles" means months (by calendar days) independent of the billing cycles, there is the broader language of the verification and welcome letter which the PUC may, in any order, adjudicate or otherwise opine on, one way or the other
The Pa. Code, itself, notably does not define the term "fixed", but does require that suppliers shall adhere to definitions adopted and posted by the PUC
The Pennsylvania PUC has, by order, adopted guidelines defining fixed price using billing cycles to measure the minimum term length.
Specifically, under PUC order, "fixed price" means, "An all-inclusive per kWh price that will remain the same for at least three billing cycles or the term of the contract, whichever is longer."
However, such minimum term for a fixed price does not address how the duration of a fixed price contract should be measured if the supplier uses terms such as "6 months", and not a term explicitly linked to a number of billing cycles
Additionally, a review of PA Power Switch shows that, for the "Term Length" field on the shopping site, all residential offers at PPL Electric list the term length as exclusively in "months", without reference to billing cycles
In the information posted on PA Power Switch, only one supplier's offers make reference, in essentially an area for additional information, to billing cycles, stating, for example, "12 monthly bill cycles fixed".
In contract summaries, certain suppliers only use the term "months" to describe contract duration, and not billing cycles
The complainant alleges that the complainant found SmartEnergy's offer on PA Power Switch, and called to enroll
SmartEnergy in a brief stated, "Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof to show that his
interpretation of his Terms of Service is valid, and he is simply wrong because utility billing
cycles are not set in strict, 30-day calendar days/month periods. The evidence proved that
the December 22, 2024 fixed rate expiration date ensured Complaint received 'Four (4)
month billing cycles' of fixed rate service pursuant to his Terms of Service. The record
evidence is clear that SmartEnergy does not control the utility’s (here PPL Electric Utilities)
meter read cycle, billings, or other dates used to determine a 'billing period' under the
utility tariff and Commission’s regulations. To the extent Mr. Mattiola [complainant] disputes the meaning
of 'four (4) monthly billing cycles' in his Terms of Service, his beliefs are not supported
by logic or law -- especially where Complainant’s position advocates that his fixed rate
service should have terminated at an earlier date (i.e. November 23, 2024) and at a time
prior to the completion of 'four (4) monthly billing cycles' as determined by his utility and
set forth in the Commission’s regulations."
Of note in this case, SmartEnergy's use of four billing cycles for the fixed rate duration actually resulted in the customer receiving the fixed rate for a longer period (about 1 month longer), compared to an earlier end date that would have resulted if the contract's term had been interpreted as being four months by calendar days, as is the complainant's position
Additionally, in the period between when the complainant alleges that the fixed price should have ended, and the date on which SmartEnergy ceased charging the fixed price, the fixed price which continued to be charged to the customer was a lower rate than the variable rate onto which the customer was later auto-renewed
However, the complainant alleges that the fact that such action benefited the complainant is not relevant
The complainant states, "When an electric
generation supplier undertakes to provide power for a definite term, it must do precisely
that -- no more and no less. It is irrelevant whether the term extension described by the
witness is for 'the benefit' of the consumer. That is not a decision to be made by the
EGS."
Additionally, the complainant alleges that the contract should have terminated (and not auto-renewed) at the earlier point of after four months (by calendar days), rather than being, as alleged by the complainant, extended for an additional month at a fixed price such that the fixed price covered four billing cycles (with the product then auto-renewed at the later point of after four billing cycles)
The complainant alleges that SmartEnergy's "extension" of the fixed rate term due to using a billing cycle term length, "altered a written contract without consent," and is allegedly contrary to the "plain language" of the contract.
The complainant alleges, "Under 52 Pa. Code § 54.10, an EGS must adhere strictly to the term and price disclosed
at enrollment. SmartEnergy’s unilateral extension violated that rule and breached its duty
of good faith and fair dealing implicit in all Pennsylvania contracts."
Addressing the complainant's allegation that the contract should have terminated, and not auto-renewed, after four months (regardless of however such time is measured), SmartEnergy alleged that various enrollment documents, including the contract summary and verification, informed that the complainant that the product would auto-renew onto a variable rate if the customer took no action at renewal
SmartEnergy in a brief further stated, "Mr. Mattiola ... has the burden of proof. As stated above, Mr. Mattiola testified that he 'believed'
his 'contract stated that service would be provided for four months.' Complaint at ¶ 4. He
further testified that 'I believe that when a contract says the duration is for four months,
that’s final. At the end of four months, the contract is no longer valid.' N.T. 10:18-21
(emphasis added [by SmartEnergy]). Yet, later in testimony, Mr. Mattiola admitted that his contract’s renewal
terms were written in his Terms of Service, but that he simply 'disagreed' with the meaning
or effect of the terms. N.T. at 42:11-14. Despite his blatant change of position to recognize
but then refuse the effect of the renewal terms, Mr. Mattiola rested his entire case on his
beliefs where he claimed he 'reviewed' the contract and determined that the 'length, four
months' which meant, at conclusion, his service automatically 'terminated' and he was to
be returned to default service or otherwise not transitioned to a variable rate."
The complainant alleges that the complainant did not receive the two renewal notices
SmartEnergy in a brief stated, "The unrebutted record established SmartEnergy sent renewal notices
to Complainant at his mailing address on October 31, 2024 (SmartEnergy Exhibit 4) and
again on November 15, 2024 (SmartEnergy Exhibit 5) informing Complainant that his
service would transition to a variable rate effective December 22, 2024, if no action was
taken by him."
SmartEnergy in a brief stated, "SmartEnergy’s written notices complied with the Commission’s regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 54.10. These notices were not returned to SmartEnergy as undeliverable mail, and
Mr. Mattiola [complainant] took no action as his fixed rate was to expire on December 22, 2024."
The complainant alleges, "SmartEnergy produced no postal receipts, no customer confirmation, and no business-records
certification demonstrating dispatch. The Commission in Blue Pilot Energy, C-
2014-2427657 (Pa. PUC 2016) found such deficiencies sufficient to establish a violation
of § 54.10 and to justify license suspension."
Beyond the specifics of the case, the complaint is notable in calling for market-wide reforms in addition to specific relief to the complainant
The complainant alleges, "This case illustrates a persistent regulatory gap: suppliers continue to exploit vague
contract language and ineffective consumer notifications."
The complainant said that the PUC should mandate "standardized contract-term definitions."
"'Four months' should uniformly
mean four calendar months from the start date of electricity supply, eliminating
ambiguity," the complainant said
Furthermore, the complainant said that the PUC should, require, "verifiable delivery of renewal notices."
"Email or postal certificates should
be mandatory evidence of compliance," the complainant said
Additionally, the complainant said that the PA Power Switch site should display supplier compliance histories
The complainant also sought enhanced penalty guidelines, stating that penalties should scale with the number of affected
consumers and the financial impact.
Docket F-2025-3054761
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
November 7, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|