RESA Seeks to Re-open Record in Connecticut Supplier-Agency Docket

The Retail Energy Supply Association has petitioned the Connecticut PURA to reopen the record in Docket 10-06-24, regarding the definition of "agent" and supplier responsibility for agents, claiming that PURA, "did not provide an opportunity for a full and fair hearing on the issues involving all potentially interested stakeholders."

See 9/30 story for draft order on supplier-agency issues

RESA further requested that the Authority postpone the deadline for the submission of written exceptions, which is today, until such time as it has issued a ruling on the motion. No ruling had been made as of publication time.

Docket 10-06-24 was originally opened in June 2010, and was subject to several rounds of comments and briefs prior to a draft decision in February 2011, with briefs on exceptions to the draft also permitted. A final decision was issued in March 2011, in which the then-DPUC provided, in noting the ongoing legislation addressing supplier-agent issues, "At the conclusion of the 2011 session, the Department will promulgate regulations, if necessary, to adopt these Guidelines as modified or revised to conform with any laws enacted by the General Assembly."

Furthermore, also in March 2011, the DPUC stayed two provisions of its final order concerning aggregators until, "there are definitive directions or guidance from the Legislature, [at which time] the Department will reopen the docket to revisit this issue."

The March 2011 decision also established working group procedures for a number of provisions of the decision.

RESA seized on this workgroup directive for its motion, noting that the Authority specifically stated that it would, "adjudicate if need be, any issues that cannot be resolved by the working group."

RESA said that the issue of agency relationships among suppliers and various indirect sales channels is one of these unresolved issues.

"Since there was significant disagreement surrounding the issue and a consensus could not be reached, consistent with the Decision, the Authority should then have provided a forum for a full adjudication before issuing the Draft Decision," RESA said.

Specifically, RESA sought full evidentiary hearings on the issues. After the legislative session, PURA held a technical session and two rounds of comments to inform the draft order at-issue, which RESA said was insufficient.

"While this proceeding is not a contested case, in the Draft Decision, the Authority makes determinations that affect the substantive rights and obligations of electric suppliers, customers and other participants in the competitive retail electric market and, as discussed during the Working Group Meeting, that will have a significant impact on that market. Yet, the Authority did not provide an opportunity for a full and fair hearing on the issues involving all potentially interested stakeholders," RESA argued.

Aside from supplier-agency issues, the draft order would also prohibit the use of automatic re-enrollment (invalidation) clauses by retail suppliers, under which suppliers submit switch requests to retain any customers who leave the supplier without providing notice to the supplier. RESA said that this issue was not previously included within the scope of Docket 10-06-24, and RESA said that the automatic re-enrollment issue was not noticed for a July workgroup meeting which led to the present draft order.