Maryland Seeks Briefs on Requirement for Monthly Supplier Price Postings

The Maryland PSC issued a notice of opportunity to respond to a rehearing request from the Office of People's Counsel, which in part addresses the requirement for electric suppliers to provide pricing information to the PSC for public posting.

Specifically, OPC is seeking rehearing of an order which imposed a $350,000 penalty on Starion Energy, but which did not make any finding regarding Starion's compliance with PUA §7-510.1, the supplier price posting statute.

OPC noted that PUA §7-510.1 provides that at least once each month, each electricity supplier with an open offer to supply electricity shall submit detailed information about the offer to the Commission through a secure portal maintained by the Commission on the Commission's website for this purpose.

OPC further noted that an October 2011 PSC notice regarding the web portal informed suppliers that they were required to post the terms of any open offers, including the duration of the contract, the cost of electricity per kWh, and any cancellation fees. That same notice informed suppliers that they are required to upload new or updated offers within three days of a change to an open offer, OPC argued.

However, while Starion was alleged to not have posted pricing information on the PSC supplier portal, the PSC's order was silent regarding general applicability of PUA §7-510.1, as well as its application to Starion.

OPC sought rehearing and asked the PSC to find that Starion failed to comply with Commission law and its 2011 directive, and asked that the PSC order Starion to submit the appropriate information on a monthly basis going forward.

The PSC issued a notice that it will accept responses to OPC's petition through May 22.

OPC also sought rehearing on two different issues, though neither would have novel market-wide implications as the interpretation of PUA §7-510.1 would.

First, while the PSC's order affirmed the requirement of the Maryland Telephone Solicitation Act, which prohibits the execution of a contract over the phone except where a customer has previously viewed specific materials related to the offer, the order did not find any specific violations of the Telephone Solicitation Act by Starion. OPC argued that such findings could be made.

Second, the order did not make any findings with respect to an account management fee charged by Starion. The issue regarding the account management fee is specific to Starion's disclosure, and should not implicate use of an account management fee in and of itself.