Suppliers Rebut Draft Decision's Conclusions on Agent Training, Choice Energy Warns PURA Tactics Will Chill Open Dialog in Proceedings

Choice Energy LLC and Discount Power, Inc., in separately filed comments, called a conclusion in a draft Connecticut PURA decision that each failed to properly train sales agents as flawed and erroneous, with Choice Energy warning that the conclusion, which was based on policy recommendations rather than record evidence, could chill future participation in PURA policymaking proceedings.

During a proceeding regarding retail market customer protections, both suppliers, in exceptions to a prior draft order, had expressed concern with a requirement to provide the names of individual agents used by third-party marketers to PURA, citing, among other things, privacy concerns and logistical burdens.

In the latest draft decision, PURA interpreted these statements as meaning the suppliers were unaware of the identity of the individual agents, and therefore, could not be complying with the requirement to train individual agents. In exceptions, both suppliers contested this conclusion, arguing that PURA ignored interrogatory responses which confirmed the training of agents, and that PURA's conclusion was unfounded.

Choice Energy warned that the draft decision's, "tactic of threatening an investigation of a docket participant based exclusively on comments offered in written exceptions represents an unprecedented abuse of process that threatens the integrity of the Authority's policymaking process and raises significant First Amendment concerns."

"[U]sing policy recommendations in written exceptions as grounds for PURA investigation represents a serious threat to the integrity of PURA policymaking processes and expressly quashes open dialog regarding future PURA proposals. Going forward, many participants may be inclined to stifle, hold back certain viewpoints, or outright refuse to openly disagree with PURA legal interpretations, for fear of facing similar retaliatory investigation. Such conduct is not conducive to full, healthy, and informative debate over important policy issues before the Authority," Choice Energy said.

Regarding PURA's specific allegations, Choice Energy noted that its response to OCC Interrogatory No. 29, entered into the record on February 3, 2014, "makes clear that Choice does indeed know the identity of its marketing agents, and also ensures each agent receives individualized training."

"As Choice's earlier interrogatory response made clear, Choice is in fact keenly aware of the identity of its third-party agents and directly provides training to such agents," Choice said.

Likewise, Discount Power, Inc. said that, "There is no basis for [PURA's] conclusion."

"DPI's exceptions addressed solely the reporting form, it had absolutely nothing to do with training -- there was absolutely nothing said in DPI's exceptions about training," Discount Power, Inc. said.

"Indeed, the record in this proceeding shows that DPI has in fact provided training directly to the marketing company and that company's employees and contractors. DPI's response to Interrogatory OCC-29: Sales Training Schedule, shows that DPI has conducted telemarketer training. Moreover, DPI provided copies of the training materials in response to Interrogatory OCC-22. Accordingly, it is clearly inappropriate to conclude that DPI has 'not provided appropriate training directly to such agents.' The record in this proceeding shows that DPI has, in fact, directly trained the telemarketer with whom it has contracted," Discount Power, Inc. said.

Docket 13-07-18