Connecticut PURA Re-Opens Spark Energy Licensing Docket To Review Compliance With Next Month Rate Obligations

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§16-245o, 16-9, 16-245r, 42-110b and 16-41, the Connecticut PURA reopened the licensing docket of Spark Energy, L.P., "to review Spark’s compliance with §16-245d(a)(2) and the standards developed by the Authority in Dockets 14-07-19 and 14-07-19RE01, its ability to properly administer the electronic data interface requirements necessary to support its license and its overall managerial capabilities."

As stated in PURA's decision re-opening the docket, "On February 13, 2018, the Authority received a complaint that Spark had failed to provide accurate information regarding a customer’s next cycle rate (Complaint). Based upon initial inquiries made by the Authority, it appears that Spark had transmitted to the EDC an increase to the customer’s billed generation supply rate but had failed to timely transmit the information necessary to display the increased rate in the next cycle rate field on the customer’s billing statement. It appears that Spark failed to transmit the next cycle rate for this customer across several billing cycles. The Authority has reason to believe that Spark has failed to timely transmit the correct next cycle rate for other residential customers. The Authority addressed similar compliance issues with Spark between October 2016 and March 2017, and was assured by Spark that it had taken measures to ensure Spark’s compliance going forward."

Spark Energy said in a comment to EnergyChoiceMatters.com that, "The company intends to work with PURA to resolve this matter."

State Sen. Len Suzio, whose complaint about erroneous information on his bill prompted the review (see RetailEnergyX.com for more details), said in his initial letter to PURA, now made public as part of a docket concerning the next-cycle info (Docket 14-07-19RE01), alleged that Docket 14-07-19RE01, "contain[s] various exchanges of letters between one supplier, Spark Energy, and the PURA regarding Spark Energy's ongoing noncompliance with respect to 'Phase II Summary Information requirements' dating back to September 2016."

"[T]he lethargic enforcement process of the Authority as exhibited by the Docket files suggests no sense of urgency by the Authority while thousands of residential rate payers continued to receive inaccurate information for a year or more, and in at least in one case, (Spark Energy), for 2 years," Suzio alleged