STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Docket No. 2017-00268
November 16,2017

MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Inquiry into Transparency and Marketing
Practices in the Electricity Supply Market

I.

EMERA MAINE'S
CHAPTER 305 NOI
COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION
On October 16, 2017, the Maine Public Utilities Commission ("the Commission")

issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding competitive provider energy (CEP) marketing
practices and potential changes to Chapter 305 ofthe Commission's rules. This NOI
follows the Maine legislature's recent changes to some statutes governing CEPs and
consumer protections that became effective November I, 2017. P.L. 2017, ch. 74.
The NOI requests interested parties provide comments on a number of issues
related to the recent statutory changes, including whether transmission and distribution
(T&D) utilities should be required to provide the website and telephone number of the
Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) pending a future Chapter 305 rulemaking.
Additionally, the NOI requests interested parties provide comment on questions related to
CEP marketing practices, such as door-to-door marketing.
Emera Maine appreciates the opportunity to provide comment to the Commission
on these issues.

II.

CONSUMER PROTECTIONS & NOTICE

1. Given the Commission's historical policy of providing residential and small
commercial customers the same consumer protections under Chapter 305. the
commission anticipates applying the recently enacted consumer protections to both
residential and small commercial customers. even though the legislation on its face
refers only to residential consumers. 35-A M.R.S. §§ 3203(4-Bl. (4-C).
The reasoning behind providing these protections applies equally well to
residential and small commercial customers alike. Emera Maine agrees that it would
make sense to include both residential and small commercial customers in the revised
Chapter 305 protections.

 2. With regard to the new legislative requirement that CEPs provide prospective
customers with information regarding the standard offer service, should CEPs be
reguired to provide prosgective customers with the actual standard offer prices. both
current and. if available, for the next standard offer term? 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4B )(A ) .

Actual standard offer prices, current and future, if available, are likely to be some
of the most helpful standard offer information from a customer's perspective. For this
reason, it makes sense to require CEPs to provide the available standard offer prices
to prospective customers.

3. The Commission preliminarily intemrets the requirement that utility bills provide
certain notices to be applicable regardless of whether customers are receiving one
utility bill from the transmission and distribution (T&D) utility or a separate bill from
the CEP. 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4-C).
The NOI requests comment on the Commission's preliminary interpretation that
utility bills must include the information now required by 35-A M.R.S. 3203(4-C) for
all CEP customers regardless of whether the customer receives one combined bill or
separate bills forT &D service and CEP service. Currently, the redlined version of
Chapter 305 provided with this NOI simply states that "[t]he bill for a customer that
elects to receive generation service from a competitive electricity provider must
contain the following .. ." It is not clear whether this refers to consolidated bills and all
T&D generated bills or simply any bill for generation service, regardless of which
entity issues it.
Emera Maine is not clear on whether the Commission is proposing that the
information would need to be on the T&D bill regardless of whether the CEP charges
are provided to customers on that bill or whether it would need to be provided on
whichever bill has the generation charges. From a technical standpoint, however, the
Company does not currently have any way to place a CEP-specific message on its
bills for customers on a CEP that does not use consolidated billing. Without the
charges for CEP service, there is no flag in the system that would ensure the bill

2

 generates the appropriate CEP contact information for that customer. Producing CEPspecific information for CEP customers that do not receive a single combined bill
would require potentially extensive modifications to Emera Maine's customer
information and billing systems.
Emera Maine would support revisions to Chapter 305 that require the CEPspecific contact information outlined in 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4-C) to appear on the
bills for generation service, regardless of which entity issues it.

4. Pending adoption of amendments to Chapter 305 to conform to the recent legislative
changes. should CEPs and T&D utilities be required to provide notice through utility
bills of the website and telephone number of the Office of the Public Advocate, as set
forth in the attached redline of Chapter 305, to comply with the requirements of35-A
M.R.S.

§

3203 {4-C)(A)?

Emera Maine does not have any concerns with a potential notice from the
Commission that it should provide the OPA's website to comply with the
requirements of Section 3203(4-C)(A) pending an official rulemaking. Section
3203(4-C)(A), however, only requires that the T &D utility provide "a website or
other resource" that customers may access for independent supply information.
Because there is a finite amount of space on any given bill, providing both a
website and a telephone number for the OPA may be challenging, particularly
considering that the utilities must also find space for CEP-specific contact
information. Emera Maine urges the Commission to consider requiring only the
website for the OPA rather than both a website and phone number. A website alone
would meet the requirements of Section 3203(4-C)(A).
Similarly, Emera Maine requests that the Commission consider allowing the
utilities to create shorter web URLs that will redirect to the OPA's website for space
saving purposes. The shorter URL will also be easier for customers to enter into their
browser. At this time, it is not clear to the Company whether the Commission intends
to have utilities link simply to the OPA's general website
(http://www.maine.gov/meopa/) or specifically to its page detailing supplier prices
and information (http://www.maine.gov/meopa/utilities/electric/supply.html). For the

3

 latter case, it would be even more important that utilities be allowed to use a
shortened URL to ensure it has adequate space on its bill for the information.
If the Commission decides not to allow shortened URLs that would redirect to the
OPA's website, Emera Maine supports using the shorter address for the OPA's
general website as opposed to linking to the longer address for the supplier page
itself.
In terms of timing, Emera Maine estimates that it will require weeks of testing
before it can implement the new message. For this reason, Emera Maine would likely
need several weeks after the Commission's notice before it could fully implement the
message on bills. Depending on the timing of the notice and potential challenges
encountered during testing, it could be into early 2018 before the message could be
fully implemented on bills.

5. With regard to the requirement CEPs obtain express consent prior to renewing a
Terms of Service at a fixed rate that is 20% or more above the rate of the expiring
Terms of Service. the Commission preliminarily interprets the 20% to require a
calculation or an average rate over the term of a Terms of Service that contained a
variable rate. 35-A M.R.S.

§

3203(4-B)(C).

Emera Maine does not have any comments on this issue.

III.

MARKETING PRACTICES

1. Should additional regulatory requirements be put in place with regard to third-party
marketing companies to ensure compliance with Chapter 305? For example. would
exnress training re_guirem.ents improve CEP compliance with residential consumer
protection standards? If such regulatory requirements are put into place, should the
Commission require formal verification of the training for each person that will be
marketing for the CEP. whether employed by the CEP or by a third-party company?
There may be some benefit from requiring CEPs to provide and verify that they
have provided training to all individuals that will be marketing on their behalf.
Express training requirements and formal verification that the required training has
been provided should help ensure that CEPs and any entity engaged to market on

4

 their behalf are compliant with Commission rules and provide a record for the
Commission to review as necessary.

2. Can or should the practice of selling electricity door-to-door be prohibits in Maine.
either outright through rule or through the licensing process for CEPs? Does the
Commission have the statutory authority to adopt such a prohibition?
To the extent that the Commission has the authority to adopt such a prohibition~
Emera Maine would be in favor of either prohibiting door-to-door marketing or
imposing some of the alternatives proposed by the Commission in questions 4 and 5
below. Over the past few years, Emera Maine has received complaints from
customers about CEP practices largely stemming from door-to-door sales attempts.
These complaints have included customers stating that a salesperson has pressured
them into providing copies of their utility bills and social security numbers, alleged
that the standard offer provider was going through bankruptcy, or otherwise implied
that customers have to choose a CEP.
The act of going to a customer's home in general can be viewed as intimidating
by customers and may be perceived as a higher pressure situation than a letter or
telephone call might be. A prohibition or restriction on such high pressure marketing
techniques like door-to-door sales attempts would protect customers, particularly
those that may be more vulnerable.

3. Does the practice of third-party companies working on commission impact
compliance with Chapter 305? If yes. can or should this practice be prohibited
through the licensing process?
Offering commission for third-party companies or independent contractors to
make sales may encourage such salespersons to mislead or even outright lie to
customers to make a sale and earn their commission. It may not be impossible for a
CEP to maintain compliance with Chapter 305 consumer protections and offer
commission to third-party entities for sales, but it does seem that a commission-based
compensation approach could encourage predatory marketing tactics.

5

 4. Should additional security be required as a prerequisite to CEPs engaging in door-todoor marketing practices?
To the extent that the Commission does not ultimately pursue a prohibition on
door-to-door marketing practices, requiring additional security is a potential way to
seek some assurance of door-to-door sales attempts that comply with Chapter 305 and
that do not mislead customers.

5. Should CEPs who engage in door-to-door marketing practices be required to submit
advance notice to the Commission as to the targeted geographical locations for doorto-door sales and/or submit quarterly reports detailing door-to-door activities? If yes.
what specific information should be included in the reports?
To the extent that the Commission does not prohibit door-to-door marketing
practices, Emera Maine supports an advanced notice requirement for door-to-door
sales. In addition to providing notice to the Commission, Emera Maine requests that
the Commission consider requiring that CEPs also provide advanced notice to the
T&D utility for the service territory it will be operating in.
In recent years, Emera Maine has from time to time received calls from concerned
or confused customers regarding salespersons that have approached them at their
home. One ofthe major concerns is that the salesperson may be a scammer,
especially if they pressure customers for social security numbers or utility account
information. Given the number of attempted scams involving utility bills and electric
service that have proliferated over the past few years, this is not an unreasonable
assumption by customers. In one recent case, salespersons for a CEP began going
door-to-door in Emera Maine's Maine Public District, where it was not authorized to
operate. When customers called in concerned about the salespersons coming to their
homes, Emera Maine's customer service representatives for that district had never
heard of the CEP and could not confirm it was not a scam. Had the CEP provided
advanced notice to Emera Maine, it could have advised the CEP that it was not
authorized to operate in that district or, had it been authorized, ensured that the
Company's customer representatives were aware of the activity in that location and
advised concerned customers accordingly. Requiring advanced notice to the T&D

6

 utility before a CEP engages in door-to-door sales efforts would help ensure customer
safety by keeping the utilities infonned oflegitimate marketing attempts.
Similarly, the Commission should consider taking this a step further and require
advanced notice to the T &D utilities for mailing and telephone campaigns. Many
recent electricity scams have used letters and telephone caJls to attempt to swindle
customers, and the Company often fields calls from concerned customers wondering
if the communication they received is legitimate or not. Knowing in advance which
CEPs are engaged in unsolicited marketing and, in the case of mailings, having a
copy of the letter template that the CEP will be sending will allow Emera Maine to
better advise concerned customers.

6. Should third-party verification requirements be modified where customers have been
contacted through door-to-door marketing? If so. how should it be modified?
Modifying the third-party verification requirements for customers contacted and
enrolled through door-to-door marketing could help ensure that such customers
intended to enroll and that they understand what they were enrolling in. In particular,
the third-party verification should be required for customers enrolled through a doorto-door marketing campaign.

7. Are there other types of marketing activities that the Commission should take note of
that might require additional regulatory/reporting requirements?
In addition to issues with high pressure tactics from door-to-door sales attempts,
Emera Maine has also encountered sales letters from CEPs that strongly imply some
official connection with Emera Maine.
While Chapter 305, Section 4(8)(10) prohibits CEPs from implying, suggesting,
or stating that they have some affiliation or association with a T&D utility, it would
be clearer for both CEPs and T&Ds if there were more specific prohibitions on
certain types of practices that could suggest an association with or endorsement by a
T&D utility. These practices could include use of the T&D utility's logo, placement
of the T&D utility's name in such a way as to indicate some parity or partnership with
the CEP, or putting the T&D utility's name in oversized font in a prominent spot on

7

 the letter. To the extent that the Commission has the authority, the Commission
should consider prohibiting certain practices for sales letters that would imply any
connection with a T&D utility other than operating in that utility's service territory.
8. To what extent could the Commission's regulation ofCEP marketing practices be
informed by the statutory regulation of transient sales, 32 M.R.S. §§ 14701-14716.
and consumer solicitation sales, 32 M.R.S. §§ 4661-4671. Explain whether similar
Emera Maine does not have any comments on this question.
9. Comments on other issues not identified above but relevant to customer protection
standards are also reguested.
Emera Maine does not have any additional comments on customer protection
standards forCEPs at this time.
Respectfully submitted th~~

Sarah Spruce, Regulatory Counsel
Emera Maine

8