STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Docket No. 2017-00268
November 15, 2017

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

I.

COMMENTS OF CENTRAL
MAINE POWER COMPANY

INTRODUCTION

On October 16, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry in the above-captioned
proceeding. The stated purpose of the Commission’s inquiry is to receive comments and collect
information regarding consumer protection and the marketing practices of competitive electricity
providers (“CEPs”). The Commission’s inquiry stems from the enactment during the last
legislative session of An Act to Improve Transparency in the Electricity Supply Market. P.L.
2017, ch. 74, codified at 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4-B) & (4-C), This new law, codified at 35-A
M.R.S. § 3203(4-B) & (4-C), provides consumers that elect to receive electricity supply from
CEPs with new protections, in particular by enacting new conditions for the licensure of
CEPs and new informational disclosure requirements for consumers’ monthly bills.

Through its Notice of Inquiry, the Commission asked a series of questions related to
the implementation of the new law. Central Maine Power Company (“CMP” or the
“Company”) hereby provides its response to the issues raised in the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry.
II.

COMMENTS OF CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY
A. Consumer Protections and Notice Through Utility Bills (35-A M.R.S. 3203(4-B)
and (4-C)

The new law directly affects CMP through the adoption of new requirements related to
information that must be presented on customer bills issued by transmission and distribution
(“T&D”) utilities as part of consolidated utility billing. The law requires that two additional items
be added to such bills. These are:


A website address or other resource that residential customers can access to
obtain information that provides independent information as determined by the
Commission that allows residential customers to compare terms, conditions and
rates of electricity supply; and

1

 

A statement that directs the residential consumer to the competitive electricity
provider for more information on the residential customer’s contract, including its
terms, and that provides the telephone number of the competitive electricity
provider.

As noted in the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry, the new law became effective on
November 1, 2017. As of that date, CMP modified the form of its consolidated utility bills in
order to comply with the requirement that it direct customers to their CEP for more information
about their electric supply contract, as well as providing the CEP telephone number on
consolidated utility bills. As the Commission has not yet established a website or other resource
that residential customers can access to obtain information that provides independent
information on electric supply, CMP has not yet revised its form of consolidated utility bill for that
purpose. As soon as the Commission determines this information, CMP will modify its
consolidated bills accordingly.
CMP’s responses to the questions raised with respect to consumer protections are set
forth below:

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-B), (4-C)
Given the Commission’s current overall approach in Chapter 305 of extending the
same consumer protections to both residential and small commercial customers,
continuing this approach with respect to the newly enacted consumers
protections would appear to be make sense and would avoid unnecessary
confusion that might result from having only some residential protections apply
to small commercial customers.
2. With regard to the new legislative requirement that CEPs provide prospective customers
with information regarding the standard offer service, should CEPs be required to
provide prospective customers with the actual standard offer prices, both current and, if
available, for the next standard offer term? 35-A M.R.S. § 3203(4-B)(A).
CMP takes no position on this issue.
3. The Commission preliminarily interprets 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).
CMP is certainly willing and able to provide the required notices on the supply
page of any bill that it issues when a CEP elects consolidated utility billing.
However, CMP does not support the Commission’s preliminary interpretation that
utility bills provide those same notices to be applicable regardless of whether
customers are receiving one utility bill from the T&D utility or a separate bill from
the CEP. In CMP’s view, these notices should be provided on the supply page of

2

 any customer bill. In the situation of dual billing, where CEPs issue their own bills
for generation service, there is no supply page of the bill created by CMP. Hence,
CMP has no place to provide such supply-related notices for dual billing. CMP
would have no objection to a requirement for CEPs to add the required notices to
the bills that they issue.
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 of 35-A M.R.S. §
3203(4-C)(A)?
CMP will revise its form of consolidated utility bill to inform customers of
whatever website address or other resource the Commission determines is
appropriate for this purpose. CMP has no opinion as to whether the Office of the
Public Advocate website should be utilized on an interim basis.
5. With regard to the requirement that 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 of 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).
CMP has no objection to the Commission’s preliminary interpretation regarding
the calculation of an average rate.

B. 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
express training requirements 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?
In CMP’s view, there should be no distinction drawn by the Commission with
respect to the use of third-party marketing companies by CEPs. The exact same
requirements should apply to all agents of a CEP, regardless of whether they are
employees or contractors. The Commission should have a general requirement
that CEPs provide sufficient training to ensure compliance with all applicable
Commission rules. Under such an approach, it would be important for the
Commission to ensure that there are sufficient potential sanctions in place in
order to provide the proper incentives for CEPs to establish robust training and
compliance programs.
2. Can or should the practice of selling electricity door-to-door be prohibited 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?
3

 CMP takes no position on this issue.
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?
The issue is not endemic to the use of third-party companies. As noted above,
CMP does not believe that the Commission should create any distinction between
CEP employees and third-party contactors. We encourage the Commission to
ensure that potential sanctions for violations of Commission rules are sufficient
to drive CEPs to adopt robust compliance and training programs.
4. Should additional security be required as a prerequisite to CEPs engaging in door-todoor marketing practices?
The Commission should ensure that any required security is sufficient to cover
the purposes of Section 2(B)(3)(d), such as refunds to customers and potential
administrative penalties and other sanctions related to all CEP activities,
including door-to-door marketing.
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 door-todoor sales and/or submit quarterly reports detailing door-to-door activities? If yes, what
specific information should be included in the reports?
CMP takes no position on this issue.
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?
CMP takes no position on this issue.
7. Are there other types of marketing activities that the Commission should take note of
that might require additional regulatory/reporting requirements?
CEPs sometimes engage in marketing activities via social media. The
Commission should consider what types of disclosures should be provided to
customers as part of such activities
8. To what extent could the Commission’s regulation of CEP 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 provisions
ought to be incorporated into the Commission’s regulation of CEPs.
The Commission should consider adopting certain provisions similar to those related
to transient sales in 32 M.R.S. §§ 14701-14716, such as:


Licensure of employees of a CEP that will be contacting prospective
customers;



A requirement to provide this license upon request to a consumer;



A disclosure of the CEP’s name and permanent place of business.

4

 With respect to customers that are contacted in person by CEPs, the Commission
should also consider adopting the key substantive provisions of Title 32 with respect
to consumer solicitation sales, which provisions require that when merchandise
(including commodities, like electricity) is sold or contracted to be sold, whether
under a single contract or under multiple contracts, to a consumer as a result of or in
connection with a seller's direct contact accomplished by means of and including,
but not limited to, a personal visit or a telephone call upon the consumer, other than
at the seller's place of business, without the consumer soliciting the initial contact,
the contract must:


Be in writing;



Bear the signature of the seller and the consumer;



Contain the date of the transaction;



Contain the terms of the sale or offer.

9. Comments on other issues not identified above but relevant to customer protection
standards are also requested.
In CMP’s view, a key provision of Chapter 305 is the provision currently set
forth in Section 4(B)(10) that a CEP may not state, suggest or imply any affiliation or
association with a transmission and distribution utility. Increased agent
identification requirements, such as the presentation of any Commission-issued
license, may be useful in ensuring that customers clearly understand who they are
dealing with. In addition, the Commission should consider expanding the
requirements of Section 4(B)(10). In particular, with respect to the requirement that
upon customer contact by telephone, CEPs must state the name of their company
and the purpose of the call, these same requirements should extend to all
solicitations including door-to-door solicitations. CMP suggests that the
Commission adopt a requirement that any time a CEP contacts a customer or
prospective customer by any means, the CEP must immediately state the name of
their company and the purpose of the communication. Such clarity may eliminate
any confusion and assist customers in making informed choices.
III.

CONCLUSION

CMP appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments in response to the
Commission’s Notice of Inquiry. If the Commission has any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me.
Respectfully submitted,

Richard P Hevey
Senior Counsel
Central Maine Power Company
5