STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

CENTRAL MAINE POWER CO.
Docket No. 2019-00015
Re: Commission Initiated Investigation
Of Metering and Billing Issues Pertaining
to Central Maine Power Company

EXCEPTIONS OF THE OFFICE
OF THE
PUBLIC ADVOCATE

January 23, 2020

Office of the Public Advocate
112 State House Station
Augusta, Me 04333-0112

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2
A. The Commission Should Reject Any Finding Exonerating CMP and
SmartCare for Overbilling Customers. ................................................................................... 2
B. The BerryDunn Analysis Offered by the OPA Demonstrates Significant
Problems with SmartCare. ......................................................................................................... 4
C.

SmartCare Continues to have a Variety of Unresolved Defects. .......................... 7

D. The Examiners’ Report Failed to Consider the On-Going Need for the
Interim Payment Policy to Address Unexplained Billing Issues. .................................. 9
E. The Commission Should Adopt the Additional Testing Recommended in the
Examiners’ Report Subject to Minor Modification. .........................................................11
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................12

 I.

INTRODUCTION
The Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) offers these Exceptions to the Examiners’

Report issued on January 9, 2020 in this docket. The OPA previously filed an initial Brief on
November 19, 2019 and a Reply Brief on November 26, 2019. The arguments set forth
therein are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to the issue of the role of Central Maine Power Company (CMP) and its
SmartCare billing system in overbilling customers, the Examiners’ Report is reminiscent of a
doctor’s diagnosis to a series of patients who have been complaining of similar symptoms
with various degrees of severity. The doctor performs a few tests but does not find a serious
disease in any particular case. Therefore, the doctor concludes, there is nothing seriously
wrong with any of the patients. The patients are simply a group of complainers. He
prescribes aspirin and tells them to get some rest. The doctor reaches this conclusion with
respect to all patients despite anecdotal information that the symptoms have been extremely
serious in some instances, and more importantly, without ever actually determining the real
underlying cause of the problem. This would bad medical practice and it is an equally bad
approach to regulation.
For the reasons set forth in its prior filings and herein, the Commission should reject
any finding exonerating CMP and its SmartCare billing system for overbilling customers. It
is also inappropriate to terminate the Interim Payment Policy previously adopted by the
Commission. While it is true that no specific flaw in the SmartCare system was identified
that led to overbilling, it is also true that there remain thousands of unresolved high bill
complaints. More importantly, the underlying reason for many of these has not yet been
demonstrated.
1

 While the OPA urges rejecting these recommendations, the OPA does support the
recommended finding that CMP’s implementation of SmartCare was imprudent. With
modification, the OPA also supports the recommendation that CMP arrange for targeted
additional testing of SmartCare to be performed by a third party. Further, the OPA
supports the recommendation that CMP establish an Independent Electricity-Use Audit
Program for customers who have experienced significant increases in usage, the cause of
which remains unexplained. Finally, the OPA supports making a downward adjustment to
CMP’s cost of equity related to poor service quality, as recommended in the Examiners’
Report issued on January 9, 2020 in Docket No. 2018-00194. However, the OPA urges the
Commission to determine that CMP’s imprudence with respect to its implementation of
SmartCare is additional support for the downward adjustment and to increase the downward
adjustment by 25 basis points to 100 basis points.
With respect to individual bill complaints, we urge the Commission to make no
factual finding. Simply put, the record in the case does not resolve this issue. Rather, as the
OPA argued in its initial Brief, individual customers should be permitted to pursue high bill
complaints with the company, through the civil courts or through individual complaints to
Consumer Assistance and Safety Division.

II.

ARGUMENT
A. The Commission Should Reject Any Finding Exonerating CMP and
SmartCare for Overbilling Customers.
Perhaps the most disturbing recommendation of the Examiners’ Report is its

recommended finding that “[o]verall, there is simply no evidence of a metering or billing
problem that is leading to erroneously high billed usage.” See, e.g., E.R. at 5. The Examiners’
2

 Report bases this recommendation primarily on the forensic audit conducted by Liberty
Consulting, which it characterizes as concluding that CMP’s systems were accurately
metering customer usage, accurately transmitting the metered usage to the billing system,
and accurately billing for that usage. Id. at 4. The Examiners’ Report therefore attributes all
high bill complaints registered by customers as attributable to extreme cold weather during
the winter of 2017–2018 that coincided with a large increase in the price for electricity
supply. Id.
These conclusions overlook a key fact presented in the Liberty Report. In particular,
the Liberty Report found that over 30,000 customer bills issued by SmartCare reflected
usage that differed from information generated by the customer’s meter. Liberty Report at
41. This was demonstrated by the fact that the SmartCare system used a meter reading that
differed from the reading stored in the Meter Data Management system. Id.
The Examiners’ Report and Liberty Report appear to dismiss these cases because
they represent a relatively small percentage, around 0.8%, of a very large number of bills
examined in the audit, about 4 million. However, despite being a small percentage, 30,000 is
a large number of bills.
Further, some of the variances were quite large. At least one residential customer
received a bill that overstated monthly usage by 565 kwh and one small general service
customer received a bill that overstated usage by 1,805 kWh. Liberty Response to ODR-2-2.
While it is true that neither Liberty, nor the OPA’s consultant BerryDunn, ever
determined the cause of such variances, it is improper to conclude, at the Examiners’ Report
recommends, that all high bill complaints are attributable to cold weather coinciding with an
increase in the price for electricity supply. Rather, it is more reasonable to conclude that at
3

 least some number of high bill complaints are in fact attributable to some as yet
undiscovered flaw in the SmartCare system.
In addition to problems with SmartCare, there were also problems with some number
of CMP’s smart meters. Specifically, the Liberty Report identified a metering anomaly that
occurred with respect to certain GE AMI meters. This anomaly occurs when the meter fails
to properly reset after a power outage. Liberty Report at 23-24. While uncommon, its
impact on individual customers can be significant:
For a small number of individual customers, the impacts (in either direction)
could be substantial. For example, a customer away from the premises during
a cold snap might shut down most sources of load, but mistakenly forget to
turn off an inefficient space heater. If that heater is on Phase A when anomaly
mode occurs, the customer may see a properly alarming level of usage when
the bill arrives.
Id. at 26. Occurrences of this anomaly spiked in late 2017 and early 2018, potentially
contributing to the number of high usage complaints during and after this period. Id. at 2425.
Another troubling element of the meter anomaly problem is the manner in which
CMP dealt with the issue. CMP knew about the issue since at least 2014 and never fully
resolved it. Id. at 26. This failure undermines confidence in the company’s ability to identify
and respond to billing and metering issues, including unrelated issued presented in this
proceeding.
B. The BerryDunn Analysis Offered by the OPA Demonstrates Significant
Problems with SmartCare.
At various points, the Examiners’ Report is unnecessarily critical of the reports
prepared BerryDunn offered by the OPA in this proceeding. For instance, the Examiners’
Report states at one point:
4

 [A]fter conducting its own “eight weeks of intense review and analysis,” the
OPA’s expert, BerryDunn, did not find “a defect, set of defects, or root cause
for the numerous complaints related to high usage.” Keim Dir. at 16. The
OPA appears to suggest that the lack of such a finding by BerryDunn is not
relevant because BerryDunn’s scope of work did not include examining the
accuracy of CMP’s metering and billing systems. OPA Reply Br. at 2. The
OPA’s statement is surprising given that, in its June 24, 2019 “OPA Proposal
for Testing of Central Maine Power Accounts,” the work to be done was
described as “head-end to bill testing of specific accounts for the period of
time following the close of the audit period – May 1 2018 to the present.”
This was presumably the scope of work for which BerryDunn was retained.
E.R. at 84. This statement mischaracterizes the nature and importance of the work
performed by BerryDunn, as well as the discussion of it presented in the OPA’s Reply Brief.
First, the discussion in the Reply Brief was specifically referring to the testing of
CMP’s meters. As the Commission is aware, BerryDunn did not test any meters to
determine whether the meters were producing inaccurate reads. Rather, BerryDunn tested
specific accounts to determine if the meter reads from the head-end system (or field
collection system) matched the information provided on the customer’s bill. As noted in
several examples in BerryDunn’s report, the information provided on the customer’s bill
frequently did not match the meter reading in the head-end.
Indeed, Ms. Keim clearly stated the objective of the testing protocol as follows:
Our analysis was not intended to manually test every invoice with a potential
billing issue. Instead, it was designed to identify whether customer issues were
still ongoing more than 20 months after the go-live date of the SmartCare
System. The scope of our engagement did not include testing the meter
readings at the meter location. Our analysis started with a comparison of the
meter readings and meter read dates on the customer invoice to the meter
readings and meter read dates retained in the HES or FCS.
The objective of our analysis was to compare meter readings (per customer
invoices) to the data retained in the HES or FCS. As part of our analysis, we
also identified billing issues unrelated to this comparison. While we have
reported the findings related to billing issues in this report; our analysis was
not intended to identify all billing issues related to the invoices provided in
this analysis. The findings we identify in Section 3 of this report could impact
5

 all CMP customers and are not just related to the subset of complaint
customers that we analyzed.
Keim Direct at 6.
BerryDunn’s report, although unable to determine a cause for the high-usage in spite
of its review, did identify that problems with the SmartCare System were more widespread
and varied than initially anticipated. These problems were thoroughly documented
presenting actual customer invoices as exhibits included with the report. Indeed, one phrase
highlighted on page 84 of the Examiners’ Report continues as follows:
After eight weeks of intense review and analysis, we cannot isolate a defect, set
of defects or root cause for the numerous complaints relating to high usage.
Nevertheless, based upon this review and analysis, we cannot rule out that
these complaints have merit. Based on the results of our analysis, the
SmartCare System continues to produce countless invoices that contain
inaccurate and misleading information.
Keim Direct at 16. This is consistent with the ultimate conclusion of the report,
which reads as follows:
Based on these findings, we believe that the SmartCare System, almost two
years post go-live, has significant problems with producing and presenting
invoices for customers. Given the parameters of our analysis, we cannot
conclusively determine the extent or pervasiveness of these problems;
however we believe the nature and extent of the issues we identified call into
question the overall integrity of the system and its ability to provide accurate,
timely and reliable invoices to CMP customers. We believe the number of
customers continuing to register complaints regarding the accuracy of their
invoices is a reflection of the continuing problems and that such complaints
likely will not subside until deliberate and effective measures are taken, as set
forth in Section 5, to identify the root cause of the problems and create a
system for resolving the problems identified.
Keim Direct at 51. Far from exonerating CMP or SmartCare, the analysis
demonstrates continuing and extensive problems that need to be addressed.

6

 C. SmartCare Continues to have a Variety of Unresolved Defects.
While the Examiners’ Report addresses numerous presentment issues, including
many detailed in the OPA’s initial brief, it fails to fully capture the continuing problems with
the SmartCare System with respect to its generation of inaccurate or misleading information.
The full extent of such ongoing issues supports the full range of remedies recommended in
the Examiners’ Report as supplemented by the OPA’s recommendations in these
Exceptions.
Notably, new defects continued to be identified with SmartCare 18 to 24 months
post Go-Live. EXM-004-007 at Attachment 1. Indeed, it is not possible to conclude that all
defects have yet been identified. Even if CMP is now addressing such new defects, their
existence supports the conclusion that without adequate testing, it is impossible to know
how many issues continue to exist. Further, CMP lists defects as being closed and then reopened. EXM-004-019. This demonstrates a lack of certainty with respect to whether CMP
is successfully fixing defects when it reports them as fixed.
CMP has also provided inconsistent information at times. For instance, CMP
provided two different identification dates for a particular defect. See EXM-004-025 and
EXM-004-007. In another apparent contradiction, CMP discussed a defect in its response to
OPA-010-012 that was not listed in EXM-004-007 as a defect.
In its rebuttal testimony filed on October 16, 2019, CMP stated that it had applied
Customer Service Guarantee Credits to certain accounts. However, when asked to provide
documentation of these credits, CMP realized that they hadn’t provided the CSC credits as
they stated in their filed testimony. OPA-010-009. This undermines any of CMP’s claims

7

 that actions have been taken or problems have been corrected. This supports implementing
a process ensuring that credits are provided to customer accounts when necessary.
At page 109, the Examiners’ Report states that “[a]ccording to Liberty’s auditors, the
overall number of defects identified after go-live was at the high end of the normal range for
a utility customer-information-system implementation.” This statement was from the
February 19, 2019 Technical Conference. Liberty’s work only examined the 6-month period
after implementation of the SmartCare System. Thus, this statement by Liberty Consulting
does not address whether the number of new defects begin identified 18 to 24 months post
Go-Live are within the “normal range.”
Indeed, the Liberty Report issued on December 20, 2018, identified only 40 issues of
customer impacting errors. Liberty Report at 100-102. As of May 1, 2019, there were 49
cases of customer impacting billing errors noted. LOO-001-031 at Attachment 1. Ten
months later, CMP’s Summary of Billing Cases Identified as of October 24, 2019, indicated
that the customer impacting errors had increased to 61 cases. EXM-004-007 Attachment 1.
This is an increase of more than 50% in customer facing billing issues 13 to 24 months post
Go-Live.
This information all supports the recommended finding in the Examiners’ Report
that CMP’s implementation of SmartCare was imprudent, as well as its recommendation that
additional testing be performed to ensure that all problems have been identified and fixed.
It supports a recommendation that a process be implemented to test and track whether
defects reported as fixed recur, as well as a process to track whether defects are being
appropriately reported, tracked and monitored.

8

 D. The Examiners’ Report Failed to Consider the On-Going Need for the
Interim Payment Policy to Address Unexplained Billing Issues.
The Commission established an interim payment policy on April 11, 2018 in response
to a March 12, 2018 request by the OPA.1 The request asked the Commission to order
CMP to pause disconnection activities after the “winter disconnect” period expired that
year.2 This request was in response to the public outcry from consumers who had
experienced significant (and disputed) increases in electric bills. The OPA also requested that
the Commission issue a stay preventing CMP from sending out any new disconnection
notices pending the results of the Commission’s investigation into the metering, billing, and
customer communication issues. Id. Instead, the Commission ordered the creation of the
interim payment policy. The order directed CMP to “identify a class of residential customers
whose bills issued after November 1, 2017 reflect an increase in delivery charges of 25% or
more over prior usage” and to “not threaten disconnection if the customer pays the
undisputed amount of the charges” for the period. Id. In establishing the interim payment
policy, the Commission found that it balanced the purposes of Chapter 815 of the
Commission’s Rules which requires assurance “of safe and adequate provision of utility
service,” and “that service is not disconnected or refused unreasonably,” with the “utility’s
right to collect proper payment for utility service,” and the “Commission’s policy that utility
bills should be paid by the due date.” Id. at 2.
That balance is still needed today. The significant questions raised by the numerous
complaints of billing and metering errors have not been answered to the satisfaction of CMP

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, Investigation of Central Maine Power Company Metering, Billing, and Customer Communication
Issues, Docket No. 2018-00052, Order at 1 (Apr. 11, 2018) (April 11, 2018 order).
2 Id.
1

9

 customers. The OPA cannot agree with the Commission’s conclusion, and strongly argues
against issuing such a conclusion, “that billed amounts were, indeed, valid, with few
exceptions, and there is no systemic problem in SmartCare or with CMP’s meters that would
lead to incorrectly billed usage.”3 By ordering CMP to establish an Independent ElectricityUse Audit program “for customers who have experienced significant increases in usage, the
cause of which remains unexplained, since SmartCare was adopted,” and by ordering additional
testing of the SmartCare system, the Commission acknowledges that explanation for high
bills continues to be elusive. Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added). In this environment, the need for
the Interim Payment Policy, or a modified version of the policy, to adequately protect the
rights of customers who dispute their bills endures.
Finally, it is clear that the Interim Payment Policy should remain in place for those
customers with pending complaints. However, many customers availing themselves of the
Interim Payment Policy may have declined to file a formal complaint based on an
expectation that this proceeding would address their concern. Such customers should be
provided with a reasonable opportunity to file an individual formal complaint prior to any
termination of their participation. If following such an opportunity they do initiate a formal
complaint, the policy should remain in effect pending its resolution.
The Interim Payment Policy should remain in place with respect to any individual
customer during the period that the additional testing of the SmartCare system by an
independent third party is conducted. In the alternative, a modified Interim Payment Policy

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, Investigation of Central Maine Power Company’s Metering and Billing Issues, Docket No. 201900015, Examiners’ Report at 8 (Jan. 9, 2020).
3

10

 should be retained for a period of no less than 12 months over which time, CMP must
provide within 30 days of any final order, and monthly thereafter, status updates. These
status updates should include the number of customers utilizing the modified interim
payment policy, the percentage amount by which the customers state that their bill is
overstated, the number of customers transitioned to a payment plan, and the number of
customers making use of the Independent Electricity-Use Audit.
E. The Commission Should Adopt the Additional Testing Recommended in
the Examiners’ Report Subject to Minor Modification.
The Examiners’ Report recommends that additional target testing of SmartCare be
performed to fill in any gaps in the initial testing protocol identified during CMP’s initial
quality-review process, as well as any other testing that now needs to be done based on the
operations of the system. E.R. at 112-115. The Examiners’ Report proposes that the testing
regimen be designed by an independent third party selected through a competitive bidding
process conducted by CMP, subject to Commission review and approval. Id. This third
party must be familiar with SAP and have experience in software-system testing processes.
Id.
In general, the OPA supports this recommendation as being consistent with the
recommendation of its expert witness on this topic, Laurel Arnold. The OPA requests,
however, that it be included in the review and approval process relating to the design of the
testing and the selection of the contractor. Critically, the OPA championed the performance
of additional testing as necessary to restore confidence in the operation of the SmartCare
system, which warrants the OPA’s continued involvement.

11

 III.

CONCLUSION
Wherefore, the OPA urges the Commission to reject any recommended finding that

defects in the SmartCare system were not responsible for any high billing issues experienced
by customers. Further, the OPA supports allowing individual customers to continue to
pursue complaints regarding high usage with the Company, through the CASD, or in civil
court. The OPA urges the Commission to reject the recommendation to terminate the
Interim Payment Policy adopted in response to the volume of high billing complaints. The
OPA supports a finding that CMP’s implementation of SmartCare was imprudent, supports
performance of targeted additional testing of SmartCare, and supports establishment of an
Independent Electricity-Use Audit Program for customers who have experienced significant
increases in usage. Finally, the OPA supports making a downward adjustment to CMP’s
cost of equity in Docket No. 2018-00194 related to poor service quality. The OPA urges the
Commission to increase the adjustment by 25 basis points to 100 basis points. The OPA
believes that with these changes to the recommendations of the Examiners’ Report, a final
order in this proceeding would provide a balanced response to prior and ongoing issues with
CMP’s SmartCare billing system.
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of January 2020.

Barry J. Hobbins, Public Advocate
Andrew Landry, Deputy Public Advocate
Susan W. Chamberlin, Senior Counsel
Nanette M. Ardry, Senior Counsel
Office of the Public Advocate
State House Station 112
Augusta, ME 04333-0112
207-624-3687
12