News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Procedural Order Issued Scheduling EME’s Settlement Conference
As previously reported, this is an investigation into customer complaints alleging that Electricity Maine (EME) has introduced sudden and significant bill increases on electricity bills.
According to the MEPUC, both customers and the electric utilities themselves have contacted the Consumer Assistance and Safety Division (CASD) “…with inquiries and complaints about sudden and significant bill increases with respect to their supply of electricity. Over the last several months, CASD has received over 170 calls expressing concerns about customers’ terms of service with Electricity Maine. Many of the concerns relate to the expiration of fixed rate terms of service and the conversion of the fixed rate into a higher, monthly, variable rate. CASD’s understanding is that Electricity Maine converted fixed rate terms of service to higher variable rate terms of service when customers failed to respond to renewal notices. Many customers have reported to CASD, however, that they do not recall receiving any renewal notice or they deny having received any renewal notice.”
On January 24, 2024 OPA filed an objection to the procedural order. OPA objected to the scheduling of a settlement conference because: (1) “despite good faith efforts by all parties, it has become clear that the OPA and EME will be unable to agree to settlement terms that would be acceptable to both parties” and said that it “OPA will contest the stipulation that EME intends to file”; (2) the hearing is being convened to “lobby Advisory Staff to support a contested stipulation” and that nothing in the Commission’s procedural rules “allows for a subset of parties who have already agreed to a stipulation to present that stipulation to Advisory Staff for review”; and (3) “parties have not been given the required opportunity to object to participation by Advisory Staff.”
In response, the Hearing Examiners issued procedural order to OPA’s objection. Of note, the Hearing Examiners said that: (1) “The fact that the OPA is not interested in pursuing settlement does not somehow foreclose the settlement process or, on its own, disallow Advisory Staff participation in settlement discussions”; (2) OPA’s second objection “appears grounded in a misunderstanding” in which “Advisory Staff interpreted EME’s reference to “parties” having continued to make progress toward settlement and EME’s reference to an impending stipulation wherein ‘open issues on the draft stipulation [were] likely to be resolved’ to mean that all parties to this proceeding”; and (3) given that misunderstanding, “OPA’s third objection is well founded,” and remedied the error “thorough this procedural order by providing notice of EME’s request for a settlement conference and providing an opportunity for any party to object to the participation of Advisory Staff at that settlement conference.”
EME filed letter clarifying parties to the settlement agreement. “EME believed that a draft stipulation was near-final and that it would be signed by, at a minimum, EME and the Advocacy Staff,” but “It was not clear at that time (and it is still not clear), whether CMP will join the stipulation.”
EME Letter (01/26/2024)
OPA Objection (01/24/2024)
Hearing Examiners Issued Procedural Order (01/17/2024)
2023-00024 (02/07/2023)
