News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
PULJ Denies Staff’s Motion To Compel SunSea To Provide Complaint History In Other Jurisdictions As Beyond Scope Of Proceeding
From the Maryland PSC’s Public Utility’s Law Judge’s Response To Motion To Compel:
{***}
Findings
I agree with SunSea that DR 9-2 is not relevant and is beyond the scope proceeding. As the Company correctly points out, nothing within PUA § 7-507(k) permits the consideration of complaints outside of Maryland in determining whether to revoke or suspend a supplier’s license or in imposing a civil penalty. The consideration of actions outside of Maryland is specifically limited to the “suspension or revocation of a license by any State or federal authority.”9
I also disagree with Staff’s argument that a supplier’s duty to disclose the existence of complaints is required by the Commission’s supplier application.10 A complaint falls outside of “Suspensions/Revocations, Limitations, Reprimands, Fines, Consent Decrees, or other similar actions [that] have been taken or are pending against the Applicant or unregulated affiliate(s),” all of which would trigger a supplier’s ongoing duty to disclose such information. 11
Conclusion
In accordance with the above findings, Staff’s Motion to Compel is denied. {***}
As background, on December 18, 2023, the Technical Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland filed a Motion to Compel SunSea Energy to fully respond to Staff Data Request (“DR”) No. 9. Staff explained that the DRs sought a status update on all new and existing complaints filed against SunSea throughout the United States which Staff argued was relevant “for the purpose of recommending a civil penalty amount in this case.”1
In response, SunSea argued:
{***}
DR-9-2 seeks information on all of the complaints that have ever been made against SunSea anywhere in the United States at any time in the past. This request is uniquely overbroad and irrelevant. It is unbound by time or subject matter. It is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding to it would be unduly burdensome. See In the Matter of the Investigation Into the Marketing Practices of Starion Energy Pa, Inc., No. 86767, 2014 WL 7670341, at *3 (Md. P.S.C. Dec. 16, 2014) (upholding discovery request where it was limited in scope as to substance and timeframe, as opposed to DR-9-2 which is unmoored in terms of substance and timeframe and overbroad geographically).
The Commission regulates only SunSea’s activities in Maryland. Staff cannot persuasively argue that a civil penalty should be imposed in Maryland for alleged violations of other states’ regulations. In its motion, Staff quotes the Commission’s oral order delegating this matter to the PULJ Division as authority purportedly justifying its DR-9-2. But the quote is completely unrelated to the subject of DR-9-2 and the Commission makes no mention at all of SunSea’s activities outside Maryland. Staff conveniently fails to quote the portion of the Commission’s delegation order that actually limits the scope of these proceedings to Maryland:
[t]he Commission also finds that this matter warrants further proceedings to determine the full extent to which the Company has violated Maryland laws and regulations in its marketing, enrollment and contracting practices or any other violations of the consumer protections contained in the Public Utilities Article and the Commission’s regulations. The Commission therefore delegates this matter to the PULJ Division for further evidentiary proceedings . . . .1 (emphases added).
These proceedings are about alleged violations of law by SunSea in Maryland during the Complaint Period. That is the sole issue that was delegated by the Commission to the PULJ Division for fact-finding. Indeed, your Honor confirmed this in your recent ruling issued December 13, 2023, rejecting OPC’s Motion for Clarification.2 Repeated attempts to expand the scope of these proceedings should be rejected. {***}
Public Utility Law Judge’s Ruling On Staff’s Motion To Compel (12/28/2023)
SunSea’s Response To Staff Motion To Compel (12/21/2023)
Staff’s Motion To Compel (12/18/2023)
9647 (06/04/2020
(Investigation of Violations – SunSea)

