News Stories

Excerpt from conclusion from the Massachusetts’s Department Public Utilities Order:

{***} “C. Conclusion 

We have reviewed NEPL’s initial and revised Applications and its responses to the Department’s information requests. One version of the information provided by NEPL demonstrates that key personnel of NEPL, who would be responsible for ensuring consumer protection in the competitive supply market, were employed by SunSea in various roles as executive vice president and heads of customer service, compliance, and sales operations during the period that SunSea was under investigation and sanctioned by the MPSC for serious consumer protection violations (Initial Application ¶ 10, Attachments). The other version of the information provided by NEPL would have the Department accept that one of its key personnel was merely a consultant for SunSea, who was not involved in the events for which SunSea was twice sanctioned by the MPSC, and that two others were never employed by SunSea (Revised Application ¶ 10, Attachments; DPU 2-1). Under the first scenario, the Department would not be able to make a determination that NEPL and its key personnel would be able to meet the Department’s consumer protection standards. Were the second scenario correct, that would lead us to conclude that NEPL provided incorrect and misleading information to the Department. When filing an application with the Department, the applicant makes the following declaration: 

I have personally reviewed the above statements and that they are true and correct and completed in all material respects. I declare that the information contained in this application was prepared and compiled under [my] supervision or control. … I acknowledge that I have a positive duty to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of this application and that I sign this declaration under personal pains and penalties of perjury, including, but not limited to those provided by G.L. c. 268, § 6 … 

(Application § VII). In pertinent part, G.L. c. 268, § 6 provides: 

[W]hoever shall wilfully make false report to the [D]epartment, … or who before any such department … shall testify or affirm falsely to any material fact in any matter wherein an oath or affirmation is required or authorized … with intent to deceive the [D]epartment …, and any persons who with like intent aids or abets another in any violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment. 

We conclude that NEPL has made a false statement in violation of Application § VII and G.L. c. 268, § 6. 

The Department also requested NEPL to identify all legal actions taken against Daniel Adigwe (DPU 2-4) and to provide a summary of the allegations made against Daniel Adigwe in the Taylor action (DPU 2-3(a)). Again, NEPL provided contradictory responses stating that “there are no legal actions against Daniel Adigwe” but also acknowledging that Daniel Adigwe is a named defendant in the Taylor action (DPU 2-4; DPU 2-3(a)). We conclude that NEPL has made another false statement in violation of Application § VII and G.L. c. 268, § 6. 

To fulfill our statutory obligation to ensure customers in Massachusetts are provided with the utmost consumer protections, the Department must be able to review documentation from competitive suppliers and verify to the best of our ability that we have received accurate and correct information. Clearly, an applicant that provides incorrect and misleading information to the Department, in violation of our Application and the General Laws, cannot meet the Department’s consumer protection standards. 

As discussed above, the Applicant hired Raymond Sanzone as a consultant to assist in filing its Application with the Department (DPU 1-4). NEPL hired Raymond Sanzone because his 30-year career in the retail energy and insights were very valuable to the Company as it navigates the regulatory process (DPU 2-8; DPU 2-9). Raymond Sanzone was also convicted of and is facing criminal charges stemming from his 30-year career in the retail energy industry (DPU 2-8; DPU 1-4). As a person who assisted in filing this Application with the Department, Raymond Sanzone is implicated in providing false and misleading information to the Department. See G.L. c. 268, § 6. The fact that NEPL relied on Raymond Sanzone, despite his background, causes significant concern that NEPL’s management team is not sufficiently focused on consumer protection. Finally, as discussed above, there is a substantial likelihood that Raymond Sanzone would, as a consultant or an employee, influence the manner in which NEPL conducts its business. 

In implementing the Electric Restructuring Act and licensing competitive electric suppliers, the Department is obligated to provide retail consumers with the utmost consumer protections contained in law by fostering a robust competitive supply market and implementing safeguards to protect retail consumers. G.L. c. 164, § 1F; D.P.U. 19-07-A at 1. Based on our review, the Department finds that the Applicant lacks the ability to meet the Commonwealth’s consumer protection standards to serve residential and C&I customers and for the Department to fulfill our statutory and regulatory obligations to ensure the utmost consumer protection. Accordingly, the Department denies the NEPL’s Application. 

1. Technical Ability and Financial Ability 

To demonstrate the technical ability to provide commodity services, a Competitive Supplier license applicant must demonstrate: (1) that it has performed the services of a load serving entity (“LSE”) in an organized wholesale electricity market administered by a FERC-approved Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) for greater than two years, and has not been subject to disciplinary action as a result of providing those services; or (2) has at least one employee with at least two years of experience providing LSE-type services for another entity (Competitive Supplier License Application). A Competitive Supplier license applicant can demonstrate that it has the financial ability to provide commodity services by documenting that it is a NEPOOL participant or will meet its transaction requirements  through a contractual arrangement with a NEPOOL participant (Competitive Supplier License Application). Given our denial of NEPL’s Application based on our consumer protection standards, the Department finds that it is not necessary to review whether NEPL meets our technical and financial abilities standards to provided competitive supplier service. 

1. ORDER
   NEPL’s Application for a Competitive Supplier license to serve residential customers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is hereby DENIED.” {***}

23-CS-02NEPLLetterOrder1.29.25.pdf   
D.P.U. 23-CS-02   (06/20/2023)
(Application of New England Power & Light, LLC for a Competitive Supplier license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.)