RESA asserted that “the adoption of the revised UBPs and the new marketing standards failed to comply with the requirements of SAPA [State Administrative Procedures Act]” (pp. 4-6); “the revised definition of energy marketing representative is unreasonable and arbitrary” (pp. 23-25); “the prohibition of the use of introductory, promotional or teaser rates is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious” (pp. 25-27); “the TPV [third-party verification] verification calling process is unreasonable” (pp. 30-33); “the UBP should allow use of digital interactive voice response systems [for TPV]” (pp. 33-34); “the proposed TPV script is unreasonable and should be modified” (pp. 34-35); “the TPV requirement should not be required for access to customer data” (p. 35); “the DTD [door-to-door] and telemarketing standard is unreasonable” (pp. 35-36); “the DTD standard should not include certain categories of marketing efforts” (pp. 36-37); and “the Commission needs to clarify the use of the term ‘customer’ in the Order and UBP” (pp. 39-40).

NEMA asserted that “network marketing practices are not encompassed within the Commission definition of door-to-door and telephonic solicitations” (pp.16-17); “ESCOs should not be responsible for the marketing and sales activities of non-exclusive third parties” (pp. 14-15); “ESCOs should be permitted to perform either internal or independent TPVs for door-to-door and telephonic enrollments” (pp. 15-16); “additional explanation of the historical ESCO pricing data filing requirement is needed with respect to what constitutes a ‘historical price,’ the timing of quarterly reporting, and how to define ‘geographic areas’” (pp. 12-13); “renewal notice requirements should follow a reasonable timeframe and not be applicable to any month-to-month contracts, whether currently in existence or entered into in the future” (p. 13).

Constellation asserted that “the Commission should confirm that the requirement for providing to the Secretary information on marketing entities is specifically meant to address only door-to-door entities that ESCOs utilize to market electricity” (pp. 5-6); “the Commission should clarify that the Order’s requirement that ESCOs must honor rates posted on the PTC [Power to Choose] website does not apply to non-residential customers” (pp. 4-5); “the Commission should strike the Retail Market Order’s provisions regarding historical ESCO pricing as they relate to non-residential contracts” (pp. 3-4).

GEE asserted that the procedures concerning contract renewals should allow for notifications via email as well as postal mail; and that the required notice when a fixed rate contract renews at a fixed rate should be allowed within a 30 day window, rather than the 10 day window specified in the Order.

The Commission is considering whether to grant, deny or modify, in whole or in part, the relief sought in the above referenced filings. The Commission may also address related matters.

Statements and analyses are not submitted with this notice because the proposed rule is within the definition contained in section 102(2)(a)(ii) of the State Administrative Procedure Act.

(12-M-0476SP6)