By Bob Katzen
The Senate 5-33, rejected an amendment that would replace the bill barring electric suppliers from enrolling new individual residential customers in contracts, with a different bill that would have allowed the practice to continue and would instead impose more barriers for competitive suppliers to enter the market and provided the attorney general with more oversight authority.
Under this alternate version, energy brokers, marketers and suppliers would be required to obtain licenses from the Department of Public Utilities, pay fees and maintain bonds. It imposes regulations on in-person or door-to-door marketing practices and requires third-party verification and identification badges for agents. It also imposes conditions on suppliers’ licensure renewals, including notification requirements and restrictions on termination fees.
Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) said the amendment is aimed at reforming the industry by holding accountable those acting inappropriately in the marketplace, increasing public awareness on best practices to save money and ensuring greater transparency in energy pricing. “There is value in competition to lower consumer rates however I believe to effectively address this issue is by market reform instead of total eradication,” said O’Connor. “The amendment … holds suppliers accountable by identifying bad actors and preventing misleading market practices through new regulations.”
Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Senate chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, said the amendment used “lousy language.” Barrett signaled competitive suppliers have not added value to their product, despite having 25 years to prove themselves in the marketplace.
“There’s nothing redeemable about this particular option,” said Barrett. It’s too bad. I think a lot of us were very optimistic in the late 90s — this should have worked,” Barrett said. “Turns out that the product was absolutely fungible. These middlemen don’t have lower costs, they have higher costs.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that replaces the ban with a new bill imposing regulations. A “No” vote is against the amendment.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen No