9613

The provided excerpts do not identify any specific "areas of growth" in this docket. The content is focused on regulatory proceedings regarding alleged violations by retail energy suppliers, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hearing preparations and operations, and procedural issues related to discovery and communication between parties. No explicit areas of growth or related considerations are discussed in the excerpts.

The main stakeholders in this docket are:

- Maryland Public Service Commission (the Commission): The regulatory authority overseeing the proceedings, making findings, and issuing orders regarding SmartEnergy's conduct and remedies, including customer refunds and penalties.
- SmartEnergy (Smart Energy Holdings, LLC): The retail energy supplier under investigation for violations of state law and commission regulations. SmartEnergy has submitted answers and responses to complaints and is subject to compliance measures and penalties.
- Office of People’s Counsel (OPC): An independent state agency representing Maryland residential ratepayers' interests. OPC has filed complaints, participated in discovery, and may file a third-party complaint against SmartEnergy.
- Commission Staff: The investigatory and prosecutorial arm of the Commission, responsible for filing the original complaint, conducting discovery, and making recommendations regarding SmartEnergy’s conduct.

Positions:

- The Commission has found SmartEnergy engaged in a pattern of systemic violations of the Public Utilities Article and Commission regulations, and has ordered customer refunds, civil penalties, and compliance measures 1.
- OPC supports a broad investigation into SmartEnergy’s practices and has been instructed to file a third-party complaint with specific allegations. OPC also indicated intent to conduct discovery and pursue further action against SmartEnergy 2.
- SmartEnergy has objected to the broad scope of certain allegations, sought a more definite statement of claims, and is responsible for implementing customer refunds and compliance measures as directed by the Commission 2, 1.
- Commission Staff supports the investigation into SmartEnergy’s practices and is responsible for identifying specific alleged violations and supporting the refund and compliance process 2, 1.

In summary:
- The Commission, OPC, and Staff are aligned in pursuing findings, remedies, and penalties against SmartEnergy for violations.
- SmartEnergy is the respondent, generally opposing broad allegations and seeking to limit the scope of proceedings, while being required to comply with the Commission's orders.

This docket concerns regulatory proceedings initiated by the Maryland Public Service Commission against SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC (doing business as SmartEnergy) following findings of violations of state law and Commission regulations. The Commission determined that SmartEnergy had an "egregious" pattern of systemic violations and a poor record of compliance, which led to all SmartEnergy customers in Maryland being returned to their utility’s standard offer service without penalty. The Commission ordered SmartEnergy to refund affected customers, cooperate in communicating the refunds, and retain an independent auditor to confirm refund remittance and review refund accounting. Unclaimed refunds are to be remitted to the Fuel Fund of Maryland or other energy assistance programs. The Commission may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation, with each affected customer and each day of violation considered separately. SmartEnergy is required to file bi-weekly progress reports, and the Commission will release SmartEnergy’s appeal bond only after verifying refund completion 1.

The docket also covers procedural history, including delegation to the Public Utility Law Judge Division for findings and recommendations, and references to related regulatory proceedings involving SmartEnergy and other retail energy suppliers for similar violations 2.

Key events and procedural submissions in the SmartEnergy (Case No. 9613) proceeding before the Maryland Public Service Commission include:

- September 12, 2019: The Commission entered a notice of procedural schedule, initially setting an evidentiary hearing for May 18–22, 2020. The schedule also included dates for direct testimony (January 31, 2020), reply testimony (March 13, 2020), rebuttal testimony (April 10, 2020), surrebuttal testimony (May 1, 2020), stipulations of fact (May 8, 2020), initial briefs (June 19, 2020), and reply briefs (July 10, 2020) 1, 2.

- March 17, 2020: Commission's building closed to the public and most staff due to COVID-19, but virtual operations continued 3, 4.

- April 1, 2020: Parties jointly moved for a stay and continuance of proceedings due to the pandemic 5.

- April 7, 2020: The procedural schedule was formally stayed for 75 days, suspending deadlines through June 21, 2020 6, 7.

- June 5, 2020: The parties filed a status report, requesting an indefinite stay of all deadlines 6, 7.

- June 10, 2020: An informal virtual status conference was held to discuss next procedural steps 6.

- June 19, 2020: Parties submitted an agreed-upon proposed procedural schedule to conclude testimony and hearings timely 6.

- June 26, 2020: Deadline for delivery of outstanding data request responses under the revised schedule 6.

- July 8, 2020: Rebuttal testimony scheduled under the revised schedule 6.

- August 12, 2020: Surrebuttal testimony scheduled under the revised schedule 6.

- August 26, 2020: Pretrial statement (stipulations of fact and witness list) due 8.

- September 14–17 and September 25, 2020: Evidentiary hearings scheduled (dates adjusted around holidays) 8.

- October 19, 2020: Initial briefs due 8.

- November 9, 2020: Reply briefs due 8.

- February 22, 2023: Commission order outlines compliance and refund requirements, including customer notifications and independent audit of refunds 9.

This timeline covers the major procedural and scheduling events as documented in the excerpts.

The docket discusses several financial and timeline risks and concerns related to the enforcement actions against retail energy suppliers in Maryland:

Financial Risks and Concerns:
- Civil penalties have been imposed on suppliers for violations, but the amounts ($300,000–$350,000 in prior cases) were considered insufficient deterrents given the high revenues of these companies. For example, SmartEnergy had testified to $8,000,000 in annual Maryland revenues, with evidence suggesting even higher actual income. This raises concerns that such fines may be treated as a mere cost of doing business rather than an incentive to comply with regulations 1.
- The commission has, in more recent cases, imposed larger penalties (e.g., $561,000 plus license rescission and refunds in 2019), suggesting an escalation in response to ongoing noncompliance 1.
- There is a risk that continued unlawful and deceptive practices will persist unless more severe penalties, such as license revocation, are imposed, as financial penalties alone have not induced lasting reform among suppliers 1.

Timeline Risks and Concerns:
- The timeline concerns are implicit in the discussion of repeated and prolonged noncompliance by suppliers like SmartEnergy, which, despite years of regulatory actions and promised reforms, continued to violate regulations up to the present time examined in the docket 1.
- There is concern that delaying or bargaining over enforcement measures (such as deferring a ruling on contract signature requirements) could allow noncompliant practices to continue, causing ongoing harm to consumers 1.

In summary, the main risks are that inadequate financial penalties and regulatory delays have allowed noncompliance to persist, necessitating stronger and more immediate enforcement actions such as license revocation.