2021-07-28 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2021-07-28 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
(Part 1 of 2)
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
uh well, I want to welcome everyone to this hearing this morning on pills having to do with competitive supply grid modernization and electric vehicles. I'm state senator. Mike barrett, Senate Chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, utilities and Energy and I'm very pleased to be here with my co chair at Representative Jeff Roy. I will introduce Senate members except that I'm not sure. And I asked my colleagues, pardon? I'm not sure which senate47 members have joined us thus far. Um I see Senator Crichton but he's he's a masquerading as Jonathan Thibault. So I just happened to know that he's appearing under an alias and will be testifying in a minute. Are there other Senate members of the committee who can identify themselves at this time? I can't see you on the gallery displayed that I have. If not, I'm going to pass the mic over to Representative Roy who can introduce some House members perhaps who are joining us. Mr Chairman.
Great, thank you. Mr Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity and would like to uh note that at present we have Representative Joan Meschino. Oh, here from Hull, Representative James Hawkins from Attleborough and Representative Stephen Owens from Watertown. I expect that more members will be coming as the, as the meeting progresses, but that's who is here now. And thank you for that opportunity. And I look forward to a great hearing today. Yes, I look forward as well. And we're going to125 start things off, uh staring from, by the way, my audible or am I creating an echo of some kind of133 uh
someone is somebody else's causing an echo. Someone speaking in the background there. In any event, I wish to introduce a panel that consists of the attorney general of the commonwealth of massachusetts. Maura healey. Uh she's going to be accompanied by state Representative frank Moran and state Senator Brendan Creighton, who presumably will be appearing under his own his own name. I want to introduce the three of you. Welcome the three of you to address the committee.
Yeah.
All right, thank you. So, uh, let's see. I'm not having done it. Haven't done a panel, so I guess I'm start first or the Attorney general's. Is she on? Yeah, thank you. Jim. If that was Representative and186 why don't we do uh, if the Attorney general's here, why don't we hear from the attorney general to lead off?
I am I am here Mr. Chairman, nice to see you. However, I don't know if you can see me. I'm getting a message saying that you can't see me?
No, but we can we can hear you madam. Attorney General. So I think you can proceed on that basis and we look forward to seeing you as soon as the
Okay, well, my my apologies.
[AGO MAURA HEALEY:] [SB2150] [HB3352] Um, Good morning Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy and members of the committee. I am here today as the commonwealth ratepayer advocate. My job is to make sure that we're looking out for what ratepayers are facing around the state and how they're treated. Um, and I am here today in strong support of Senate Bill 2150 and House Bill 3352, an act relative to protecting residential electric customers. I am honored to be joined today by my legislative partners and bill sponsors Leader Frank Moran and Senator Brendan Crighton. You may recall that leader Moran jumped on this issue when we first brought it to the committee's attention in 2018 and as the committee's vice chair at the time, he knew our data matched the262 stories that he was hearing from constituents and family members and he convened an oversight hearing on the issues we'll talk about today.
In this year we're joined by Senator Crighton, whose own city of Lynn is a target of this industry. So I am grateful to the two of them, especially for their partnership. Later you'll hear more from division chief uh, Nate Forster and deputy division chief Louis Anderson as well as my senior policy advisor Elizabeth Mahoney, all of my energy and telecommunications division. All of us appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Many of you have heard from your own districts about competitive electric suppliers. They go door to door, they send letters in the mail, they call over and over again all with promises of cheaper electricity or a locked in low rate that they claim will save you money. They say that if you sign up and switch from your existing utility company, they'll deliver you consistent savings and lower bills.
And across Massachusetts, hundreds of thousands of customers have made the switch to these suppliers. As you know, my office released three reports, the most recent in April analysing whether the individual residential electric supply market of Massachusetts is benefiting customers. The answer continues to be no. In fact, these reports confirm what we've been hearing from customers and learning from our investigations. This industry has overcharged Massachusetts customers for far too long. Now, I'll just give you the history of our offices look at this because, you know, as with everything, we're driven by the facts. We're driven by the data and I know it is a big deal for us to call for the banning of an industry. I don't make that call lightly, but I make that call based on the documented data as well as the anecdotes.
But more importantly, the data that we have studied that show why this industry is harming harming our residents. Between July of 2015 and June of 2020 Massachusetts customers who switched to a competitive electric supplier paid $426 million more than they would have paid if they just stayed with their existing utility company and Covid's only exacerbated the impacts. Over the last 17 months, Massachusetts customers have fallen $912 million into arrears. We once again crunched the numbers on the rates charged by dozens of companies to thousands of customers in cities like Florence, like Lynn, Springfield, Worcester, Quincy and boston for the past five years. And the results I'm here today to tell you are shocking, shocking.
Across Massachusetts in nearly every community we examined, residents aren't paying less with competitive suppliers, they're paying more. In fact, they're paying a lot more. These companies are going around there signing up people who can least afford it. They're targeting some of the low-income households. Among us between 2016 and 2018, one in three low-income households in the state signed up with one of these suppliers. That's double the rate for higher income households. Lower resident, lower income residents paid an average of about $240 more each year for electricity. That's a 24% premium. And some people, we found paid as much as $380 or more. Our gateway cities in Boston are particularly hard hit leader Moran and Senator Crighton knows way too well and will speak to the impacts in their hometowns, where our reports show customers collectively losing hundreds of thousands of dollars each month.
We found that in just one month September 2019 Worcester residents who signed up with competitive suppliers consistently paid the most in the state. $390,000 over basic service. In Brockton in just one month in 2019, 11,000 Brockton families forked over an extra quarter of a million dollars to these suppliers. People couldn't afford these losses before the pandemic and they certainly can't afford it now when they're struggling with job loss and economic uncertainty. And as the state fights the climate crisis, we can't afford to continue to lose half a billion dollars a year in ratepayer money, uh, as a result of these high rates from competitive suppliers, instead of lining the pockets of these companies, we should be investing in our future electric grid.
To make matters worse, some suppliers are filing for bankruptcy to escape their obligation to purchase renewable energy credits. The money from these credits is556 of course supposed to go to helping us reach our climate goals not to pay bankers in bankruptcy. As long as competitive suppliers are allowed to continue to sign up new customers and short change or clean energy goals. My office will continue to work to protect consumers. My community engagement division has been out there conducting trainings to help consumers consumers learn how to protect themselves from deceptive behaviour,581 deceptive marketing. Our next training is in fact tomorrow and you587 know, I tell you this because we are trying to do the work okay, we're not going to just let it happen.
We've we've taken on any number of these and we're going to continue to educate consumers as we go. But598 I'm tired of training and having to put the burden on consumers and ratepayers to keep themselves protected against predatory and unfair and deceptive practices. And that's why I think we've reached a point where this this legislation is necessary and it's also warranted based on the data that we've now provided over the last five or more years. As I say, we'll continue to investigate and take action in 2019, my office brought back $10 million in a settlement with starring in energy who's paying most of that money back to affected consumers. We previously reached agreements with Viridian Energy and Just Energy who paid $5 million and $4 million respectively, back to massachusetts customers and the state.
They also agreed to strict injunctive relief to protect low income customers on those variable rate contracts. But despite these lengthy investigations and sizable punitive settlements, the industry continues to this day to deceive and overcharge customers. And it is clear to me that things have to change this legend this legislation will do that. I know that Secretary Theory Rarities and Chair Nelson will testify today as well in support. I am grateful for their efforts, including the investigations undertaken by the Department of Public Utilities and stronger regulatory oversight of this industry like ours I believe that their investigations show that this is a broken industry693 that's just not capable of following the law that continues to drain funds by deceiving Massachusetts residential customers.
Companies can't promise lower rates, but deliver higher ones. They can't target our most vulnerable communities and our senior citizens. And that is why I'm respectfully asking the committee to join me in preventing this from happening anymore, to ban competitive suppliers from signing up new residential customers to stop these companies from harassing and725 overcharging our residents once and for all. Thank you once again for the opportunity to talk about an issue that734 I feel so strongly about. I think this to my recollection, I738 I don't know that I've testified more frequently on a bill than than this one, but that's that's how strongly the team and I feel about this based on what we've heard directly from customers and based on what the data has shown.
So again, thank you for your consideration of this issue and I now will turn it over to leader Frank Moran, who has been a tremendous consumer advocate on this issue. Leader Moran.
[REP MORAN:] [HB3352] Thank you Attorney General. Uh thank you, Chair Roy and Barrett and to you too the members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication Utilities and Energy. The opportunity to speak to you today about my bill H3352 an actrelative to electric ratepayer protection. I'm proud to have the opportunity to once again be working alongside Attorney General Healey. This piece of legislation that will protect consumers from being792 targeted by unfair and deceptive sales practices in the competitive supply industry. The797 competitive supply industry in Massachusetts has been allowed to take advantage of our most vulnerable residents for far too long and it is now time to act. The Attorney general's office has been at the forefront of this issue for many years publishing multiple reports that site predatory sales tactics that do blow income and working class customers into exorbitant long term contracts that rob them of their money.
These reports have continuously shown a deeply troubling trend within this industry that these companies actively and normally target vulnerable population for their own financial room. One of these reports was published earlier this year has shown that this issue only continued to become more prevalent without regulatory oversight from the commonwealth of Massachusetts. In fact, this issue has continued to be even more exacerbated with a low income communities and communities of color such as my hometown, the city of Lawrence. My parents were one of them. Residents who are enrolled in this contact in this contract continue to over pay for electricity by tens of millions of dollars each year.
With approximately 450,000 residents residential customers losing 173 million in the past two years alone. Let me say that again. With approximately 450,000 residential customers losing 173 million in the past two years. It is time that we provide relief to those struggling because of these accepted sales tactics and the troubling finding of the Attorney892 General's office early further reinforced my commitment to ensuring that this critical piece of legislation is an act. I would like to thank Attorney General Maura Healey and her amazing staff for the904 incredible work to ensure that this issue is brought to light and that relief should be in cite. Mr Chairs I respect I respectfully request that this legislation receive a favorable favorable report by the committee. I thank you for your time and consideration on this very important consumer protection matter and I wanna thank you all for listening. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Representative Senator Crighton,
[SEN CRIGHTON:] [SB2150] [SB2151] Thank you Mr chairman uh to you, to Chair Roy. members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify out of turn here today. Today I'll be testifying on two bills first I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 2150 relative to electric ratepayer protections. First I want to say thank you to Attorney General Healey in her office for her many years of work on this issue and exposing the predatory and discriminatory nature of competitive electric supply industry. I also want to say thank you to Leader Moran who has always been a strong champion of this as you just heard. Uh, this dishonest marketing and unfair contracts used by this industry to take advantage of low income, elderly, non English speaking967 households in the city of Lynn and across our state is shameful.
This legislation that the Attorney General, Leader Moran and I file will put an end to these predatory practices and put hard earned money980 back into the pockets of consumers. Lynn is a hard working and diverse community. It's a home to a large population of low income individuals, people of color and non English speaking immigrants. My constituents are very much a target of this predatory industry and the data bears this out. In majority minority communities like Lynn, 27% of all residents have an account with competitive supply companies as1005 compared to only 17% in other communities. Based on the Attorney General's most recent report, over 8500 Lynn residents had signed up for so called competitive electric supplier account as of September 2019.
And in this month alone, these households lost $206,000. No matter which factory used to break down the numbers, poverty, race, language, status it is clear that participation rates in these competitive electric supplier plans is disproportionately high in our most vulnerable communities. As we speak, sales people are going door to door in our communities to sign up new customers. Over two decades ago, when Massachusetts opened up our electric industry to additional companies, we were assured1053 that residents across the commonwealth beat the benefits of choice and innovation, but we haven't seen the value. Instead today are most vulnerable populations are over paying for electricity across the state and they are paying higher paying a higher rate, the exact same electricity delivered to them as their neighbor who has the good fortune of not being targeted by these companies.
I respectfully request to the committee report out, uh, report favorably Senate Bill 2150 as well as its House counterpart. I would also like to briefly testify favor of Senate Bill 2151 an act promoting zero emission vehicles through incentives and infrastructure. This legislation would help fight climate change, improve air quality and environmental justice communities and promote a rapid inequitable transition to electric vehicles across the state. The transportation sector as you know is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts and our environmental justice communities bear the brunt of the public health consequences of living near high polluting roads. Promoting the use of electronic, the electric vehicles across the commonwealth is an important step and creating environmentally sustainable future for all of our communities, particularly in our environmental justice communities.
This legislation would create a new point of sale rebate for the purchase or lease of battery, electric fuel cell and1133 plug in hybrid vehicles for low and middle income households. It would1136 also promote collaboration between the state and municipalities in creating electric vehicle charging stations and residential and commercial buildings, curbside and in locations with high levels of air pollution and traffic. As the electric vehicle industry continues to innovate, the commonwealth should invest in ensuring that all consumers, regardless of their income level have a reasonable opportunity to lease and purchase electric vehicles. This legislation creates a pathway for reducing greenhouse gases, improving public health and environmental1166 justice communities and ensuring low and middle income consumers are part of the electric vehicle economy.
I also want to thank the CEV coalition for this strong advocacy on environmental issues and their work on this legislation. I respectfully requests the committee report. Senate Bill 2151 out favorably and I thank you for your time and opportunity to testify here today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator. Are there questions of of the committee members for the attorney general? Representative Moran and Senator Crighton.
Mr Chairman. I would just like to uh more of a comment just to thank the attorney general and leader Moran and Senator Crichton for their testimony. This has been a large topic of conversation. I've actually met with several folks on this, including some of the responsible competitive suppliers who take exception to what they see happening out in this industry to. So I look forward to continued conversations on this and one other thing I just wanted to welcome, uh, minority leader brad jones and Representative Richard Haggerty who have joined us for the hearing. So thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr Chairman. I want to join you in uh sending out praise to the three witnesses who just testified them, particularly struck by the commitment to hard evidence data gathering on the part1253 of the office of the attorney general. These numbers are start like and very troubling and really uh raise serious questions for those who would argue that we continue with current practice. So I want to thank the attorney general for her perseverance. This is not the first session in which these raised these issues. Um as time has gone on, they both sides have had an opportunity to be heard.1282 Uh huh. And it's probably time I would just expressing a personal opinion that we act on this question. Since all sides have been given an opportunity in past sessions to make their points and to offer their perspectives. So I just want to join you Chair Roy and Thanking Our three Witnesses.1303
And if we could I'd like to go on to hear from some other executive branch officials who have been good enough to give us some time today. I know they're very busy. I refer to Secretary Kathleen Theoharides the secretary of course of energy,1328 environmental affairs and Matthew nelson, chair of the Department of Public Utilities. If the secretary and the chair are available to us, I invite them to testify at this time.
[KATHLEEN THEOHARIDE:] [HB3271] [HB3552] [SB2150]We are. Thank you Mr Chairman and good morning thank you to you and Chair Roy and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today about the individual residential competitive supply market and the1354 subjects addressed by the bills scheduled for hearing today including1357 H3271 an act to protect consumers from predatory electric supplier practices and companion bills, H3352 and Senate Bill 2150 titled an act relative to ratepayer protection. I ought to also want to thank Attorney General Maura Healey and her team for her testimony today and for her team's diligent work to investigate this issue and come um with such compelling data and um, you know, and and telling the story of this predatory practices that are happening and the costs to ratepayers, particularly low income rate payers.
I'm joined today by Chairman of the Department of Public Utilities, Matthew Nelson, and we look forward to working with1404 you and the rest of the Legislature as we expand upon the Baker-Polito administration's commitment to ensure the highest level of consumer protection. As part of this commitment and following on hearings held on1415 this matter in 2018, the Baker-Polito administration has investigated the marketing tactics and consumer outcomes of competitive supply market. As you'll hear during our testimony today, the data collected by the deep use review of this market is striking and clearly demonstrates a1432 pattern of predatory marketing tactics targeting low income residents as well as higher costs for all consumers across the commonwealth.
Two years ago, we testified about our concerns with the predatory tactics of the competitive retail electricity supply market and since that time, our concerns have grown and I've concluded that without a stronger statutory framework in place to protect ratepayers particularly low income customers, this market cannot continue in Massachusetts as currently structured. Looking forward. I do believe there is value in a fair competitive supply market that includes the widespread availability of advanced metering technology and a regulatory framework that promotes transparency and protects low income customers and communities of color. However, such a framework does not exist today.
As many of you are aware, the electric restructuring act of 1997 allowed customers to purchase their electricity directly from a licensed retail competitive supplier to provide consumer choice and to reduce electric rates. Unlike commercial and industrial customers, it's only been in the last decade or so that significant numbers of residential customers enrolled directly with competitive suppliers. As more individual residential customers have enrolled with competitive suppliers, troubling trends have emerged, revealing significant inequities and exposing our most vulnerable residents to undeniable harms. We are not seeing benefits for individual residential, competitive residential supply. In 2018, the Attorney General's Office issued a report on competitive supply market on a competitive supply market, which was most recently updated in March of 2021.
This report showed that between July 2015 and June 2020, residential customers enrolled with competitive suppliers paid almost a half a billion dollars more than they would have on utilities basic service rates. The report also found that low income residents, elderly residents, and communities of color were disproportionately targeted by suppliers and you've1559 heard the full report from the attorney general. Following this report, the DPU investigated the matter as well, and has collected its own data directly from the utility companies, which corroborates these1572 findings. In 2020 alone, the DPU found that residential customers enrolled with individual suppliers paid $94.2 million dollars more for electric supply than they would have had they been on basic service.
On average, this represents $218 every year for each residential customer using a competitive supplier. Despite these competitive suppliers, promising customers much lower rates for switching. The DPU has collected additional data related to the individual competitive supply market for residential customers, which Chairman Nelson will outline shortly. At a high level this data1613 shows that low income customers are more likely than non low income customers to be enrolled with a competitive supplier and that they are paying electric rates that are higher on average than utilities basic service rates. Furthermore, residential customers enrolled with an individual competitive supplier are more1629 likely to have difficulty paying their electric bills.
As of December 31st of 2020 customers were 10-20% more likely to be in arrears if they were enrolled with a competitive supplier, so more likely to be out of payment on their bills if they're enrolled with a competitive supplier. Additionally, those same customers had substantially larger arrearage totals than customers on basic service. With the arrearage totals for residential customers being1660 47% higher. Totals for low income customers the most vulnerable customers that DPU works to protect had arrearages that were 73% higher on average, if they were with a competitive supplier. To put that further into perspective, the average low income customer on competitive supply that was in arrears owed their electricity utility $2061 as opposed to $1188 for a low income customer on basic service a significant difference.
The costs of providing a arrearage management and forgiveness programs for these residential customers is recovered through distribution rates, which means that those costs are paid by all ratepayers, regardless of what supply you're on. So if there are more customers in arrears with higher arrearage totals, it results in higher rates paid by all customers, regardless of whether they are enrolled with a competitive supplier. We also know that competitive suppliers rely heavily on telemarketing and door to door to door marketing to solicit residential customers. The DPU spends considerable time investigating alleged consumer protection violations, which usually include some form of deceptive or aggressive marketing practices.
The DPU has taken a number of steps to expand and it's prove and improve its oversight of suppliers in the market more generally, with a central focus on protecting consumers. In particular it has opened investigations in the past 5-7 years and adopted some wide ranging market reforms that have made some incremental improvements, but it has become clear through these investigations that elements1762 of competitive supply work for commercial and industrial customers. However, despite all the work the administration and the attorney general have done to protect residential individual customers the market has caused undeniable harm to those customers. The key distinction here is that commercial and industrial customers have a much larger load and dedicated energy managers, lawyers and specialists focused on getting the most from a supplier at the lowest cost.
On the residential side, most of us don't have the benefit of employing teams of experts to help1798 us navigate the competitive supply market and companies have taken advantage of that lack of expertise. When we started digging into arrearages this past year during the pandemic, which is something we've been tracking in order to better understand which customers were struggling to pay their bills our suspicions were1817 further confirmed. We found that customers enrolled with competitive suppliers were much more likely to be in arrears during this difficult pandemic year and that they had larger bills and more debt. It's clear that individual competitive supply market for residential customers has not delivered on its promise of lower rates for residential customers and this is something you heard from the attorney general and the senator and representative as well.
In fact, the evidence shows that it has increased rates, particularly for the state's most vulnerable residents and is causing them undeniable harm. We believe at this juncture, that the market cannot continue as currently structured, and not until there is a stronger framework in place that protects our most vulnerable residents from the predatory tactics so widespread in the current competitive supply market. I'll now turn it over to Chairman Nelson, who will outline additional data and information that the DPU has collected related to the individual competitive supply market. And I will just note that we very strongly agree with the attorney general that Senate Bill 2150 will protect ratepayers, especially low-income rate payers and ensure that no further damage is done. And therefore we support this legislation and urge the legislature to take this matter very seriously.
[MATTHEW NELSON (DPU):] Thank you, Secretary and good morning Chair Barrett, Chair Roy and distinguished members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today about individual residential competitive supply market. When the department last testified on this topic, we say that we needed more time to investigate the attorney general's findings and review what1923 other options might be available to1925 reform the individual competitive supply market in the commonwealth. Since that time, we've compiled a significant amount of information that corroborates and builds on the Attorney General's report. More specifically, we have collected data from the electric1941 distribution companies, each of which builds residential customers on behalf of the competitive suppliers so it's the actual data on an individual customer basis.
As the secretary noted, this data shows that in 2020 customers enrolled directly with competitive suppliers paying aggregate $94.2 million dollars more than they would have on basic service. As far as this means for individual customers, that1971 means customers enrolled on competitive suppliers pay $218 more for their electricity supply than if they had been on basic service, that's all customers, We haven't talked about low income customers yet. Additionally, the data we collected shows that1987 residential customers eligible for a low income discount rate, were 63% more likely to be enrolled with competitive suppliers than other residential customers. Furthermore, the same low-income customers were charged supply rates that were 13% higher than other non low income or as you prefer to residential customers on competitive supply.
So that's low income customers compared to uh other residential customers on competitive supply. In addition, examining the rates and bills on from specific customers, the DPU examined other areas that were not specifically addressed by the attorney general's report to assess the impact competitive supply is having on low income discount rates. Through the data requests to the distribution companies, the DPU discovered that by charging low income customer rates that are higher than basic service rates, suppliers were increasing the cost that must be recovered from all customers regardless of whether they were enrolled with a competitive supplier. That's because when a low income customer receives a discount and that's applied to their bill, it is collected that portion is collected through all customers rates.
Through our investigation, the DPU found that all distribution customers paid an approximate $6 million for electricity specifically because the competitive supply rates charged to low-income customers. As the secretary outlined the DPU suspected correlation between the arrearage trend that emerged during the2094 COVID-19 pandemic and customers2096 enrolled with individual competitive suppliers. Since the early days of the pandemic, DPU started collecting that data, ultimately confirming our suspicions. We did that because we were in a period of time where the DPU did not want to see customers get shut off with everything in upheaval and social distancing and jobs going into furloughs.
We thought it was essential to protect residential customers and CNI customers from having shutoffs done but we wanted to collect that data. So at the time when the shut off were lifted, we would know who was impacted and how to help those customers as part of that, right? In June of in 2020 and June of 2021, there was between 265 million to 355 million of arrearage that was owed by low-income customers increasing uh sorry, that was for residential customers and for low-income customers, we saw arrearage increase from 148 million to 179 million. So we saw increases in arrearage for people who were on competitive supply. Additionally, the percentage of low income customers in arrears had increased in that same time from the number of customers from 113,000 to 125,000.
When we compare that customer data provided by the utility companies with competitive supply, it appears to be a significant driver for the reasons why the number of customers in arrears and the total amount of those arrears accumulated was increasing during the pandemic. So competitive supply exasperated the problem of people trying to get out of debt. And I think that goes to what the secretary brought up before, which is the low income customers who were on competitive supply were paying $2,000, $1,000 more than those that were on basic service. So those are some of the data points around the impact and I think a lot of that other data points are clearly covered from the AG's report. But I wanted to move on to what the DPU has done to curb certain activities in the competitive supply market.
So one of the major concerns going into this was understanding how pervasive the quote unquote bad apples are. The data the secretary and I are going over is pervasive throughout the entire market. So there's an issue with the market as a whole, not just a few entities. So because this is aggregated data, you're looking at what the impact of the entire competitive supply market is on all customers. So it's important to keep that in mind. The DPU has numerous concerns regarding the marketing and sales tactics that suppliers have used to solicit customers. As the department responsible for licensing suppliers and the brokers and enforcing certain customer protection measures related to their interaction with customers. The DPU receives many complaints from consumers related to marketing and sales activities.
2275 The2275 type of marketing that competitive suppliers typically, it is difficult to police. In2281 our oversight role of the DPU spent a considerable amount of time investigating these alleged consumer protections, and we do that by looking at individual suppliers and building a support of an evidentiary record.2296 In some cases, the evidence has shown sales calls suppliers have in response to customer complaints have likely been altered before they have been provided to the DPU. In the last two years, the DPU has initiated investigations into marketing practice over 10 different competitive suppliers. In most cases, the allegations against competitive2319 suppliers have been related to2321 aggressive or deceptive telemarketing tax, but the DPU has also received complaints regarding door to door marketing and direct mailing activities.2329
Among the complaints received, consumers have made allegations concerning repeated phone calls, inaccurate statements regarding the price term, renewable content of the products, deceptive statements regarding claims of savings guarantees, deceptive statements regarding what they were, what the charges were being reduced to or removed, false representations of sales agents affiliations with the distribution company, attempts to avoid disclosing the supplier on who behalf the agent is contacting the customer for, refusing or avoiding answering customer questions, inconsistent information presented between the sales call and the third party verification call, lack of adherence to the third party verification standards, such as sales agents not participating in third party verification calls with by coaching customers.
So they're coaching customers when we're trying to verify whether that that call was made appropriately and sales agents answering questions for the customers during third party verification calls. Investigating these allegations often further is frustrated by the fact that the DPU collect the actual sales call recording. So we actually go through the voice recordings that are recorded from third party verification or from the marketing call. And I want to be clear, we have seen edited tapes. Uh it's clear we're specifically talking about reviewing recorded calls where we cannot verify the tape version that we were listening to is an accurate recording of the call. The DPU has adopted market reforms2431 and we have actively exercised our current authority under the law.
We have increased our staffing and oversight in the marketing practices of these suppliers and we worked better informed customers. But those efforts have only marginally improved the situation. Based on our extensive expertise and our understanding of investigating these matters. We believe that as long as the current market exists, marketing for retail supply products will continue to perform uh through telemarketing and door to door sales channels. This means that consumer protection violations will likely continue with great frequency and it will be very difficult to allow the DPU to investigate with that I'd like to turn it back over the secretary.
[THEOHARIDE:] So, obviously, as we've been reviewing this data, as well2478 as2478 hearing the anecdotes from the chair in and looking2483 into many of these cases, the governor and I have found uh this can kind of just compelling and particularly striking. It confirms, as I said, all of the attorney general's findings that those participating in residential competitive supply markets are on average paying higher rates, that low income customers are disproportionately more likely to be affected by these higher rates and are likely being disproportionately targeted by aggressive suppliers and sales tactics. Additionally, the2509 higher rates charged by suppliers are making it more difficult for customers to pay their bills, particularly those that are most vulnerable to higher utility costs.
And this means that when people are unable to pay their higher cost, their higher bills cost increase, not only for those customers, but all electric customers who are, who supported those2533 customers from getting shut off as they try to keep2536 up their payments. DPU reviewed years of data on residential competitive supply markets and it's clear that this has become a deceptive industry that targets the commonwealth's most vulnerable residents. The agencies and entities charged with protecting these consumers do not have the current ability to properly regulate this industry and this has resulted in residential customers paying for far more for their electricity than they would have on basic service.
And I should2565 know none of this. None of the decisions we're making here have been made lightly, and there may be a different set of circumstances under which2572 individual residential competitive supply markets could exist in the future and consumer choice could thrive, but that does not exist today. I can't sit here today and tell you that this industry brings any benefit to residential customers at the moment. In assessing the negative impact of this competitive supply market on consumers. The data is overwhelming and clear, and in the interest of consumer protection, our answer is simple. We can prevent the targeting of our vulnerable residents, save customers enrolled with competitive suppliers, $500 million, half a billion dollars over the next five years by returning them to basic service and reduce costs for all ratepayers across the2613 commonwealth.
Based on this overwhelming evidence, Governor Baker and this administration have concluded that the current competitive by marketplace is untenable, hurting vulnerable residents every day and not delivering any measurable benefit to consumers across the common law. It simply simply2629 cannot continue as currently structured, and not until the commonwealth implement substantial reforms to the statutory framework. That will allow Massachusetts residents to truly benefit from a fair competitive marketplace. As I mentioned earlier, we agree with the attorney general of the Senate Bill 2150 will protect ratepayers, especially low-income rate payers and support this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Chairman Nelson and I are very happy to answer any questions you will have you have?. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, madam. Secretary, Are there questions of our2663 panel?
[SEN BARRETT:] You know, I'd like to ask one question and I2675 please excuse me because I know you've covered this ground, but I just want to pose something or posit something. In two years ago we heard that this was in fact a bad apples problem, that there was something fundamentally sound about direct to consumer sales and that this fundamentally sound model was being abused by a few bad actors. Can you speak directly I presume we're going to hear the bad apples defense again perhaps later in this hearing, I'm just speculating can you speak to that the bad apples defense in this particular case and and how much we should credit it?
[THEOHARIDE:] Yeah, well I will let the chair talk more broadly about2718 what they've seen all across the industry, but I would say um what the evidence showed us is that high prices and deceptive marketing practices are widespread. This is not just a2732 handful of bad actors, these are widespread predatory practices, um, misinformation and targeting of low income customers. And there, you know, this has been evidenced that DPU has had some form of deceptive marketing related investigation into nearly one out of every five suppliers who are licensed to serve customers in the past two years. And I think the AGO's Report there's this out as well that shows that these high prices are are widespread. And chairman, your staff certainly have broad experience dealing with a wide number of these cases.
[NELSON:] Yeah, I think that um there is a pervasive element to the way that this market functions, and I think that the competition is primarily who can get to sign up a customer first, right? And I think that's where you're seeing a lot of the effort being put into the marketing, um that the competitive suppliers are doing because they want to acquire those customers who oftentimes we'll see a and I'm sure the AG is going to cover this more. Uh Nathan Forster has done a great job with that in the past, has put in a price that's lower than basic service as an introductory price and then will switch to a variable rate afterwards.2811 That will go up and it's hard for someone who is not as aware of what's happening to monitor that on a regular basis.
So that's a practice that um, that is obviously not in favor of a customer. And I think the other thing you want to consider is that, you know, customer's relationship to how much they're using is not as sophisticated as a CNI customer And we've seen success from the competitive supply2839 market on the CNI side, we've seen success from municipal aggregations as well. So there are models where this work. So we're specifically, and I believe the AG's bill specifically looks at a very narrow segment of the market and a group of customers that need protection. So I think in terms of one bad apple, we would see individual suppliers that we would catch and then, um, and actually weed them out. But you're seeing these numbers on an aggregate level across all customers with the bills going up.
There's very few people that are saving money through2875 competitive supply and a lot of people paying for it. And so that's one of the biggest defenses for me on the bad apple argument is2883 we're not seeing individual customers is we're seeing all customers have higher bills on the aggregate.
[SEN BARRETT:] If I might ask, well, an additional question and then I'll ask again if other members of the committee have any um You had mentioned that there's something particular about the door to door tactic that eludes easy monitoring by the DPU. Uh and I I inferred from what you said Mr Chair that the DPU you can take can listen to recordings although they can be doctored. But the DPU cannot listen to face to face conversations conducted door to door by these same marketers. Am I am I right that there is a fundamental enforcement problem with the way these models have evolved that again, make it highly unlikely that the current market structure should continue. Is there any flexibility issue here?
[NELSON:] Yeah. And so and we've really tried our best to create a structure that was going to protect residential customers. So a salesperson comes to the door, knocks on the door, has a conversation. Um we've investigated ways to have the iPad record those calls2953 so that we can verify it later and we actually have third party verification. So after that sales call happens, right, the sales representative is supposed to leave and then you get a call from a third independent party that would call up and say, hey, you just registered for this competitive supplier and going through a series of questions to ensure that that decision was made in a clear and transparent way. But again, what we've seen is, um, and we get those third party verification calls recorded.
So we listen to them and we've seen sales agents that are coaching that customer through each step of the way. This is how you answer. This is how you answer. This is how you answer, which isn't really the point of that because that is a check that we3001 were trying to institute, that was instituted to try to ensure that that customer was knowingly making a decision. And so when you see someone coaching someone through that, you know, it just, it adds more suspicion to it. In addition, we deal with the police who get complaints. We get complaints ourselves and I think we've probably heard of someone going door to door is representing ever source or national grid. And you know, I've seen alerts go out that says, you know, from the utility company saying we are not going door to door, right? That is not what we're doing.
We have a franchise, right? We're not really interested. We have captured customers. They don't need to go door to door. So I think to that degree, um, there's a lot of deception going on there and that's also an area of concern because you're having two people go face to face. One other layer to consider is the fact that those are not usually. So if you have a company right competitive supplier X. Um they're hiring a third party to go door to door. Those aren't their employees. So there's another level of um ossification that you can have where they can say this this person was a rogue agent who is doing this and you know, they don't work for us and they've been moved on. And usually those are temporary jobs, they're not full time positions. So I hope that helps answer your question um Chairman,
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you. It does. And I thank you for those additional comments. Are there additional questions from the committee?
[REP ROY:] Yeah Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief follow up questions and uh again I want to thank the secretary and the chairman for their testimony and the data. My question is whether you have considered uh increasing bonding requirements for some of these companies and restructuring the statute to allow for private rights of action uh and the collection of double or treble damages against some of these companies as a way to go after companies that are engaged in these unfair and deceptive practices.
[NELSON:] So I'll answer that in two parts. The first one is um today the department is looking at all3141 the avenues we have under the law to continue to go after anyone we find an infringement in a reactionary way. So we hear something has happened, we see something has occurred and we are going forward and trying to pursue that and collect that. What you'll end up seeing though, is there a lot of LLCs, there's a lot of companies that will get caught and then declare bankruptcy and I think the AG obviously has also had settlements with several different actors in the market as well that she can go over uh when, when they're up. But so we're doing that right now. I think we could increase the penalties. I think we could do things like that to improve the market.
But the reality is those are all reactionary things that we're doing that have a due process element. Because these competitive suppliers, you know, have their right to say here is actually what happened here is the evidence that I am presenting on my side and that can be, you know, a 12-183199 month process to sort out the facts and come to a conclusion that happens after the harm has been done to the customer. So I think here, because we're seeing these practices pervasive across the entire market we're happy to have conversations to improve this market forward, and we're happy to talk about ways to bring customer choice that is bringing the values of the Commonwealth today, not the values back in 1998. And I would say that that those can happen, but we're trying to be proactive when we see that, you know, a low income customer is paying $1000 more than3237 someone on basic service, right?
That's a huge um uh thing that that at least catches my attention and it makes me want to say, okay, let's hit the pause button right now and look at ways to improve it going forward, but also really3253 try to make sure those customers are protected today.
[THEOHARIDE:] And I think that's an important point Mr. Chairman, That the chair just made, that it's not that we don't think individual residential competitive supply could exist um and could be structured to exist and potentially benefit uh customers and ratepayers, and particularly as we move forward with electrification and advanced metering and all of these things. It is likely to play a role, but we feel very strongly given the lack of benefits we're seeing and the significant impacts that we're seeing, particularly to low income ratepayers. We have to stop it now before before moving forward and looking at what the future could bring.
[REP ROY:] The the piece that I was considering as a proactive measure was increasing of bonding requirements so that you can go after those LLCs or other companies that will go out of business, as opposed to paying the3313 penalties if upfront we required them to post a bond that would cover any of these losses. I'm wondering if that's first of all, something that's been considered or and secondly, whether that would be a sufficient deterrent to those who would engage in these types of unfair and deceptive acts and if we could uh, you know, uh, allow customers who may have been scammed to go after that particular bonding fund, uh, to collect for any3347 harm that they may have uh, suffered, uh, whether that would be a way to address this problem. Just curious as to conversations that have occurred along those lines,
[NELSON:] I think we would have to look at a bunch of data around that proposal. I would want to understand from an individual customer standpoint3368 whether, uh, what the cost of that bonding is, right? There's always a risk premium that you pay and whether that's cost effective for the customers. And then the second piece of that is you want to make sure that customers aware they have to first be aware that they are paying more than their neighbor which is not an easy thing to do right?3389 Most people don't talk about electric rates, at least at the parties I go to. Uh and I think to that degree, um a lot of these customers are paying more and not knowing that they're paying a lot more than a customer that would be on basic service.
We have designed a website to try to put that data up there to inform those customers. So that's an element there is merit but I also think the purchase of receivable um legislation that came out in the Green Communities Act would have have to be examined as part of that as well, which we can go over in more detail. I don't have an answer for you today whether3427 bonding would be an effective solution to the market. Um, happy to have a conversation about that uh and and try to look at more what the financial uh impact would be. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much and thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity. Absolutely. Mr Chairman. And I see Representative Hawkins has a question.
Now the question uh I'm immunity. Yes. Just a thank you. Uh I know same as you Chair. Barrett. We heard this conversation a couple of years ago and I'm very grateful that you and the chairman has stayed on this topic and and found and3460 stayed and stayed on top of it and worked so hard on it. It's a it's a big issue. So I just want to share my appreciation for your diligence.
Thank you very much. Representative. That's good of you to say. Are there additional questions of our panelists?
I want to thank Madam Secretary Mr Chair. I want to thank you both for taking considerable time this morning to educate us and for presenting again some very granular data3485 which are very troubling. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr Chairman and Mr Chairman. And we're happy to provide any of the data in in written form if it's helpful. Terrific. Thank you.
At this time we're going to call on any legislators who wish to testify out of turn. My apologies to all the other folks who are waiting to testify. But we try to accommodate our colleagues who typically have multiple hearings on a Wednesday to attend. I've got on my list. Representative brad Hill and if Representative Hill is with us, I would welcome him at this time to testify before the committee.
[REP HILL:] [HB3321] I am with you. Uh Mr Chairman and I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I'll be very very brief. This is a uh I'm here to support House Bill number 3321 which is an act to provide rebates to consumers who purchase or at least qualifying plug in electric vehicles. This is a refile from last year and the bill basically does. What the title asks us to do is we're asking the,3560 uh, our friends over at the Department of Energy and Resource to establish a program that would give rebates. We currently do that actually, but it's not something that's in law or in regulation and we want to make sure that it is so that we always have this program available to our constituents and to the citizens of the commonwealth.
Uh, we want cleaner air and I think this is a way or one step of many that we can take to do just that our electric vehicles I'm going to be blunt and be truthful as I always am to you all. Uh they're a little expensive and not everybody can afford to be able to purchase these vehicles. And I would hope that with this rebate program which has been very, very successful that we could codify this into law and into regulation and start cleaning our air through people being able to purchase these electric vehicles. And I thank you Mr Chairman for taking me out of turn and to my good friend, Chairman Roy, nice to see you as alwaysum and if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer them. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
are there questions of Representative health hearing? None will. We'll move on to one of your colleagues, Representative, Representative Christine Barber who I well I saw earlier and I believe is here. Thank you. Thank you sir,
[REP BARBRA:] [HB3255] I am here. Thank you. Thanks thank you. Chair Ben Barrett, Excuse me, Chair Roy um and all the committee members and staff um and thank you for taking me out of turn. Um, I'm here I will also be brief. I'm here to testify in support of a bill that I filed with Rep Maskino House 3255 an act to promote electric vehicle fleets by 2035. Um, so this bill would require that all publicly3665 owned and leased vehicle fleets. So that's everything from public works cars to school buses to recycling trucks would be electric by 2035. And the bill creates a phased in approach that sets targets over years to get us there. Um, we've taken3682 really significant steps as a legislature to address climate change, but we know there's much more to do, particularly in the transportation sector, um, which is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Um, we know that over 40% of emissions come from our cars and trucks and transit infrastructure and that these emissions exacerbate issues like asthma, respiratory illnesses,3708 particularly in environmental justice communities. Um, some recent research shows that residents of color in Massachusetts are exposed pollution from vehicle emissions that are 26-36 percent higher than those3723 um typical exposure for white residents here. And we know this is all exacerbated,3732 of course, by COVID-19 so electrifying the fleets addresses air pollution and provides a solution that um improve health and is also one that's um rooted in equity and prioritizing EJ communities and will ultimately benefit all residents of the um, so H3255 an opportunity to do this and provides a way to move us forward um, by electrifying fleets.
We can create permanent infrastructure and encourage zero emission vehicles throughout the commonwealth um, so I really want to thank the zero emission vehicle coalition. You're going to hear from them and their expert testimony in a few minutes. Um, but I thank the committee and look forward to working with you and of course happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Representative and are the questions of representative Barber
hearing? None will. We'll move on. But thank you so much for offering your your views and thoughts. Representatives, thank you Chairman. Uh, at this point we're going to get into the witness list at large. I should mention that there are roughly 65 witnesses remaining. So this is going to be a very lengthy hearing and we're going to do a few things in order to ensure that everyone gets to be heard in prime time. We are going to impose a strict three minute limit. There will be an audio cue at the conclusion of the three minutes. And at that point we will ask people to conclude, we will also hear from a number of witnesses organized into panels either self organized or in some cases3834 aggregated by our staff because the subject matter is shared, we3839 will hold questions to individuals3841 until a complete panel has been heard from. And then we will invite questions to the group and we will commence hearing testimony now under these new ground rules and we'll start by hearing from a number of officials from the state Attorney General's office. I believe Nathan Forster Liz Anderson and Elizabeth Mahony are with us. Uh we will hear from them as a panel. Each individual has three minutes but we will hold questions until the panel is complete.
Do we have uh the Attorney general's office with us? Thank you.
[NATHAN FORSTER (AGO):] Thank you. Mr Chairman. Um Good afternoon, my name is Nathan Forster. I am the Division Chief of Attorney General Maura Healey's Energy and Telecommunications division. Before I make my remarks, I first want to echo the AG's thanks to Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy and members of the committee for convening this important hearing. I also want to echo the AG's. Thanks to leader Frank Moran and Senator Brendan Crighton for sponsoring this important legislation for Massachusetts electric customers. You heard earlier today from the attorney general and the secretary and chair Nelson about the economic devastation from this market that nearly $1 billion Massachusetts consumers have lost and how those losses have disproportionately fell on those who are least able to afford them.
Here is what you will hear from the suppliers in response, you will hear them say, don't end this industry, we can fix all the problems with more regulation and more enforcement. The suppliers are wrong about this. Unfortunately, more enforcement and regulation will not fix this market, which has been failing for 20 years in Massachusetts and in every other state where it has been tried. First of all, as you heard3956 the AGO and the DPU are already spending tremendous resources on enforcement. Our offices litigation3960 efforts have been tremendously successful. As AG Healey mentioned, our3965 office has recovered $19 million Commonwealth. However, the $19 million barely makes a dent in the 426 million in losses that Massachusetts consumers have suffered.
The AGO and3980 the DPU do not have the resources to investigate and litigate against every one of the nearly 50 suppliers who cause consumer losses each year. The suppliers might be extolling the virtues of enforcement today, but when you actually ask them to be held accountable for their actions, they lawyer up and they fight tooth and nail and no matter how fast we work. By the time we finished investigating the supplier and build a case, much of the money they've taken from consumers has already long gone. And then we're in bankruptcy court, sadly every state who has this industry has tried to tackle this problem through additional regulation enforcement and it has never worked take the case of Connecticut.
The Connecticut legislature has passed bill after bill addressing this issue and the Connecticut PUC has filed company after company for violations. And the latest study in Connecticut show that despite all this enforcement, consumers in Connecticut have paid $36 million dollars more they would have paid on default service the most recent year. And here is another thing for years, supplier suggested the answer. The problems in Massachusetts was to make massachusetts be more like texas but I don't think you'll hear them talk about texas today. As you know, following the Texas energy crisis, the Texas model led to consumers receiving4051 devastatingly high bills from suppliers, some as high as $9,000. This legislation would stop wasting resources trying to fix a market that cannot be fixed. This legislation would help so many investors, consumers who need help at no cost. Thank you again for taking the time to consider my remarks. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you.
Next witness from the Attorney General's office.
[LIZ ANDERSON (AGO)] Hi, Hello everyone. My name is Liz Anderson and I'm the deputy division chief for the AGO's Energy and Telecommunications Division. Um First thank you to the committee for having us here today to discuss an issue that we4089 are so passionate about which is protecting consumers in the commonwealth who have suffered as a result of the individual residential electric supply market. I'm going to talk a little bit about our reports on this market and the response from the suppliers. About five years ago, in response to the large number of complaints that we were receiving, we decided to see whether the issue was a couple of bad apples or whether it was more widespread. We requested data from the utilities regarding the rates charged for one year period.
And when we analyze that data, we immediately realized that the problems with this market were much deeper than4123 the complaints that we were receiving. For example, the supplier charging some of the highest rates on average whose customers were losing hundreds of dollars per year in some years over $400 was not even on our radar. Since our first report, we have continued to update the data each year for a total of five one year study periods, in part to find out whether the timeframe we initially analyzed simply represented a couple4148 of bad years for the industry. The updated data show that the original report was not an aberration that4154 this market consistently fails to deliver lower electricity rates to individual residential customers.
We have also seen other states perform similar analysis with similar4164 results. So we asked, are there any good apples in this market? To find out we analyzed the 32 suppliers who provided net savings to residential customers during at least one of our one year study periods. Several of the suppliers in this group exited the market either through bankruptcy, selling to another supplier or relinquishing their license. Of the 32, there are six suppliers who are still active who market to residential customers and who served more than 1000 customers in the last study period. All six of those suppliers have been unable to consistently provide savings to their customers year over year, three of the six suppliers save their customers money in the first two study periods only to turn those savings into significant losses in the more recent study periods.
The conclusion from these data points, there are no good apples. There is no supplier who is able to consistently provide their customers with lower priced electricity rates. Now, RISA has released a counter report claiming the potential for4229 hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. However,4233 that report addresses a purely theoretical scenario that relies on highly4236 unrealistic consumer behavior. It assumes that the customer is sophisticated and has the expertise to navigate the market. RISA also criticizes the AGO for not releasing the data underlying our analysis. The AGO has not released that data suppliers have claimed that it is proprietary. The data does not contain confidential customer information and the AGO would be happy to release the data any and all suppliers who wave their claims that the data is proprietary provided the utilities agree. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Miss Anderson. We're going to hear from your colleague Elizabeth Mahoney, I believe.
[ELIZABETH MAHONEY (AGO):] Yes. Good morning. Good morning to the committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak about4290 our competitive electrics supply work, My name is Elizabeth Mahoney, I am an assistant Attorney General and Senior Policy Advisor for Energy and AG Healey's office. Going to also address the vertical effects this industry has on customers, municipalities and our clean energy goals. The stories and complaints you've heard about today don't just come to the AGO, the DPU or even legal services municipalities deal with these as well. Police departments field calls from residents being harassed4319 or about misbehaving sales teams, town officials and local neighborhood message board field discussions on marketing tactics and too good to be true offers.
And even new municipal aggregations are targeted. As a Boston resident. I saw how suppliers tried to siphon off city residents last winter as our aggregation plan was about to launch. My mailbox filled and my phone rang again and again with questionable offers and regrettably the vulnerable populations discussed today are often too often left behind when aggregations open because they've been duped already into a contract. Thus they are not automatically opted in with their basic service neighbors when a new aggregation launches. Moreover, while municipalities are hustling to increase in state or in region, clean energy product offering complaints suppliers are not, despite their claims of green offerings, suppliers do not disclose where they purchase their, their extra rex from, how much is purchased above their4382 obligation and there is no way for the public to verify the claims.
So what our customers paying for. And as a policy matter, if customers are going to pay a premium for green products, don't want those facilities to be benefiting our state or regional energy market and that is to say nothing of the failure by some in the industry to meet their baseline RPS and APS obligations when they file bankruptcy. Six suppliers failed to make their RPS and Clean Energy Standard obligations in 20184413 and we expect that Liberty Paddler failed to do the same4418 in 2020 because of their bankruptcy. This could be a significant loss for our our PS and this is brazen customers paid for the obligation as part of their rates. The suppliers either never purchased the wrecks and pocketed customer payments, or they sold them off to pay some other debt.
And while DOER and the FY22 budget provides small remedies for when4440 a supplier files for bankruptcy. As my colleague Nate described such peace meal steps are not enough to prevent the industry from disappointing us or our RPS goals from suffering. And this committee knows as this committee knows4456 best the 2021 road map bill accelerates RPS obligations in future years. Meeting these goals will be a struggle if every year or so a supplier bails and the industry claims they are going to innovate the markets. Well, it's been 23 years and we're still waiting. Suppliers will say they need new meters to innovate but we've looked in states with installed advanced meters the industry has not changed its customer offerings.
The only innovations we are4484 aware of come in the form of what new ways they've invented to pad their own pockets. This industry continues to hamper the commonwealth's clean energy targets, drains money from customers, interferes4496 with municipal aggregations and4498 harasses residents. The question remains for what? Thank you again for your time and attention. We're happy to answer any of your questions and just a quick note, we'll be filing the AG's testimony with the committee and each committee member today and with it we'll also share the link to our CED Event tomorrow and specifics about your4521 help each of your communities have been impacted by this industry. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Are there questions of our distinguished panel.
If not, I want to thank you all for taking the time to appear before us this morning. Thank you.
We're going to stay on this4539 topic of the competitive supply at until we hear from all witnesses with respect to it. And next we're pleased to hear from jennifer bosco, Alexa Rosenbloom, Sofia Owen. And I know there's a 4th Panelist whose name was cut off on the particular list I was, I was given, but I want to welcome the next panel to us. We will hear each three minutes from each of them and then ask questions of the panel. At the conclusion is our jennifer and her colleagues available to us. Yes, thank you.
Why don't you begin testifying?
[JENNIFER BOSCO (NCLC):] [SB2150] [HB3352] Good morning Chair Barrett, Chair Roy and members of the committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate 2150 and House 3352. An Act relative to Electric Great pair of protections. My name is Jennifer Bosco. I'm a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center or NCLC. We're a non profit organization based in boston and I focus on energy and utility matters that affect low income consumers. I'm testifying in support of Senate 2150 and House 3352 because NCLC Is very concerned about the abuses, deceptive marketing practices and inflated prices that we have observed in the competitive4616 supply market in Massachusetts and in other restructured states. We are particularly concerned about the ongoing financial harm to low income consumers, older adults and those with limited english language proficiency.
During the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic we clearly saw that affordable and reliable electric service is a public health and safety necessity that impacts not just the struggling household but the entire community. Massachusetts protected utility customers from disconnection during the COVID-19 state of emergency but now those temporary protections have ended and you and utility disconnections have resumed. Um as secretary Secretary Theoharide and Chair Nelson have just described the inflated electricity prices charged to most customers who sign up with competitive electric supply companies undermine the commonwealth's ongoing efforts to help vulnerable families stay connected to vital electric service.
Massachusetts would not be alone in taking a strong approach by ending individual residential sales of competitive supply. In Oregon that state's electric utility restructuring law allows for sales of competitive electric supply only to commercial and industrial customers, but not to residential customers. New York has introduced legislation similar to Senate 2150 and House 3352. After finding that partial reforms in that4694 state were not enough to stop bad4697 practices. NCLC agrees with the analysis by the office of the Attorney General, the competitive energy supply market cannot be adequately reformed. Massachusetts needs to pass Senate 2150 in House 3352 to protect our consumers. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. And we'll move on to to Alexa Rosenbloom.
[ALEXA ROSENBLOOM (GBLS):] [SB2150] [HB3352] Hello, Chair Barrett, Chairs Barrett and Roy and members of the committee. My name is Alexa Rosenbloom. I'm an attorney and the consumer rights unit of Greater Boston Legal Services and I come before you today an enthusiastic support of Senate 2150 and House 3352. I represent low income consumers in4749 a variety of areas. But in the last few years I have spent an increasing amount of my time representing a low income consumers, negatively affected by the predatory competitive electricity market. Each of the dozens of consumers I have represented has a slightly different story, but they all have the same ending. They were switched to a more expensive competitive supplier.
I wish I could say one supplier or one marketer was the problem, but that is not what my clients stories show. Instead, they show universal problems with this industry, false promises of cost savings, misrepresentations of providers relationships with utility companies and worse, preying on the most vulnerable of consumers. Some of my clients knew they were switching to competitive electricity, but did so only upon promises of cost savings, which never materialized. Instead, my clients, individuals who were at or below the poverty level, just like Massachusetts, consumer Massachusetts consumers as a as a whole, ended up paying considerably more for the exact same electricity.
Worse, most of my clients did not even know they were switching suppliers. Let me give you just a couple of quick examples and elder with dementia, whose daughter discovered someone had switched her mother by showing up at her own, my client with an intellectual disability whose caseworker realized that she had unknowingly had several different suppliers when the client had a huge average of on her electricity bill, two of my clients referred me. Two of my colleagues referred me cases where their clients have limited limited English proficiency and they, my clients discovered they had suppliers, not the clients themselves. Each of these stories involve different suppliers.
There is no one bad actor, it's just a bad industry which has failed in its intentions and hurt the most vulnerable among us, including elders and individuals with limited english proficiency. Chair Roy asked a little while ago about private rights of action. They do exist. Um I have brought a number of um cases filed lawsuit, a lawsuit on behalf of my clients. The Mass protection Consumer Protection Law allows for a private right of action under regulations, it's not enough even for every client I have represented there are thousands of others who4889 are entering the market on false promises and material misrepresentation. I strongly encourage you to pass this bill to protect the most vulnerable consumers in our commonwealth. Thank SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
you.
Yeah, thank you very much. Next up, my belief is um your colleague Sofia Owen.
[SOPHIA OWEN (ACE):] [HB3352] [SB2150] Thank you and good morning, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is Sophia Owen. I am the staff attorney and the director of Environmental Justice Legal Services at Alternatives for Community and Environment, or ACE, which is based in Roxbury. ACE builds the power of communities of color to combat environmental racism and classism, to build healthy and sustainable communities and to achieve environmental justice. Since our founding in 19924941 ACE members and staff have been at the forefront of the fight for environmental justice in Massachusetts were deeply concerned about the pattern of deceptive4949 practices that permeates the competitive supplier market and ask you to support H3352 and S2150 which will limit the ability of these companies to further exploit black, brown and low income residents across the state.
Before the onset of COVID-19 representatives from one of the competitive suppliers had a semi permanent set up in the parking lot outside of our office on Russell Street in Roxbury. A staff, members4974 and4974 volunteers, including myself, have been repeatedly badgered by marketers. We've been offered gift cards if we switch providers, misled about which companies some of these individuals work for. When pressed eventually, they admit that they do not work for ever source or national grid and promised that our utility bills will decrease if we4992 sign up. Thankfully, our staff4994 and members are equipped with the information they need to evaluate and decline such offers. What is far more concerning is the fact that these marketers set up shop in the center of one of the poorest neighborhoods in the state.
In Roxbury and in Mattapan, 24% of people are below the poverty line, a rate that's5012 almost as high as three as three times as high as the state average of 9.4%. The net worth of Black Bostonians is $8 compared to $247,000 for white residents.5022 Many of the people who come to the DTA office, the Department of Transitional Assistance, which is located in the ground floor of our building and patronized businesses in Nubian Square do not have this knowledge at their fingertips and are prime targets for predatory practices. As the reports published by the Attorney General's office and other testimony today has made clear the experience of a staff and members with competitive suppliers is far from unique. We're grateful that the Department of public utilities suspended door to door marketing campaigns in March when the State of Emergency was declared by governor Baker and reinstated in the fall as the result of our advocacy.
But the fact that we had to request for reinstatement of the ban in October of last year makes clear that the need to prohibit competitive suppliers from participating in the residential electric market. Clearly a temporary ban in door to door sales did not solve the problem. Nor have the enforcement efforts undertaken by the attorney general, the DPU or the advocates at NCLC or Greater Boston Legal Services, low income residents and communities of color continue to be in dire straits. They grapple not only with the impacts of disproportionately high rates of covid infection and death, but also record high unemployment, food insecurity and housing instability. We're beyond the point of reform. I urge you to use your power to protect consumers by supporting H3352 and S2150 and bannig competitive suppliers from the residential market.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. now going to hear from Maria Belen Power.
[MARIA ELLEN POWER:] [SB2150] [HB3352] Thank you chairman. Good morning. My name is Maria Ellen Power and I'm testifying in support of Senate 2150 and House 3352 an act relative to electric ratepayer protections. I am the associate executive director of Green Roots and we are an Environmental Justice Organization that for over 25 years has worked in Chelsea and Boston to organize, protect and defend some of the most vulnerable residents of our commonwealth. We work on issues of energy efficiency and energy democracy ensuring that our residents have a voice inciting processes and upholding the principles of environmental justice. We work on local and regional efforts, including initiatives such as community choice, aggregation and Chelsea.
However, today I'm here as a resident of Chelsea and a mother of two young daughters who has been harassed by these competitive energy suppliers in the middle of covid as we were responding to the most vital needs of our community, ensuring lower income renters were not being evicted and they had enough food on their table. These companies were going door to door deceiving consumers about the possibility of savings. We know many of those savings, many never materialized. One evening last fall my husband was working late and I was home alone with my two young daughters. The doorbell rang and when I opened the door, the person at the door seemed like someone from Ever Source. He had an official badge that actually on one side said Ever Source.
And I asked him if he was with that resource and he said, no, he was with a different company. He said I was paying too much on my electricity bill and that I had to switch. He asked to see my bill. I said it was not a good time that I was making dinner and putting my kids to bed. He said he would come back later. I told him again it was not a good time. He then insisted to see my bill and to come into my home. Remember this is all during Covid. I told him again it was not a5241 good time. I said good night. And I closed the door about an hour later, he came back. At this point I started getting nervous. I'm home alone with my daughters and it was dark outside. What if he tries to come into my house? What if he doesn't leave? My husband is not home?
I told him he needed to go and I closed my door. Now imagine if I didn't speak English, which many and Chelsea don't or if I was elderly or like many struggling to make ends meet and I needed to save any money that I could and I felt for it. I might have let him in. I might have signed up for a program that may have never provided savings or tricked me into a program that actually became more and more expensive over time. This needs to stop. We need more protections for residential utility consumers. As an advocate for environmental justice and energy democracy, but also as a resident who5298 has been harassed by these companies. I urge you to enact protections for residential utility consumers and report these bills favorably out of committee. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much.
Are there questions of our panel
hearing? None. I want to thank you for adding a great deal of down to earth human detail to the data we've received earlier, but a nice compliment to earlier testimony. So I thank you all very much. We're going to move on and hear from a panel of consisting of Mr Dan Allegretti and Mr Guy Sharfman. Uh both are associated with the Retail Energy Supply Association. And at this time, gentlemen, we would like to hear your testing.
Thank you. Chairman Barrett. Uh, Daniel already. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
[DANIEL ALLEGRETTI:] Thank you. Ah, well listen, we've heard a lot from public5363 officials so far on this issue. And, and I'm not here today, uh, to defend unfair or deceptive trade practices in any way. Uh, clearly, there is a problem in the commonwealth and it's gotten pretty far and the question really is reform it or just throw it out, close the market down. And I think, uh, you know, I've heard a lot of people say, well, we just have to close this down. I'm not going to pretend that reforming enforcement and, and dealing with issues of suppliers that shouldn't be licensed. It shouldn't be allowed to engage in deceptive practices is easy, it's hard work and it takes time, it takes effort, it takes resources. But if you close the market down, you're making a lot of assumptions about things that won't change.
You're assuming that the way that basic services provided won't change. That the cost savings that have been enormous as a result of wholesale competition are not going to change that utilities will not have new stranded costs in providing that service. You're also assuming that businesses that have benefited tremendously from competition and innovation are still going to see the same offerings that you're gonna have the same level of participation in innovation the commonwealth in the business to business end of the market. That's not going to change either. These are big assumptions to make. There are unintended consequences that will flow from decision to close the residential retail market and they should be thought through carefully.
There are no easy solutions here. It's going to be hard to fix this on the enforcement side. I5457 hear that, I don't disagree with that, but it's also going to be very hard to sustain the progress that we've5463 made in the commonwealth without a residential market. It provides an important discipline on basic service. It provides incentive for suppliers to do business confidently in the commonwealth and provide savings and innovation to businesses. Uh these are these are very difficult issues. Our association and its members have been very commitment to working with the Department5486 of Public Utilities on finding ways to make these markets work better, better information make it easier for customers to both understand and to change their supply.
We think these things need to be looked at much more closely, as well as the potential consequences that could flow closing the market before you make as drastic decision as the one proposed in this legislation. In terms of the potential for actual economic savings, we believe they are there if the market can be can be made to function as it should. With me today is Guy Sharman. He's our numbers expert. I'm gonna turn it over to him and let him walk you through some of the economics of this.
[GUY SHARFMAN:] Uh, thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman for having me today. My aim today is to show the committee that savings to residential customers from5542 competitive supply is absolutely available in the commonwealth. Uh, and if customers are not taking advantage of those savings there, you know, we should certainly look at why that's happening. But the savings potential are are there and to see it, you don't need to get confidential data from, from the utilities. You can you can see it. It's publicly5565 available data. There's a website which is called energy switch Massachusetts where retail suppliers post their competitive offers to residential customers. Now, anybody can go on that site and take advantage of those offers under all the utility service areas in the commonwealth.
You don't have to be. Uh, it doesn't matter what your socioeconomic background is. Anybody can go in there and take take advantage of those offers and sign up for those offers. I've been downloading these offers every month since January of 2018, 18 and I've been comparing them to the utility basic service rates on a monthly basis. And what I'm seeing is that on average every month, nearly 40% of the offers posted run below the prevailing basic service rate. Okay. In addition to that, about half of the offers that are posted they are below the basic service rate are green offers, meaning that customers can take advantage of both green products and save money at the same time. Um Now those offers that I compared to the basic service5633 rates are what I call clean offers there.
They don't have a teaser rate, for example, where you get discounted for one month and then the rate goes up. We're only looking at rates where the prices stay constant for the entire term of the rate. Furthermore, when we look at rates on an apples to apples basis, where we take six month competitive supplier offers and we compare them to basic service rates for the same time period as the basic5661 service rate has published for. Across utilities if customers take advantage of the lowest six month offer on an apples to apples basis, they will save 11% over the basic service rate. Now, these are offers that are out there, they're out there every day. Customers can take advantage of them every day. We also see that if customers want a longer term, uh than the basic service allows if they want to sign up for saya 12-month rate, 24 month rate, they save money over the basic service also.
So again, the question is if the data shows that customers are not saving money, even though they have the opportunity to save money, and I'm showing that every single month the question is is why. Um and that that's something that, you know, I think we should look at and and maybe it's an education issue. Maybe it's it's an access issue.5714 Customers need to know where they can go and take advantage of those offers, but I think it would be a shame to to kill a market that basically allows customers to save money and take advantage of green offers at the same time. Um And I've uh the I've uh filed written testimony that goes into all the details of my analysis for anybody to look at. I encourage everybody to read it. Thank SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
you.
Thank you. Mr Sharpton. Are there questions of our panel?
[REP RON:] Mr Chairman? Just a brief question. Um, I'm sure that the members of this panel have heard my questions to the executive branch folks about potential remedies and I wonder if they have any thoughts or comments on the issue of bonding and, uh, you know, tighter restrictions on unfair and deceptive acts or practices being considered for private rights of action. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
You're you're you're muted. Mr Allegretti.
[ALLEGRETI:] Thank you. Mr Chairman. My apology. We're certainly open to those suggestions as potential solutions. Bonding requirements can certainly be a solution to the problem of suppliers that have gone bankrupt. Um, you know, I5798 hear, I hear on the one hand, suppliers are making too much money, they're charging5802 too much, and on the other hand, they're going bankrupt. I'm not sure which it is, but but certainly the bonding requirements an intriguing one. We've seen those, those methods elsewhere. We'd certainly be interested in working with the department on ways to develop that and with the Legislature as well. I think there are other solutions. I'm I'm, you know, frankly, the licensing process is something that might need to be re examined.
5825 There5825 are certainly other ways besides levying penalties or entering into settlements to clean up the marketplace, as I said, not here today to defend, conduct that can't be defended. But I think before you close the market down, you really need to think about all the things that you're taking off the table, the innovation that may be taken off the table. The fact the customers just want choice by by a 3to 1 margin. Those are things that really need to be weighed. And I think, I think we need to exhaust the possibilities of reform before throwing our hands up and saying, well, let's just close it down. So we would be interested in in definitely looking into those, those ideas and developing them with you. Mr Chairman. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Um, I would just make this one request if you could perhaps submit writing to us, that outlines where these bonding, um, requirements have been implemented throughout the country. And if you have other ideas for reforms, I'd love to see something in writing from you and perhaps where any of these reforms have been implemented and whether they've been effective,
So thank you MR Chairman for the5897 opportunity to ask those questions. Thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Representative. I
[SEN BARRETT:] I went on the website that you advised us to go on just now energy switch.ma and I entered some variables. I entered the zip code 02108, which is the zip code for the Massachusetts State House and I uh, expressed an interest not in a green alternative but merely in saving money. And what came up as my first choice was not a competitive supplier at all. Uh, not in the terms, at least in which we've been considering the issue this morning. What came up with the city of Boston's municipal aggregation program so when you say that you've been gathering this data and putting it up on this website, have you been limiting this to that classic door to door sales, individual telemarketing efforts that we've heard about over the last hour and a half?
Or have you mixed in legitimate community aggregation suppliers negotiated not by individuals at all, but in this case, for example, by the city of Boston? It looks to me like you've, you've loaded this up with some winners that, that aren't what we've been discussing at all. Do you have a comment about how granular and how carefully you've put together your list of alternatives for an individual consumer like myself?
[SHARFMAN:] Yes. Mr Chairman and thank you for the question. The answer is we look at the offers made available by retail suppliers, um, on that website. That is not to say that what they post on that website is what they offer in door to door or anything of that nature. What they offer on that website is what you can sign up for if you go on that website, Right. And those are the offers that we look at. And we basically stripped any offers where the value proposition to the customer is not clear. So we only strip out offers, um, that, like I said, there's a fixed price from a retail supplier. There's a fixed price for the term of the for the term of the contract. So for example, if it's a 12 month contract, we look for a very clear dollar per kilowatt hour value or price that that particular contract is going to charge for 12 months.
And those are the only offers we take into account.6063 And as I've said out of those, about 40% of the offers that are published every month are lower than the prevailing basic service rate of the utility. And what I'll say further is that those are a mixed bag of offers. So the basic service rate is a one size fits all. It's a six month rate that everybody gets for six months. And then the rate changes and many times the rate changes very drastically.
[SEN BARRETT:] Mr. Sharfman let me just interpose. My, my question was a simpler one. Uh this website is not in fact representative of what folks are encountering door to door. Um and it's an apples and oranges issue here. I'm not disputing the potential utility of the website. Um but tell us something about the amount of money you spend publicizing and marketing this website to individual consumers. That this is a deal, for example, the one that came up most highly ranked that isn't representative of your industry at all. It's a municipal aggregation site in which the deal was negotiated on behalf of Boston residents by the city. Ah but tell us,6143 give us a sense about the marketing budget that you reserve to publicize energy, switch mass to the individual consumers. Can you give me a dollar figure for the annualized advertising program on behalf of this website this year?
6159 [SHARFMAN:]6159 Uh,6159 So6159 the website I believe is a Massachusetts website of suppliers don't don't run the website.
[SEN BARRETT:] Oh, you don't, this is not, this is not, this is not your website at all. Let me ask.
[SHARFMAN:] No. Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a Massachusetts website.
[SEN BARRETT:] So let me repeat the question And this has nothing to do It appears with the topic of this morning's conversation, you're now publicizing a, a state government website which generates all manner of potential6192 offerings to individual consumers. And this is not actually a search engine for the best deal for your particular clients only. This is, this seems to include a lot6205 of municipal aggregation offerings as well. Is that right?
[SHARFMAN:] So the website includes competitive offers that are available to customers in a particular service area. Um, and6216 then, so it includes offers by competitive suppliers who put their offers on it. Now, if, if you are...
[SEN BARRETT:] No, I know it includes it but the question is whether it is solely devoted to it or whether other kinds of offers are larger than this is not a tool that I as an individual consumer can use to deal with your retail, door to door customers only. You're saying that this is a different website with a different set of6248 suppliers. So now I'm confused about why you initially referred to it as part of your testimony this morning
[SHARFMAN:] Because because that website absolutely shows what competitive suppliers offer their customers, and it's a way to take publicly available offers and compare them to default utility service rates to show whether savings is available or not available. Um, and that's why we use it. I do have access to offers that were negotiated between a retail electric supplier and an individual customer. I do have access to offers the retail electric suppliers offer their customers that are on this website and that's why I6295 use it. It's publicly available data.
I appreciate that. Mr. DAllegretti do you have anything to add? [DALLEGRETTI:] No, I know. I was just going to make the point that the website is maintained by the massachusetts department of public utilities that it is there to include all of the offers. At times That may be a municipal aggregation program. At times it may not be. it may be the least caused option maybe an offer that's available through door to door marketing. Mr Sharfman is simply using the public data from the public website that is comprehensive and includes all offers, both aggregations, as well6327 as non aggregations. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
All right, thank you. Are there additional questions of our panelists?
We want to thank you6334 gentlemen very much for coming before us this morning. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you at this particular time. We would like to uh, invite a jennifer Spinosi to testify.
Okay.
Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Mr annoying. I'm sorry. Let me ask you. Are you are you appearing uh in tandem with any of the witnesses who immediately follow you? That would be uh mary can middle of the Wooster community action council Nicole wang of Dream Corps Green for all or you test, Are you appearing just by yourself? No sir. I'm appearing by my by myself. I'm the general counsel at Clean Choice Energy. Very good. Why don't you commence your testimony? Thank you. Thank you sir.
[JENNIFER SPINUSI (CCE):] Good morning Chairman Roy, Chairman Barrett and members of the committee. Um, I'm the general counsel and senior vice president of6402 Regulatory and Compliance at Clean Choice Energy. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I understand a number of concerns have been raised this morning, including whether it's even possible for residential customers to benefit6415 from direct choice. And I hope that my testimony will demonstrate not only that it's possible that many customers are in fact making an informed decision to purchase renewable energy and are benefiting from that choice today. Clean Choice Energy is a renewable energy company with a mission to transform the electricity market by making it easy for residential customers to switch to clean renewable energy.
There are a few really important ways in which my6444 company is different from a number of other retailers. First, we sell only and exclusively 100% renewable energy, so our customers choice helps the commonwealth exceed its RPS goals. Secondly, customer experience is at the core of our business. We don't engage in door to door sales. We do a very minimal amount of tele sales and the primary marketing channels that we use are direct mail and our website. We make it easy for customers to switch to renewable at the time and in the places that are convenient for them without high pressure sales tactics. Further, we don't promise savings. Our customers are voluntarily paying a premium to receive renewable energy. We don't charge early termination fees and our promotions and special offers are consistent with our mission to fight climate change.
They include things6500 like smart thermostats, solar powered phone chargers and a national parks pass. Um, I appeared before this committee in 2018, shortly after the Attorney's General office issued its first report on retail choice. And since then, the Department of Public Utilities has enacted significant regulatory changes that we believe provide meaningful, additional consumer protections to both perspective and existing retail customers. Clean Choice has been actively involved in that process and the two components that I want to highlight. are one that an automatic renewal notice is now required for all contracts that would automatically renew that notification includes standard disclosures, including the customers, new rate the suppliers contact service, contact information, an information about how a customer can cancel.
Secondly, a standardized contract summary form must be provided to all customers at the point of sale, and that form provides customers with an easy to understand snapshot of the most important terms of their contract. I know I6571 have a limited amount of time today. So I just want to say closing Massachusetts really addressable renewable energy and carbon emission reduction goals. We believe a direct choice competitive market should be maintained in order to continue to empower customers to cut emissions includes choose clean energy when they want to make an informed choice.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
and thank you very much. Are there questions of Miss Spinosi?
[SEN BARRETT:] I just have one question Ms. Spinusi. The6613 data presented by the attorney general and by the secretary of the Department of Public Utility. On the face of it seems overwhelming. Um why wouldn't Clean Choice be contempt to negotiate6628 with municipalities to become a municipal aggregator? I'm sure you have a number of those relationships. Uh wouldn't that be a way of addressing the undeniable problems with your industry while preserving a significant portion of your business model?
[SPINUSI:] Well, unfortunately, chairman, um, that model really isn't supported by our business. Um, we're not a community, we're not a municipal aggregation supplier. Our company historically has not attempted to bid on those um, on that type of business. Um that's not the way that our... SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
supreme equitable and affordable housing opportunities establishing needs to hit. Go on. I'm sorry Miss6679 Spinosi. No, that's that's fine.
[SPINUSI:] Um so that's just that's not a business model that our company is set up to participate in today.
[SEN BARRETT:] Thank you. I am on your website and I signed up initially gave my, my real name and my zip code because I was interested in finding the sources of your claimed 100% renewable energy. And I can't find uh, there's a graphic That is not live, doesn't have live links. I can't really find the sources to support your claim of 100% Clean Energy. And I I want to harken back to the testimony on the part of the Attorney General who said, who was very bothered by the fact that claims by companies like yours aren't documented in any way available to the consumer. I must say your claim is not documented uh, in anything that I'm able to access at the moment on your website. Can you direct me to a portion of your website that details the nature of your 100% clean energy offering?
[SPINUSI:] Yes, Barrett. So the actual percentage. So all of our products are are wind and solar. Um and then the actual percentage of of wind and solar might differ slightly by state and the specific states from which we procure renewable energy certificates or rex also might differ slightly by state. Um so when you're on our website, uh it might be, you know, you might not see that on the on the first page of the website, but in our on the first page on the contract summary form that I referenced earlier, um there is a specific template disclosure that's required by the Department of Public Utilities. And so that disclosure says says something to the effect of um all suppliers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are required to procure a minimum of 49% clean energy resources.
This product includes 100% renewable energy sources from wind and solar, which exceeds that minimum requirement. And then there's a specific product section of our contract that gives the breakdown for Massachusetts. So for Massachusetts customers last year in 2020, the percentage breakdown was I believe 93 or 94% wind, the balance percentage was solar. And there's a specific list of states from which we procure wrecks that are also included in the contract.
[SEN BARRETT:] We don't have to prolong this conversation too much Ms Spinusi. I'm not saying that you aren't making, your company doesn't make claims on its website. I'm saying that I can't verify any of the claims and in fact, I've been clicking along with your explanation and there is no listing for the particular state of Massachusetts of where this clean energy is alleged to come from. I was just pointing out that there is no documentation to support the claims you've just made to us right now, but I can appreciate your making those claims in good faith. Are there additional questions of our, of our witness? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
You have something you'd like to say?
[SPINUSI:] Just one further comment. The Department of Energy Resources DOER, uh, is the entity in Massachusetts that's responsible for tracking RPS compliance obligations. And so the, the incremental REC procurement6902 that are made to match the entire, our customers entire load that goes above and beyond that RPS is in fact documented and tracked with the DOER. So I can appreciate the fact that, that, that information may not be immediately accessible to customers. But I, I dispute the claim that the information is not in fact available. Uh, the documentation does exist. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Are there additional questions of this manioc?
I appreciate your appearing before us this morning. Thank you. Thank you for time at this time we would like to hear and I'm trying to assemble a kind of virtual panel because we're, we've got a lot of witnesses6950 to go. I'd like to hear from mary Knittle of the worcester Community Action Council, Nicole Green of Dream Core Green for all. Why don't we try those two individuals as a, as a virtual panel? Miss Canada, Are you available?
[MARY KNITTLE (WCAC):] [HB3352] [SB21550] I am good morning. Um, and thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mary Knittle I'm the director of energy relations at Worcester Community Action Council and I am co chair of the Massachusetts Energy Directors Association. At WCAC I oversee both the Lie Heat program, commonly known as fuel assistance and the associated energy efficiency programs. I'm speaking in support of House Bill 3352 and Senate 2150 an act relative to electric great pair protections. And I approach this from both the local and a state wide perspective. Uh, the actual financial harm to clients has been well explained during this hearing. Um, and I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence of how our clients are being addressed at.
Starting um, for many years observed dishonest and predatory tactics starting with the time someone rang my doorbell at my home in Worcester asking me to sign a petition to lower electric rates and they're on the clipboard that the person presented me were the signatures of many neighbors alongside their handwritten electric account numbers. This did, this person did explain when asked that we could lower our rates if we signed up with this company. And when I said I'd like an opportunity to review the information. You can certainly provide me with a flyer and I'll get back to you. They wouldn't agree to that. It was then or not at all. And another example our office began receiving telephone calls from folks looking for the7064 status of their fuel assistance applications and we had no record of them applying.
Upon further investigation we were told that they applied with someone who was outside of the DTA office, who told them that this was the perfect time for them to get discounts on their electricity from fuel assistance and then proceeded to collect names and billing information from these very vulnerable clients. At that time we notified the DTA office and question the security people. Have said that they had seen the people but they were gone. We notified the Worcester police. We never heard any more about it. And lastly, a client came to my office with an interpreter one day for assistance in removing the competitive supplier that was on their bill. They said that the person was allowed into their apartment building by someone7114 who was leaving and knocked on all the doors in the building looking for7118 people to sign up for the program.
Many of the residents who did not speak english or did not speak it well7125 were intimidated and signed the form, not really knowing what it was. Calling on his behalf I was told that in order to close his account with the supplier, he needed to give them the pin or password that he used when he set up the account. Well, he didn't set up the account himself and he didn't have that information. And after very lengthy pass arounds to supervisors uh we finally came to a conclusion that I would be contacting attorneys to get this removed from his bill and they did it. So in closing our low income clients who worry about disconnections are seniors who worry about everything are immigrants or non english speakers who are afraid because they do not understand disclosures and others need to be protected from the many bad actors in this arena.
And given that it is virtually impossible for the average person to make that determination by themselves. I support eliminating the direct marketing and sales of electric supply service to individual residential retail customers. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Nicole. Wrong is she joined us?
Nicole one
Dream Corps Green for all.
Well let me ask if there are questions that have Miss Spinoza, Perhaps we'll hear from our Miss Miss Can it'll perhaps we'll hear from Nicole wang later on. Are there questions of Miss Canada
hearing? None will move on. And here from Jared johnson, executive director of Transit Matters.
And uh, I think we'll hear from, it's hard for me to figure out who's group with who. So we'll hear from mr johnson by his lonesome if he's available to us.
[JARED JOHNSON (ZEV):] [HB3255] [SB2139] Yes, I I'm here. Hi again. My name is Jared Johnson, I'm the executive Director of Transit Matters and I'm a member of the ZEV Coalition. Um, so I'm here to talk about the availability of technology today and why we don't need to worry about range anxiety. So, Springfield, the Springfield RTA um, has seen a great deal of success with their zero emission buses. Um, and this is something7275 that I believe uh, the T and other agencies should build on. In fact, a lot of the RTAs um, have have, you know, when you look at the proportion of their7283 fleet are well ahead of the NBTA and we think this is, um, you know, this is something that is, um, is really a shame. And so this is why I think that mandates like these are needed. Um, you know, again, like I said, ZEB technology is ready to go.
In fact, the T actually has the availability, has the ability7300 to test zero emission buses out of its Cambridge trolley bus network. Dayton Ohio has seen a lot of success uh, in using their trolley infrastructure to, uh, to advance their zero emission bus rollout because of the wire they have there they're able7317 to use that to extend the range of their battery buses. Uh, and, you know, dating experiences some of the same cold weather that we do in boston. So it really allies some of those fears there. Again, these mandates are really needed to push the agency to innovate and use the technology that exists today, uh, instead of waiting for the future. Um, so again, and I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that. Um, and testifying in support of Bill H3255 and S2139 I do also want7347 to add though that funding is going to be key.
The Legislature must provide capital funding to the NBTA in order to accelerate this and meet these mandates. That means money for garages, money for charging infrastructure and money for service hours because um, zero emission buses will not be um, you know, will not help our air quality to help advance our climate change goals if they're not providing the level of service that's needed uh, to serve EJ Communities and to encourage folks to7378 take the NBTA to as opposed to private vehicles. Thank you you have the rest of my time.
Thank you very much. Mr johnson, uh, your your bills of interest were mis coded for us. So we7392 were testifying on competitive supply, but you testified very eloquently on behalf of electric vehicles. Are there questions of Mr johnson?
Uh, thank you sir7402 very much. And let me ask whether Martha Grover over the next person on our list intends to testify in competitive supply or whether she too perhaps has another topic in mind. Hi, um, I'm here and I am talking on electric supply, competitive supply, competitive supply, yep, terrific. Let's hear your7423 testimony, mister7425
[MARTHA GROVER:] [HB3352] [SB2150] Thank you Chair Barrett and to all the committee members for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Martha Grover and I'm the sustainability manager for the City of Melrose and have worked in this capacity for about 11 years. I'd like to note before I continue that Mayor Broder's is also in full support of H3352 and S2150. I became aware of the rampant abuses in the retail competitive supply market about six years ago when Melrose launched the first green municipal aggregation program in massachusetts. My main objective was to increase the development of local renewable energy In7462 our region. Melrose residents and small businesses appreciate the price stability and savings over time in comparison to basic service that an aggregation program can offer.
But in the process of conducting lots of public information sessions or what I call electric bill 101s to talk about our program. Residents would approach me afterwards to show me their electric bills and what I saw was shocking. One senior citizen after another was paying much more than basic service or than our program rate to a variety of competitive suppliers and they had no idea how or when they7499 had signed up for it. And then the phone calls started coming in all of these and the stories they told me painted an even worse picture of aggressive and deceptive sales tactics on the phone at the door and in the mail. Here are a few examples of the impact of this industry on our most vulnerable residents. One 87 year old woman was leaving her house and confronted by a door to door sales rep who blocked her from leaving. Put a phone to her face, told her to say yes to the agent on the phone.
She had no idea what she was agreeing to. And when the police stopped by later to interview her, they were unable to track down the sales rep because the number he left lead nowhere. Another elder elderly resident just called me last month to say that she needed help getting out of an electric supply contract. She was duped into because the caller ID on her phone said national grid. But after she hung up, she realized it wasn't the utility. Confused residents come into city hall with the direct mail offers a Visa gift cards rewards, super clean energy all the way from texas. But they can't read the fault or find the small print that I show them on the back of the offer that says after three months the initial low fixed rates switches to a variable rate, which means they don't7576 know what they're paying until their bill comes and it's too late to do anything about it.
Nine out of 10 times they have no idea that they're in a contract with early termination fees, rates that change month to month or that they're paying anywhere from 30 to 100% more than basic service or than our program rate. So what started for me as a clean energy initiative has turned into an eye opening lesson into the ongoing problems with this residential competitive retail supply market. I've concluded that the only way to protect our residents is to stop the industry from doing business in our state. Thanks for your time today. And I'm happy to take any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much.
Are there questions of MS Grover, our best for the Mayor and thank you very much for.
We're going to hear now from Candy Terry and Mark Hanks. Both are with Nrg and I believe there are last two witnesses on this subject of competitive supply. Miss Terry. Good morning. And I take it you7645 can hear me, yes. Good, thank you.
[CANDY TERRY (NRG):] [HB3274] [SB2150] [HB3352] Good morning Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy Members of the committee. I'm Candy Terry. I served as the director of government affairs for NRG Energy. NRG is a Fortune 500 company, one of America's leading energy companies with 23,000 MW of generation in our portfolio and services over six million retail customers across North America. NRG takes its responsibility on climate change very seriously. With its own 2050 net zero goal and has joined other leading companies informally signing onto the UN's business ambition for 1.5°C our only future pledge. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on retail supply related matters before the committee. NRG shares the legislature's interest in ensuring that the state's residential competitive supply customers are adequately protected and that the integrity of the energy market is strengthened.
Since we've heard testimony on certain marketing channels today, I'd like to say that NRG does not currently market door to door and does minimal outbound telemarketing. While the DPU stakeholder processes addressing the regulatory facing matters, there are some improvements to the retail supply market that must be addressed through statute. Representative Chan's Bill H3274 presents its Legislature with an opportunity to improve the retail electric markets for customers by providing the ability to receive a single bill from the energy supplier, allowing for a single bill from the customers chosen energy supplier will undoubtedly empower customers. It will increase transparency and it will7764 help against the fight in slamming and other unscrupulous practices as we just heard by the previous testimony.
It also is important to note that there would be no change in the bills to those who opt for basic service um, and or those that are served by a municipal light plant. So we urge the committee to vote favourably on H two excuse me 3274 the collaborative efforts among stakeholders at the DPU proceedings which have resulted in a series of customer protections along with the statutory um, Bills such as H3274 stand in contrast To the efforts to strip consumers of transparency and choice that they deserve while eliminating jobs um, for the industry and clean energy for consumers in Massachusetts. If enacted, H3352 and S2150 will take choice away. Adoption of these measures would eliminate residents choice for 100% renewable energy as they7833 get currently with NRG's Green Mountain brand at a time when it's all hands on deck to meet emission goals, I believe I am out of time. And so I will now turn it over to my colleague Mark. Thanks. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Candy
[MARK HANKS (NRG):] [HB3352] [SB2150] Chair Barrett, Roy and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Mark Hanks. I'm senior manager of regulatory affairs for the New England Region. Um, I'm here to testify an opposition of H bill 3352 and Senate bill 2150 an act relative to electric repair protections. I represent the NRG companies and it's six licensed brand affiliates today. Ah, it's important firstly to mention, and I would respectfully ask the committee to think about the implications and the impact of the unprecedented action of shutting down an entire industry in the commonwealth. Where did this action stop?7892 And will the general court consider or potentially shut down other industries? This action therefore should not be taken lightly.
Uh, and it sends a significant and chilling message, I believe, to the business sector ah and those operating in Massachusetts. But we think there's a better way rather than take draconian measure steps to eliminate or diminish residential retail7916 choice in the commonwealth ah as envisioned or defined by the two bills. NRG thinks that there's a way to deal with specific instances of unfair or deceptive sales practices by retail, competitive suppliers and ah third party agents that represent them, most notably, ah that is within the framework of the Mass Department of Public Utilities. Uh Regular regulatory docket 1907 A which has been a ah a comprehensive and strategic attempt to address many of the consumer protection measures that both the Attorney General, the General Court has articulated today ah in ah and the concerns particularly around residential and low income customers. Therefore, ah I think it's important to recognize this is not the Wild West. There is a framework that the department has been actively pursuing. There is 100 page order that was issued back last May. That outlines a number of key initiatives. Ah we've heard from some of the prior panelists around the door to door notification process that outlines where suppliers7988 would be marketing, uh The fact that they need local permits that have7994 to be approved at the local level. There is a contract summary that outlines not just the small print but large print issues associated with what customers are signing up for. That's on the first page of their contract. Ah The term of their contract, the renewable content that8011 is embedded in their contract and also around uh the automatic renewal provisions so that8016 they know that there are uh upcoming changes to their contract.
So that they can consider other alternatives or revert back to the host utility. I would also mention that the department has planetary of authority and significant enforcement mechanism. So for violations there could be a civil8036 penalty that would exceed not to exceed $25,000 for each violation for each day and should not exceed $5 million. We believe that framework provides a8048 safeguard and level of protection for the Commonwealth and its citizens for those bad actors that are involved in uh deceptive sales practices. And in closing, I would just mention that I would urge the the the Joint committee to give the department's new regulatory framework an opportunity to implement the the myriad of new8077 consumer protection measures and to provide those opportunities to be implemented and continue the residential, the8085 residential retail choice market. Ah Thank you for your time. Be happy to answer any questions that folks may have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you sir. Are there questions of MS terrier? Mr Hanks?
We appreciate it very much. Thank you8100 for joining us today. Thank you. We're going to move off the topic of competitive supply and on to electric vehicles. We've already heard from Mr johnson on the subject, We now welcome a panel consisting of Sofia Owen from eighth. We're going to hear again from Maria belen power and we're gonna and Polina Muratore. The union of concerned scientists. Could could the three of you join us and begin your testimony.
[SOFIA OWEN (ACE):] [HB3055] [HB3559] [HB3334] [HB3541] [HB3062] [HB3542] Thank you. And uh again, my name is Sofia Owen and I'm the staff attorney at ACE. Uh, we're a member of the zero emission vehicles coalition and we see the adoption of EV technology is critical in the move to a zero emissions future. I'd like to share with you some context on why we're involved in this work. In 1996, our youth program, the Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project was working with classrooms at the Phillis Wheatley Middle School. The students were learning about environmental justice and were striving to create a green space in Nubian Square. During that year, one of the students died of a severe asthma attack. The student was diagnosed with asthma as an infant and lived near the MBTS Bartlett Bus yard, located on Washington street.
His death opened the eyes of the reapers to the problem of air8186 pollution in Roxbury and caused a significant working to stop dirty diesel emissions and to prevent asthma. In 1998 we created the Clean Buses for boston coalition to fight for healthier air by focusing on the T. Through the coalition's work the T ordered 350 compressed natural gas buses in 2001, another 100 cleaner fuel buses in 2002 and in 2005, partly yard8209 closed for good. Today our work has transformed the entire NBTA fleet to run on compressed natural gas or with diesel engines that filter out 90% of emissions. In 2015, we built on the victory by leading the coalition that got the diesel emissions reduction ordinance passed in Boston and are proud of these victories but there is much more to be done.
Despite these advances Worcester, Springfield and Boston are among the 20 worst cities in the country for8235 people with asthma. Roxbury has the highest asthma rate in the city of Boston at 15.7%, and black Bostonians are8241 more likely to die of cancer than any other racial or ethnic group. At the same time, black bus riders in Boston wait at least 64 more hours for the bus than their white counterparts and Latinex riders wait at least 10 more hours For our members that's 64 more hours breathing air filled with exhaust from buses, cars and industrial sources. This was unacceptable before the onset of COVID-19. But given that our communities are also those that have been the hardest hit by the public health and economic impact of the pandemic And that people living in areas with poor air quality have a death rate that is 8% higher than people living in areas without such exposure. It's our moral obligation to act.
To meet our climate goals we cannot rely solely on the adoption of electric vehicles by an individual drivers. We must embrace the Boulder vision and fully electrify all vehicles, including commercial and municipal fleets and our public transit system without further burdening the very communities where electric and fossil fuel infrastructure currently exists. To make this vision a reality, we must move away from procuring buses and trains that run on dirty energy like diesel and compressed natural gas now, not in 2035 or 2040. Benchmarks are necessary to ensure compliance by the NBTA and other agencies. We're aware that technology is advancing rapidly in this area and asked that any buses and trains procured by the T and other state agencies be fully electric.
That route serving environmental justice, populations and transit8327 dependent riders be prioritized first and that there be mandates on air quality monitoring and mitigation in areas8334 surrounding bus maintenance facilities and other hotspots. I thank you for your consideration of support of H3055, 3559, 3334, 3541, 3062 and 3542. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you very much. Mrs Ellen.8351 Uh Power.
[POWER:] Mhm. Hello, good afternoon at this point. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak again on this matter. Like8365 I said my name is Maria Ellen power and I'm the associate executive director of green roots. We are an environmental justice organization working in Chelsea in East Boston for the past 25 years. Green roots is a member of the zero emission vehicle coalition. I live and work in Chelsea and I'm also the mother of Anna Victoria who was four years8384 old and suffers from early childhood asthma. Chelsea in East Boston's air quality is among the worst in the state. Chelsea's overall diesel exhaust levels exceeds the EPA's threshold by 20%. These are pollution directly connected to health outcomes includes cancer, major cardiovascular disease, strokes, asthma and chronic respiratory illnesses.
Chelsea's asthma, strokes, and cardiovascular disease rates are among the state's highest. Researchers have found that these pre existing health conditions as well as exposure to air pollution, increased covid 19 mortality rates and as many of you know, Chelsea and east boston, where two of the hardest hit communities, Chelsea had the8432 highest rate per capita or months, reaching six times the state's average. And East Boston was the hardest hit community in the city of Boston. As the commonwealth, we have8444 a responsibility and a moral duty to prioritize the electrification of bus fleets in environmental justice communities. Our communities are8452 providing some of the largest regional benefits while shouldering the burden for air pollution.
The Chelsea Creek is home to 100% of the jet fuel that's used at Logan International Airport, 80% of the region's home heating fuel, 400,000 tons of road style that are used in over 3508473 communities in the North East also sit along the banks of the Chelsea Creek. Chelsea is also home to the New England Produce Center, when one of the largest produce distribution centers in the nation, bringing in thousands of trucks in and out daily. All of these properties contribute to air pollution and8492 to8492 poor public health outcomes. Now, we know that the transportation sector generates the largest portion of greenhouse gas emissions. Massachusetts can do better electrifying our bus fleets ensures a transition to an economy that is green and regenerative and by prioritising environmental justice communities, we can ensure that are most vulnerable residents are protected.
We know we can do it, but we need bolder and more aggressive targets. Buses like the Silver line and Chelsea and other zero emission buses are great. However, they don't run as often. We need more. We need all buses to be electrified by 2030. We also need all municipal fleets to be electrified,8536 especially in overburden communities like Chelsea. I urge the community to report these bills out of8543 committee favorably and ensure that Massachusetts is a leader in clean transportation. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much and MS Muratore
I hope I pronounced that correctly issue with us. Thank you. Yes, I am
good. Let's hear from you. Yeah.
[PAULINA MURATORE (UCS):] [HB3255] [SB2139] [HB3347] [SB2151] Great. Good afternoon chairs, Vice chairs and committee members. I want to thank you for hearing testimony on these important bills today. My name is Paulina Muratore and I am a transportation campaign manager and policy advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists as well as a zero emission vehicles. Coalition member today I am testifying in support of House 3255 Senate 2139 and act to promote electric vehicle fleets by 2035 and House 3347 Senate 2151 and act promoting zero emission vehicles. We think these bills are critical steps in the right direction8606 for clean air and modern equitable transportation in massachusetts, reducing transportation pollution by intentionally transitioning to full electrification is not only imperative in allowing us to meet climate goals, but as you've heard from my colleagues is a crucial step towards equitable health outcomes for communities burdened by transportation air pollution.
A 2019 UCS report titled Inequitable exposure to transportation, air pollution8631 from vehicles in Massachusetts examined disproportionate exposure to concentrations of fine on road particulate matter or PM 2.5. The analysis found that in Massachusetts communities of color breathe on average about one third more pollution from transportation than white residents. Environmental8651 justice communities across the commonwealth have long known that transportation pollution was and is causing immense harm. This study added one additional layer by quantifying this burden. In my written testimony, you'll find links to maps demonstrating pollution concentrations across the commonwealth, which you'll notice overlap with our asthma capitals of Springfield, Worcester and Boston.
The detrimental health impacts of PM 2.5 and ultra fine particles are well documented in health science and environmental literature, as well as through lived experience exposure to high levels of this pollution is linked to illness and premature death, primarily from heart and lung diseases. In 2016 alone, monetized health damages from transportation pollution totalled more than six billion in Massachusetts along with hundreds of premature deaths. Uh and what's more, as you heard from my colleagues research from Harvard recently found that long term exposure to PM 2.5 was associated with an 8 to 11% increase in mortality from covid 19. Things should not and do not have to be this way.
By advancing these bills, you will put us one step closer to cleaner air, particularly by focusing on electrifying heavy duty fleets through EJ communities and creating innovative programs to allow for increased accessibility to personal electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Thank you for your time and consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Are there questions of R three witnesses at this time?
I want to thank you All three of you then for testifying on our behalf on the electric vehicle issue?
© InstaTrac 2025