April 17, 2003
Honorable Christopher Hall, Senate Chair
Honorable Lawrence Bliss, House Chair
Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Re: LD 1317, An Act to Strengthen Maine’s “Do Not Call” List and
LD 1360, An Act to Create a No-contact List and Prohibit Unsolicited E-mail
Dear Senator Hall and Representative Bliss:
The Commission will testify in opposition to only one portion of LD 1317 and LD 1360. We take no position on the remainder of the bills. In our testimony we present a method that we believe will be more effective in accomplishing the sponsors’ objectives. We will be present at the work session to work with the Committee as it considers these bills.
Our first comment focuses on the provision in both bills that would be enacted as §14757. The provision requires that a state licensing agency shall investigate complaints and assess penalties related to the do-not-call requirements of the subchapter when the complaints involve the agency’s licensees. The bill authorizes the state agency to revoke the licensee’s license for willfully or knowingly violating the subchapter.
Current law requires competitive electricity providers to observe do-not-call requirements (35-A M.R.S.A. §3210) and authorizes the Commission to revoke a license, impose a fine up to $5,000 per day, and/or issue a cease and desist order (35-A M.R.S.A. §3203) for noncompliance with this and a variety of other consumer protection provisions of the law. We have had no reason to exercise this authority for do-not-call noncompliance. There is no current law explicitly requiring other utilities to observe do-not-call requirements, but all utilities must comply with the generic Maine do-not-call law (10 M.R.S.A. §1498). Currently, the Commission could not carry out enforcement activities against any entities other than competitive electricity providers for non-compliance with the generic law.
LDs 1317 and 1360 defer to state licensing agencies to take enforcement actions when their licensees violate the law. The Commission would prefer that its licensees be treated like all other entities under this subchapter, and that the Attorney General’s office enforce the bill’s provisions. Putting all enforcement with one entity would ensure that the entity builds expertise and that the statute is interpreted and enforced in a consistent manner. Furthermore, we are concerned that giving the Commission this enforcement role, with which we have no experience or expertise, will stretch our resources, although we have made no detailed analysis to determine the time typically required of the function.
We note that, if the Legislature adopts our recommendation, minor revisions to portions of 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3203 would be required and § 3203(4)(D) might be changed to reference
§ 14757 of Chapter 10. We would be happy to draft the necessary amendment.
Our second comment focuses on a feature of the bills’ treatment of telephone utilities that we find puzzling. Both bills explicitly require the Attorney General to conduct enforcement of a complaint against a local exchange telecommunications carrier (§14757(2)), while requiring the Commission to carry out enforcement against in-state and interstate long distance telephone companies. This distinction does not appear logical to us. As we stated earlier, we prefer that all licensees be subject to Attorney General enforcement jurisdiction.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Marjorie R. McLaughlin
Legislative Liaison