Public Service Commission staff recommend probe of HomeServe solicitations; commissioners agree to proceed

Commission staff told the Public Service Commission that they have received recurring consumer complaints about protection-plan solicitations from HomeServe USA that use utility logos and can be billed through customers' utility accounts, and staff asked the commission to authorize a formal investigation.

Rob, an internal investigator for commission staff, told commissioners he completed an internal investigation into HomeServe USA’s partnership arrangements with utilities including MDU and NSP and presented examples of mailers that, he said, could cause customer confusion about whether the offer comes from the utility or an independent company. “Some of the customers…believe that this is primarily coming from the utility company itself,” Rob said.

The issue matters because some customers pay for the protection plans through a charge on their utility bill and might interpret the mailings — which sometimes carry the utility’s logo or name — as an instruction or requirement from the regulated utility. “It took me a while to…realize that this is just insurance,” Rob said, describing his own experience receiving a mailer that carried a utility name on the envelope.

Rob and staff outlined several recurring concerns raised by complainants: privacy questions about how HomeServe obtains customer contact information; whether the mailers’ appearance creates an impression the utility endorses or requires the coverage; and customer uncertainty about what is covered and whether they would receive the service they paid for. “They think if the utility company is offering this, then maybe it’s something I really, really, really need,” a staff member said, summarizing public calls the office receives.

Stacy, a commission staff member, told commissioners the complaint volume has been steady rather than spiking: “On average maybe a handful all in a year,” she said and offered to pull specific complaint counts if commissioners want them. Staff also told commissioners that the utilities have agreements with HomeServe and that some financial benefit flows to the utilities; staff said NSP reports related activity in a separate FERC account for nonregulated operations.

Commission discussion focused on the scope of a possible review. Commissioners described a spectrum of outcomes staff could pursue, from finding no action necessary to restricting regulated entities’ partnerships with HomeServe. Commissioners emphasized that staff’s initial work is to clarify implementation and presentation rather than to judge HomeServe’s legitimacy. “I don’t think we have any reason at this point to question that piece of it,” one commissioner said, referring to whether customers receive the service they pay for.

Staff asked whether commissioners wanted an investigation that would include issuing notices and holding hearings to gather public and party comments; commissioners expressed support for proceeding. The commission did not take a formal recorded vote at this meeting; a commissioner summarized that staff would continue work and “figure out procedural steps to get it going,” and another commissioner said, “You have consensus to proceed.” Staff said they would return with recommendations and, if needed, a formal motion at a future meeting.

Votes at a glance: At the start of the meeting the commission approved one consent item by voice vote; the transcript does not identify the consent-item details. The commission reached consensus (no formal roll-call vote recorded) to proceed with a commission investigation into HomeServe USA solicitations and their presentation.

What happens next: Staff will continue investigating, compile complaint counts and evidence, and report back with recommended next steps, which may include issuing notices, soliciting public comment, and holding informal hearings. Commissioners indicated they could land anywhere on a spectrum of responses based on what staff finds.