|
Consulting |
Search |
Pre-
Email This Story
January
4, 2011
Although the 82nd Texas legislative session does not convene until January 11, a
number of bills have been pre-
With redistricting and the PUCT Sunset Review expected to dominate the session, there may be little time for other retail electric issues; however, REPs will want to track the following bills.
SB 108, introduced by Sen. Wendy Davis, would amend PURA to provide that, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or limit a customer's right to choose or switch retail electric providers."
Ostensibly, the law is aimed at eliminating switch holds. However, the entirety of the amendments to PURA under SB 108 are quoted above, and it's unclear if the language above necessarily conflicts with the switch hold as currently implemented (which arguably does not limit or prohibit choice, but merely "conditions" when a new choice takes effect in certain circumstances).
HB 30, introduced by Rep. Ryan Guillen, would provide that an electric utility or retail electric provider may not disconnect service to a residential customer on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Federally declared holiday, the day before the Federally declared holiday, or after 3:00 pm on any calendar day. Though the amendments would be to Chapter 182 of the Utilities Code (rather than Chapter 39 which addresses the retail electric market), HB 30 clearly includes retail electric providers.
Under the current substantive rules, TDUs may perform disconnections on holidays and weekends, or the preceding calendar day, so long as the TDU has personnel available to reconnect service on all of those days. REPs may request disconnection for any of these days as long as they have personnel available on these days to take payments, make payment arrangements with the customer, and request reconnection of service. The 3:00 p.m. cutoff contained in the bill would also represent a new limit on disconnections. The limits imposed by HB 30 would apply regardless of whether the customer is served by a meter with a remote disconnect/reconnect function.
SB 109, also introduced by Davis, would provide that customers are entitled, "to have access to average, level, and deferred payment plans year round." Again, the bill is not explicit in using a term such as "unconditional" access, and it is not clear whether any current Commission rules for deferred payment plans, aside from the seasons in which they are required to be offered, would be inconsistent with the amendments.
HB 65, offered by Rep. Armando Martinez, would provide that, "A retail electric provider,
power generation company, aggregator, or other entity that provides residential retail
electric service shall provide in its advertisements and contracts the total cost
of its residential retail service, including transmission and service provider distribution
charges, pole charges, pass-
As written, the bill would ostensibly prohibit image or branding ads not listing a specific price, and also would raise a host of issues regarding pricing disclosures unique to each product type (fixed, index, variable) since the requirement is not limited to "recurring" charges as in the PUCT rules.
HB 340, introduced by Rep. Pete Gallego, would order the PUCT to require, by rule,
that retail electric providers shall, "offer net metering service to all retail customers
of the [REP]. The rules must provide that a retail customer is entitled to compensation
at fair market value for metered electricity produced by the customer's eligible
on-
"Fair market value" is not defined in the bill. Additionally, the bill would adopt
the federal definition of "net metering service" under 16 U.S.C. Section 2621(d)(11),
under which net metering service, "means service to an electric consumer under which
electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-
SB 94, authored by Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr., would not compel retail electric providers
to purchase excess customer-
(1) the capacity of the owner's distributed renewable generation system;
(2) the amount of surplus electricity produced by the customer's distributed renewable generation system purchased by the retail electric provider, in terms of kilowatt hours; and
(3) the average price the retail electric utility paid for each kilowatt hour of the surplus electricity produced by the customer's distributed renewable generation system
SB 94 would also require Power to Choose, as well as REPs' individual websites, to offer information on the pricing for excess distributed generation.
Copyright 2010 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.
Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing
Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters
Call Paul Ring
954-
|
Consulting |
Search |