|
Consulting |
Search |
PUCT Rejects CenterPoint Alternative Customer Charge, Grants REPs 30 Days Notice
for New Rates
Email This Story
February 4, 2011
PUCT Commissioners agreed to adopt provisions in a proposal for decision relating to the customer charge at CenterPoint Energy, in voting on a final order in CenterPoint's rate case (Docket 38339).
Chairman Barry Smitherman initially raised a discussion of CenterPoint's original rate proposal for a much higher fixed customer charge (and lower volumetric charges), stating he was "intrigued" by the design. As only noted in Matters (12/6), CenterPoint proposed an alternative cost recovery mechanism under which the monthly residential customer charge would have increased to $18.18 from the current level of $1.99. Two ALJs recommended denying CenterPoint's alternative fixed customer charge.
Commissioner Donna Nelson supported upholding the proposed decision, noting that the Houston area is still experiencing growth, and that a higher fixed charge is not warranted at this time (as it is designed to mitigate declining volumes).
Nelson also said that the higher fixed customer charge would send the wrong signals to customers.
Commissioner Kenneth Anderson, while sympathetic to CenterPoint's arguments, also declined to address CenterPoint's proposal in the rate case, stating that he would be more comfortable addressing the issue in a generic project. Anderson stressed, however, that as the Commission continues with energy efficiency initiatives, the issue of volumetric versus fixed cost recovery will have to be addressed by the Commission.
Commissioners adopted a recommendation from retail electric providers to delay the effective date of the tariff sheets resulting from the rate case order for 30 days after approval (rather than taking effect immediately, or retroactively to the filing date) to provide a date certain for the rate changes, in order to allow REPs to harmonize the changes with retail pricing to end users.
Commissioners also agreed to adopt the ALJs' recommendation on demand ratchets. The ALJs had recommended that the Commission exempt from the demand ratchet customers with demand less than or equal to 20 kVA.
Commissioners adopted provisions of the proposed decision which set the disconnect
and reconnect discretionary service charges for all customers to zero, while not
zeroing-
The Commission also affirmed the ALJs' denial of CenterPoint's proposed adjustment to residential class billing determinants based on the projected attainment of energy efficiency targets. Furthermore, Commissioners upheld the ALJs and denied CenterPoint's proposed storm hardening cost recovery rider (Rider SH).
Copyright 2010-
Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing
Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters
Call Paul Ring
954-
|
Consulting |
Search |