|
|
|
|
|
Texas Complaint Addresses Average Pricing for Time of Use Product
A formal complaint filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas has taken on additional significance because one of the key allegations from the customer concerns the average pricing methodology quoted in the Electricity Facts Label for a Time of Use product.
The formal complaint, filed in Docket 41952 yesterday, regards a customer who was on a Free Sundays plan with TruSmart Energy.
Although the complaint addresses several issues, including allegations regarding a monthly base TDU charge, much of the complaint centers on the customer's actual average rate per kWh as provided on their monthly bill, versus the average rate quoted in the Electricity Facts Label.
Further complicating matters is that the listed average rate on the bill was erroneous, due to a billing error, not reflecting the actual average rate actually paid by the customer.
However, even accounting for these issues, it appears that the customer is seeking relief such that they are not charged a rate in excess of the average rate as listed in the EFL, which made various assumptions of when power would be used under the Free Sundays product.
In one of the at-issue bills, though the bill incorrectly listed the average rate, an informal finding from the PUCT Customer Protection Division agreed with TruSmart that the actual average rate paid by the customer (applicable total divided by kWh) was below the EFL price, once an auto-pay credit (erroneously omitted from the bill) was taken into account.
In a later bill, however, it was unclear if the average rate was below the quoted EFL price, due to the unclear nature of various credits (notably regarding autopay) on the bill and what the total non-tax current charges were, for purposes of calculating the average rate. Notably, one of the autopay credits on this later bill appears to be a make-up for its omission on an earlier bill. If this make-up credit is excluded from the later bill, then it appears the average rate does exceed the EFL average rate, which we do not mean to imply in any way is improper, given the nature of the product and the necessity of assigning estimated usage to various hours under the TOU product.
Indeed, that is why this case could prove significant, as the issue of average EFL rates for TOU products, and the use of assumptions regarding how much usage various hours with different prices will see, is one of first impression.
Though the Commission did open a generic docket to address such average rates, the project has not seen formal action yet.
TruSmart has agreed to allow the customer to leave their contract without an early termination fee, but the customer filed the formal complaint to have all their bills since switching to TruSmart re-priced at the EFL rate (as noted above, at least one of these bills appeared to be already below the EFL rate).
ADVERTISEMENT Search for more retail energy careers: Copyright 2010-
October 22, 2013
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-13 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Pricing & Supply -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing & Supply Manager -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sales Representative
• NEW! -- Power Scheduling Analyst -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Power Settlements Analyst -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Sales Executive
• NEW! -- Energy Sales -- DFW
• Vice President, Residential Sales and Marketing -- Retail Provider -- Houston
RetailEnergyJobs.com
|
|
|
|