|
|
|
|
|
Ohio Staff Files Retail Market Development Workplan, Includes Recommendation on POR
Staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio have filed a retail electric market development workplan which, as expected, does not include any major changes to the state's market design, but does recommend requiring utilities to offer purchase of receivables.
In particular, Staff endorses the current structure of default service, or the Standard Service Offer.
"Staff recommends that the SSO remain as the default service. The declining clock auction mechanism has been extremely successful in delivering prices that are competitively sourced ... Default service sourced through competitive auctions allows all customers to benefit from competition, even if they do not choose to avail themselves of the ability to shop for their own supplier. In addition, default service sourced in this manner provides a valuable reference point to which other offers can be compared," Staff said.
Regarding proposals to place retail suppliers in the default supplier role, Staff said, "At this time, given the current state of customer education and knowledge of the retail electric service market, Staff believes forcing customers to various CRES providers could create customer confusion."
"Staff recommends that as customer awareness and participation increases, the Commission should reevaluate the default service mechanism."
Story Continues Below...
ADVERTISEMENT Staff's most notable recommendation is that retail supplier customer count and load share should be made public -- a proposal more fully examined in our related story today (click here)
Additionally, Staff recommends that the Commission order all electric utilities that currently do not offer a purchase of receivables program to file an application within one year of a Commission Order in the retail workplan proceeding to implement a POR program. Duke Energy Ohio is the only Ohio electric utility with a POR program, although as first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, AEP Ohio has proposed a POR program as part of its next electric security plan.
"While each service territory is unique and may require slight variations. Staff recommends that all applications include general program rules, the discount rate, timing of the purchases, applicable proposed riders, current collection rates and procedures and assurances that uncollectable costs are not collected through other riders or base rates," Staff said.
Each POR application should be evaluated by the Commission on its individual merits, Staff said.
Staff recommended that all EDUs should implement a POR program within two years of the Commission Order on the retail market workplan.
If the Commission does not accept Staff's recommendation to require EDUs to establish a POR program, Staff recommends that the Commission order the utilities to provide suppliers with various data needed in order to assist suppliers in their collection efforts.
Staff also recommended changes to the utility bill, including inclusion of the supplier logo and enhanced Price to Compare information.
Staff recommended that:
• The EDUs should adjust their bill language to reference "supply" and "delivery" charges. Supply charges refer to all bypassable charges or supplier-billed charges. Delivery charges refer to all non-bypassable charges and costs associated with distribution, and if applicable, transmission charges.
• The EDUs should adjust bills to distinguish the supply charges from the delivery charges in a separate defined section of the bill. The supply charges would be separated from delivery in the same manner for customers served by the SSO or a CRES provider.
• The EDUs should include on their bills the supplier's logo in the area containing the "supply" charges of the bill. The CRES logo should be the same size as the EDU's logo. If the EDU's logo is in color, then it is recommended that the CRES provider's logo also be in color. All CRES providers shall be required to include their logo on the bills.
• All EDU price-to-compare calculations should be standardized. The price-to-compare should be calculated by dividing the dollar amount of the current month's bill that could be avoided with switching by the number of kWh used that month.
• The price-to-compare language should be slightly modified to accurately describe that it is the utility price that is being compared, with Staff recommending the following:
"Price-to-Compare: In order for you to save money off of your utility's supply charges, a supplier must offer you a price lower than (utility name)'s price of X.XX cents per kWh for the same usage that appears on this bill. To review available competitive supplier offers, visit the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio's 'Energy Choice Ohio' website at www.xxxxx.com."
While the retail market investigation was limited to electricity, Staff believes similar bill format recommendations should be considered for the
natural gas retail market.
In regards to cost recovery for the IT changes needed to allow CRES logos on the bills, Staff recommended that the Commission authorize the utility to charge all active CRES providers in its territory a one-time initial setup charge, with the same charge also applicable to any new CRES entrants during the next five years.
In terms of how customer enrollments are authorized, Staff recommended continued reliance on the customer account number. However, in order to facilitate enrollments in situations where the customer does not have access to their account number, Staff recommended that all of the EDUs provide customers with the ability to register on the EDU's website, without the use of the customer account number, and to view their account information. Once registered and logged in to the EDU's website, the customer would be able to view his/her account number, monthly usage information, and an electronic version of the customer's current bill
Staff recommended that each EDU be required to submit a proposal to Staff within three months of a Commission Order in the retail workplan case on how it will allow customers to register online without an account number in order to access their account information, while ensuring customer protections.
Staff also recommended that the Ohio EDI Working Group be directed to provide, within six months, an operational plan to put a Seamless Move process into effect.
Staff does not recommend any changes to the current corporate separation in place, or in the process of being implemented, at the utilities and their affiliates, under which utilities divest generation, but affiliates are allowed to own such generation and compete in the competitive market.
Case No. 12-3151-EL-COI
ADVERTISEMENT Search for more retail energy careers: Copyright 2010-
January 17, 2014
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-13 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Karen Abbott • kabbott@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Texas -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sr. Dir./Director of Online Marketing -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Director of Supply - Risk Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Channel Sales Manager -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Contract Analyst (aka Pit Crew) -- DFW
• NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager -- Retail Provider -- NY, PA, & IL
• NEW! -- Writer/Content Producer -- Energy Consultant/Manager -- Houston
• Retail Energy Business Analyst/Manager -- DFW
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Texas -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sr. Dir./Director of Online Marketing -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Director of Supply - Risk Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Channel Sales Manager -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Contract Analyst (aka Pit Crew) -- DFW
• NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager -- Retail Provider -- NY, PA, & IL
• NEW! -- Writer/Content Producer -- Energy Consultant/Manager -- Houston
• Retail Energy Business Analyst/Manager -- DFW
RetailEnergyJobs.com
|
|
|
|