Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

Texas Staff Seek PUC Guidance On Threshold Questions Regarding REPs' Obligation to Offer Ancillary Benefits To Low-Income Customers After Termination of the System Benefit Fund (Late Payment Fee Waivers, Deposit Installments); Discuss Options

December 11, 2015

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-15 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas have sought guidance from the Commission regarding two threshold questions concerning the obligation of retail electric providers to provide eligible low-income customers with late payment fee waivers and deposit installments in light of the existing criteria, eligibility for the System Benefit Fund rate reduction program, being rendered inapplicable with the expiration of the SBF

HB 1101 sunsets the SBF on September 1, 2017. By this date, the Commission is required to exhaust the balance of the SBF, and the Commission's relationship with the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) for the purposes of identifying eligible low-income electric customers will cease. Currently, a customer's eligibility for the late payment fee waivers and deposit installments is based on their eligibility for the SBF, but without the HHSC-facilitated identification process, the Commission will no longer be able to apply its current method of automatically identifying low-income electric customers.

In the course of identifying the scope of this project, and after soliciting written comment and hosting a public workshop, Staff has encountered the following threshold policy questions:

1. Should Retail Electricity Providers (REPs) be required to continue to provide the ancillary low-income benefits (late penalty waivers and deposit installments) that are described in 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.454 (TAC) alongside the low-income discount?

2. If so, and if the Commission maintains its treatment of low-income customers specified in other rules, given that the method used by the Commission to identify eligible customers will be retired along with the enabling statute, how should the Commission determine low-income customer eligibility?

Staff offered four options for Commission consideration

Option 1: No Immediate Rulemaking Action

Under this option, the Commission would allow the legislature to potentially clarify the issue during the 2017 session in advance of expiration of the SBF. However, if the legislature des not take action, it would require the Commission to adopt an alternative approach under a compressed timeline for any implementing rulemaking given the current expiration date of the SBF authority.


Option 2: Continue Providing Ancillary Benefits, Using Lifeline Program Eligibility Criteria

This option, first raised in a strawman, would apply the eligibility criteria for the telecomm Lifeline discount program to identify retail electric customers who must be provided with late penalty waivers and deposit installments.

Staff noted that using the Lifeline list for matching purposes would likely result in a different set of qualifying customers in comparison with the current SBF-supported method because of data matching issues (slight differences between a record provided by the telecommunications provider and a record provided by the REP may result in an unsuccessful match). Staff said that is currently evaluating how applying the Lifeline list would affect the size of the eligible customer pool. However, at an earlier workshop Staff raised the possibility that the strawman's use of the Lifeline list could result in the number of customers eligible for the low-income benefits being reduced by about 400,000 customers (from 540,000 to 160,000)


Option 3: Require REPs to Continue to Provide Benefits, Asking Customers to Self-Enroll

Under this option, rather than matching customers to an eligibility list, the Commission would direct REPs to administer a self-enrollment process for the late penalty waivers and deposit installments. Customers would be asked to submit certain documentation to their REP, either as determined by the REP using their own non-discriminatory criteria or as specified in a new rule.


Option 4: Allow REPs to Provide Low-Income Benefits Voluntarily

Option 4, first raised by REPs in comments, suggests an approach wherein REPs voluntarily offer low-income benefits at their discretion. There would be no obligation to offer late penalty waivers and deposit installments to any specific customers. The Commission would remove relevant requirements from its rules, and REPs would determine their own approach to identifying eligible customers

Project 45189

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Director of Commercial Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Customer Account Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Vice President and Regional General Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Program Director - $225K/yr -- Texas
NEW! -- Staff Accountant, Commissions Analysis -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Direct Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Compliance Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Supplier Services Manager
NEW! -- Operations Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- ERCOT Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Channel Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Marketing/Channel Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-15 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search