Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Texas TDU Would Pay $21,000 To Settle Alleged Failure To Timely Remove Switchholds

February 4, 2016

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-16 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Oncor Electric Delivery Company would pay $21,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to resolve Oncor's alleged failure to timely remove 22 switchholds in 2012, which allegedly was in violation of 16 TAC § 25.480(m)(2)

16 TAC § 25.480(m)(2) governs the timeline for a TDU's removal of a switch-hold, providing that if the TDU receives the request by 1:00 p.m. on a business day, the TDU shall remove the switch-hold by 8:00 p.m. of the same business day in which it receives the request to remove the switch-hold from the REP.

According to the settlement, on September 9, 2012, Oncor failed to timely remove 22 switch-holds. Seventeen switchholds were removed on September 11, 2012 and the remaining five were removed on September 14, 2012, the settlement states.

No switches or move-ins were rejected as a result of the failure to timely remove the switchholds, the settlement states.

According to the settlement, Oncor asserts that the 22 late removals in September 2012 were caused by a combination of two events: (a) routine maintenance on Oncor's system; and (b) the receipt of multiple duplicate switchhold requests due to a retail electric provider system issue. These two events occurring at the same time resulted in a processing failure and the switch-holds were not removed automatically. Oncor asserted that its standard 650 transaction review process was performed 48 hours after receipt, which did not provide for timely identification of these issues. As a result, the removals were outside of the required timelines.

From October 2012 through the end of 2014 Oncor achieved 100% compliance with the switch-hold removal timelines, while processing over 200,000 switch-hold removals. From the inception of the rule through the end of 2014 Oncor has achieved an overall compliance rate of 99.98%, the settlement states

According to the settlement, Oncor does not believe that 100% compliance with market operation deadlines -- whether contained in a Commission Rule or the Standard Tariff for Retail Delivery Service -- is required, and does not believe that any failure to be perfect in handling hundreds of thousands of such operations over a multi-year time period warrants an administrative penalty

While the Commission did not address a performance standard for the removal of switchholds, in the recent amendments to the Standard Tariff for Retail Delivery Service (Project No. 41121), Oncor noted that the Commission stated that a 100% performance standard for service orders is generally inappropriate:

Thus, Oncor asserts that the lack of a specific performance standard for switch hold removals does not indicate or suggest that the default standard is or should be 100%.

Oncor thus believes that an administrative penalty is inappropriate in this matter. However, solely in order to settle this matter and to avoid the time and expense of a hearing Oncor has entered into this Settlement Agreement, the settlement states

Commission Staff maintains that the requirement in PURA § 39.101 and 16 TAC § 25.480(m)(2) does require 100% compliance and the Standard Tariff for Retail Delivery Service does not address a TDU's compliance with removing switch-holds. Moreover, Staff said that Oncor's cited Commission comments regarding the performance metrics found in 16 TAC § 25.88 and the accompanying Form for Performance Measures do not include switchhold placement or removal in the list of technical market transactions which have compliance standards below 100%.

Commission Staff asserts that an administrative penalty is warranted in this matter, noting that Commission Staff did not pursue an administrative penalty for 29 alleged switchhold violations which occurred in 2011 which Oncor had attributed to human error during the interim period when switchholds were handled manually before an EDI process was adopted by the market. Staff had issued a warning letter related to those switchholds which were not removed in compliance with the required timelines in 2011.

Docket 45575

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Agent & Affinity Partner Sales Manager -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Channel Marketing Manager -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Channel Marketing Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Marketing Assistant -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Financial Controller -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- Texas
• NEW! -- Structuring Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Manager, Commercial Client Services -- Retail Supplier -- Houston/DFW
• NEW! -- Account Coordinator