Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Texas PUC's Marquez Tells Retail Providers She's Watching Post-SBF Low-Income Customer Treatment Very Carefully

Asks Whether Power To Choose Should Include Note That Specific REPs Do Not Offer Low-Income Programs

Asks Whether REPs Should Be Required To Send Notices To Customers Regarding Whether REP Offers Low-Income Programs

Staff Says REPs Must Submit Request For Low-Income Sync List By July 31 (What About New Market Entrants During Fiscal Year?)

July 28, 2017

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

During an open meeting discussion regarding the implementation of SB 1976, Texas PUC Commissioner Brandy Marty Marquez informed retail electric providers that she is very interested in a rulemaking implementing the bill (and discontinuation of the related System Benefit Fund discount), and suggested several measures that would inform customers of whether REPs offer assistance to low-income customers.

SB 1976 permits the Texas PUC, contingent on REP funding, to maintain a list of low-income electric customers, in a manner similar to what has been used for purposes of the prior SBF Lite-Up discount.

As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, Staff of the Texas PUC had earlier filed a memo outlining a process to repeal or amend various substantive rules (and the obligations they impose on REPs) related to the System Benefit Fund and which were impacted by SB 1976, with Staff stating they will forbear from enforcing the SBF-related rules, as it relates to new matters once the SBF expires, pending resolution of the rulemaking.

Marquez noted that the intent of SB 1976's authorization for the PUC to maintain a list of low-income electric customers was to allow for the identification of customers to facilitate the continuation of certain benefits to low-income customers (as otherwise, with the SBF terminated, the PUC would have lacked authorization to maintain such a list)

However, SB 1976 also provides that the PUC, "may not require a retail electric provider or a certificated telecommunications utility to offer customer service, discounts, bill payment assistance, targeted bill messaging, or other benefits for which the provider or utility is not reimbursed."

Marquez understood the sentiment behind this provision which is a nod to the state's strong competitive retail market which is, "working incredibly well," but Marquez also contrasted this provision with the other sentiment of the bill, which was to allow the various benefits to continue to be offered.

Marquez asked Staff how many REPs had signed up to fund and receive the list of low-income customers. Staff replied that about 13 or 14 had enrolled as of July 27, out of some 50-60 REPs in the residential market (see a list of REPs who have signed up here).

"In the spirit of transparency, I want to let the REPs know that this is something that I am very interested in. I'm watching it very carefully," Marquez said

"Some of the things that I am going to be interested in looking at in this rulemaking are, for the REPs who don't enlist in this program, I'd like to know their plans, so possibly requiring them to file a report with the Commission to let us know what their plans are for their low-income customers," Marquez said

"For companies who don't have any plans for low-income customers, I'll be interested in discussing with my fellow Commissioners through the rulemaking the potential of making a note on Power to Choose that this is a retail provider who does not offer any low-income programs to their customers," Marquez said

"Something I've been thinking through is whether or not we should require the retail providers to send notices to customers stating whether or not they provide low-income benefits to customers," Marquez said

Marquez said she was open to discussing all of these issues and encouraged stakeholders to share their concerns with her, but concluded, "With the great freedom that we have in this market, which has become greater because of this bill, there also comes great responsibility," Marquez said

Commissioner Kenneth Anderson stated that he agreed with Marquez's comments

Also of note is that Staff responded in the affirmative to a question from Marquez who asked if it was the case that REPs must sign up for the low-income customer list by July 31.

However, to the extent such a deadline has been created, it does not appear to be a statutory mandate.

While SB 1976 does set a deadline of July 31 for "one or more" REPs to submit "a" request for the list and agree to funding, once this threshold is met to create the list, nothing would appear to prohibit additional REPs from signing up to receive the list during the middle of a fiscal year, after July 31, so long as the REP contributes funding (granted, statute is silent as to, with additional REPs contributing a new pro rata share, whether the Commission would be authorized to refund to the original REPs the delta between their original higher pro rata share and the recalculated new amount, or how, if the pro rata is not recalculated based on new REPs, how any funding above cost would be disposed of)

Specifically, SB 1976 provides:

"The commission may not submit a request to the Health and Human Services Commission to provide for a process to identify low-income electric customers for a fiscal year unless:

(1) the commission receives a request from one or more retail electric providers not later than July 31 of the previous fiscal year for a list of low-income electric customers to be developed; and

(2) each retail electric provider that submits a request to the commission under Subdivision (1) agrees to reimburse the commission for the cost of development of the list on terms agreed to by the commission and the provider."

We understand Subdivision (2) describing the REPs submitting a request describes such requests as being made, "under Subdivision (1)", which requires a submission by July 31; however, other than ensuring a list is not created until funding from a REP is obtained, it is apparent the language was intended to limit the authorization for the PUC to create the list, rather than addressing REPs specifically

Indeed, a July 31 deadline for a REP to sign up for the list creates several problems. Most notably, how can REPs newly entering the market (either start-ups, or C&I REPs electing to expand to residential service) after July 31 receive a list of their low-income customers until the next fiscal year if a July 31 deadline is enforced.

The issues related to the treatment of new REP entrants are heightened if the PUC ultimately does adopt some of the proposals discussed by Marquez that would essentially shame REPs not offering low-income customers benefits, because new REPs, without access to the low-income customer list, would be at a competitive disadvantage and not be able to offer low-income programs (due to their inability to identify such customers)

Even for existing REPs, enforcing a July 31 deadline for signing up for the low-income customer list would appear to be at odds with the broader public policy concerns cited by Marquez. If an existing REP wishes to begin offering low-income programs during the middle of a fiscal year, it would seem to be in customers' interest to allow such REP to (upon its pro rata funding) to access the list.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Senior Energy Advisor
• NEW! -- Branch Manager -- Energy Sales
• NEW! -- Energy Advisor
• NEW! -- Director of Supply -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Indirect Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW
• NEW! -- Manager, Supply & Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- EDI Transactions Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Pricing & Structuring Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Manager, Billing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Operations Supervisor -- Retail Supplier -- Houston