Energy Choice
                            

Matters

People's Counsel Urges PSC To Open Rulemaking For Supplier Consolidated Billing, Prohibit Supplier From Using SCB In Interim

August 8, 2017

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

The Maryland Office of People's Counsel has recommended that the Maryland PSC convene a rulemaking process to develop natural gas supplier consolidated billing regulations to address billing requirements and any associated consumer protection issues.

OPC's request was prompted by the application of Deca Energy for a natural gas supplier license

According to OPC, Deca had stated that it will provide supplier consolidated billing (SCB) to residential customers, and further stated that it will provide a "flat fee" price option, which includes supplier charges, utility distribution charges, taxes and other fees in a single monthly price. OPC stated, "Deca’s Comfort Zone plan would charge participating customers a fixed flat fee each month that includes all of the various unbundled charges comprising the customer’s underlying gas bill as a single lump sum, but would not be adjusted up or down based on the customer’s actual usage. In other words, the amount of gas the customer uses each month would not affect the price charged each month."

OPC noted that "supplier-consolidated billing" is not defined or used in COMAR. OPC said that, in its supporting documents, Deca generally uses the term supplier-consolidated billing instead of competitive billing service (CBS). OPC uses these terms synonymously to mean any billing process in which the bill rendered by the gas supplier contains charges payable by the customer to the gas supplier for the utility distribution services used by the customer, as well as gas-supplier provided services.

"OPC is not aware of any licensed energy supplier in Maryland providing supplier consolidated billing to residential customers; this application therefore presents the first opportunity for the Commission to consider a supplier-consolidated billing option since its issuance of Order No.77245 in Case No. 8846 [from September 2001]. Similarly, the Commission has not had an opportunity to consider the relationship between SCB and the Commission’s consumer protection regulations pertaining to utility bills and payments. As the issues presented in Deca’s application have not been updated or considered since 2001, OPC recommends that the Commission convene a rulemaking process to develop supplier-consolidated billing regulations to address billing requirements and any associated consumer protection issues," OPC said

"OPC recommends that the Commission prohibit Deca from providing supplier-consolidated billing until the Commission has fully explored any outstanding consumer protection and cost recovery issues. If the Commission does allow Deca to provide SCB it should expressly require Deca to comply with the minimum billing conditions set forth in Order No. 77245," OPC said

"Furthermore, as part of such approval, the Commission should require Deca to guarantee that the customer’s gas service cannot be terminated for failure to pay any charges billed by Deca or any receivables Deca has purchased from WGL," OPC said

In Order No. 77245, the Commission in 2001 noted that supplier-consolidated billing was only available in WGL’s service territory in accordance with billing protocols implemented by WGL and accepted by the Commission in 1996. WGL noted at that time that the SCB option was barely used. Given the overwhelming lack of interest in SCB in 2001, the Commission essentially deferred making a comprehensive ruling related to SCB until a future date

OPC also argued that Deca's proposal to list only a lump sum on its SCB (with individual components available on an online portal) is inconsistent with regulations.

Specifically, OPC said that the Gas Act requires that gas suppliers be subject to the same licensing and consumer protection requirements adopted for electric suppliers, "unless the Commission determines that the circumstances do not require consistency."

The Electric Choice Act mandates, "the unbundling of electric company rates, charges, and services into standardized categories," and further requires that electric customers’ bills display these unbundled charges by category, OPC said

"As a result, electric bills could not simply include a flat lump sum, but were instead required to separately indicate various unbundled charges such as taxes, EUSP surcharges, and distribution and transmission charges to name a few. As a result of the Gas Act’s mandate to adopt consistent standards for the gas supply market, the unbundling and display of charges by category applies equally to gas bills," OPC argued

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