Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Texas PUC Chair Requests Commission Consider Requiring REPs To Offer Ability To Pay >$50 Deposits In Installments For All Residential Customers

Requests That PUC Consider Requiring REPs To File Reports On Bill Assistance Programs

November 17, 2017

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

In a memo in advance of today's open meeting concerning the proposed elimination of certain customer protections afforded to customers who were eligible for the defunct Lite-Up Texas discount, Texas PUC Chairman DeAnn Walker has urged the Commission to consider requiring that retail electric providers provide all residential customers with the ability to pay any required deposit that exceeds $50 in two installments.

Under current rule, only customers eligible for the Lite-Up Texas discount are eligible to pay any deposit that exceeds $50 in two equal installments.

A draft proposal for publication would strike this requirement from the rule. The Lite-Up program has been terminated, and while REPs may voluntarily access a list of their low-income customers maintained by the PUC, SB 1976 bars the Commission from requiring a retail electric provider to provide customer service, discounts, bill payment assistance, targeted bill messaging, or other benefits for which the provider is not reimbursed.

"Due to the changes related to H.B. 1101 and S.B. 1976, I believe that the Commission should consider changes to the Substantive Rules to require all retail electric providers to allow for the payment of deposits of more than $50 in two installments for all customers," Walker wrote

While Walker generally refers to consideration of requiring the deposit installment being provided to "all" customers, Walker's redlined language would not disturb the current rule which limits such installment requirement to residential deposits.

Walker wrote that proposing language for such a policy in the proposal for publication would afford the PUC the opportunity to receive stakeholder comment on the proposal

Walker also proposed to include a question in the preamble as follows: "What are the specific costs to retail electric providers related to all customers having the option to pay deposits of greater than $50 in two monthly installments? Please provide the calculations and methodologies of such alleged costs."

Walker noted that the PUC previously declined to provide the ability to pay deposits of more than $50 in two installments to all residential customers.

Walker noted that at the time of the rule's adoption limiting such installment requirement to Lite-Up customers, then-Chairman Smitherman advocated not adopting the proposal on the following basis: "This places too great a financial risk on REPs and is not sufficiently tailored to serving low-income customers needs, especially when alternatives exist that are more tailored."

Walker wrote, "In order to understand whether there currently is 'financial risk' associated with installment payments for deposits, I request the inclusion of the above stated question in the preamble. Also, I want to understand if there continues to be 'sufficiently tailored' alternatives to serving the low-income customers. Due to the passage of H.B. 1101 [ending the System Benefit Fund], it is not evident to me that the same considerations exist today that were present in 2006. Therefore, I request that you consider the below modifications for publication of the proposed rule and the preamble question to gain better clarity on the issue of deposit installment payments."

Walker requested that the Commission also consider having the Commission Staff draft an additional section in the proposed rules that would require retail electric providers to file annual reports on the available bill assistance programs, discounts, or other benefits the retail electric providers offer to their customers.

"After reviewing the comments and the statute, I believe that the Commission has the necessary authority to require such reports. I also believe that the information provided in such reports would be valuable to the Commission. Therefore, I request that the Commission Staff be directed to include in the proposal for publication draft language for the next open meeting that would require the above specified annual reports," Walker wrote

Project 47343

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director, Retail Energy Supply and Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston / Dallas
• NEW! -- Operations Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sales & Marketing Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Account Manager -- DFW
• NEW! -- Director of Affiliate Business Development -- DFW
• NEW! -- Commercial Lead Generation Specialist -- Retail Provider
• NEW! -- General Counsel/ Sr Attorney, Retail Electricity and Gas -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Operations Manager/Director -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Analyst/Senior Analyst, Energy Management and Marketing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing and Structure Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Retail Sales Specialist, Telemarketing /D2D/Mass Markets -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Market Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Financial Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Houston