Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

Pennsylvania PUC Denies Petition To Implement Supplier Consolidated Billing

Initiates Study, En Banc Hearing on SCB, Other Alternatives


January 17, 2018

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

The story below was first published on EnergyChoiceMatters.com at 1:55 p.m. on January 18

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today denied a petition from NRG Energy to implement supplier consolidated billing (SCB) for electricity

Instead, the PUC voted to further study the issue, including the legality, merits and potential implementation of SCB and possible alternatives.

As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, NRG Energy, Inc. had filed a petition with the Pennsylvania PUC to implement, for electricity, supplier consolidated billing (SCB) by the second quarter of 2018

See background on NRG's petition to implement SCB here

The Commission today voted 5-0 to deny the petition filed by NRG Energy Inc. which had requested approval of SCB. The PUC voted to approve a joint motion by Chairman Gladys M. Brown and Commissioner Norman J. Kennard to further explore the merits of SCB and possible alternatives.

The joint motion from Brown and Kennard states, "The record in this instant proceeding lacks sufficient detail to substantiate a definitive determination on both the policy prudence and legality of numerous pivotal issues. While the Commission has a long history of deliberating SCB, the question of its legality under Chapter 14 and 28 of the Code has never been directly addressed. The record here refrains from doing so. Also, while issues such as termination procedures, purchase of receivables design, bill format, distinguishing between basic and non-basic charges, and customer assistance program design are contemplated in this Petition, the Petition is not fully developed to show compliance with the Code, our regulations, and Commission orders. As such, we find NRG has not met its burden of proof in this proceeding and that this Petition should be denied."

"Although we are denying the Petition, we continue to be of the opinion previously expressed by the Commission as part of our retail electricity market investigation that 'SCB will facilitate the offering of innovative new products and services and will also help the supplier in establishing a brand identity with the customer,'" the Commissioners' joint motion stated

The Commissioners' joint motion directs the PUC’s Law Bureau and Office of Competitive Market Oversight (OCMO) to organize an en banc hearing, to occur on or before June 14, 2018, to allow invited parties the opportunity to provide additional information on SCB or SCB alternatives. The Commission plans to issue a Secretarial Letter with more details on the en banc hearing.

As part of the en banc hearing, the Commission specifically sought input from interested parties regarding, but not limited to, the following:

1. Is SCB legally permissible under Chapters 14 and 28 of the Public Utility Code? If so, what limits, if any, are imposed by the Public Utility Code?

2. Would giving an EGS the authority to request EDC termination of a customer's service comply with Chapter 14 of the Public Utility Code and Chapter 56 of the Commission's regulations?

3. How would EGS-implementation of SCB affect existing universal service billing procedures?

4. Would an EGS with SCB have the customer service capabilities to answer and refer to the EDC questions regarding low-income programs in addition to educating customers on the options and programs available?

5. If an EGS purchases an EDC's receivables and the EDC is no longer owed any money, does the EDC (or EGS) have the power to terminate service for nonpayment of distribution charges?

6. Would a pilot program involving an EDC working with an individual EGS or group of EGSs to design a SCB platform be appropriate?

In addition to these issues, the Commission sought input on the legality, feasibility, and/or appropriateness of the following alternatives to SCB:

1. Changes to utility consolidated billing to allow for the addition of charges for EGS value added services.

2. Unbundling of billing services.

3. Unbundling of other related and specified services.

4. Allowance of third party billing agents, such as EGSs, or an independent billing agent.

5. The role of mass market "dual billing," whereby a customer receives two separate bills for electric services -- one from the EDC for its distribution charges and another from the EGS for its generation and transmission charges.

Docket No. P-2016-2579249

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Philadelphia
NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Commercial Energy Advisor -- Dallas
NEW! -- Analyst Billing and Transaction Services, Retail Operations -- Retail Provider -- Houston
Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston / Dallas
Director, Retail Energy Supply and Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
Operations Analyst -- Retail Supplier

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-16 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