Calif. PUC Approves Settlement On Changes To Rules Governing Direct Access Customer Relocations
May 20, 2019 Email This Story Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The California PUC approved a settlement among direct access parties and the California utilities which revises certain procedures under the current form, timelines and tariff requirements that govern the processing of load relocation requests from existing electric service accounts served on direct access
The Direct Access Customer Coalition (DACC) had filed a petition seeking revisions to the Direct Access Customer Relocation Declaration form (Relocation Form), which is maintained in the tariffs of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) (together, Joint Utilities). The Relocation Form must be completed by a customer who decides to transfer Direct Access service from its current location to a new location or to a different account.
The Relocation Form identifies four scenarios describing the circumstances (e.g., service status of the current and future location and relationship between the current and new account holders) that qualify for relocating direct access load (i.e., Options A, B, C, and D).
In the Petition, DACC had raised four primary issues with these options and other provisions in the Relocation Form.
First, DACC had argued that the requirement under Options A, B, and C, providing that a customer is not permitted to have bundled service at the new location for 90 days or more should be eliminated. Second, DACC had argued that the provision requiring customers to submit the Relocation Form within 60 days of closing service at the current location should be eliminated or extended to 180 days. Third, DACC had argued that the requirement under Option D to terminate all service accounts at the current location should be eliminated. Lastly, DACC had argued that the same-ownership requirement, which requires that accounts are transferred to affiliates that are wholly-owned by the same entity, is unduly restrictive as some customers are jointly owned by multiple entities.
DACC and the joint utilities ultimately entered into a settlement agreement under which the parties agree that (1) the requirement under Options A, B, and C, providing that a customer is not permitted to have bundled service at the new location for 90 days or more should be extended to 120 days and (2) the requirement under Option D to terminate service should be revised to allow the account for the current location to be returned to bundled services.
Furthermore, under the settlement, for the termination requirement under Option D, the utilities will add additional tariff language stating that, if the current location is returned to bundled service, the customer shall warrant that the load at that current location will be reduced by some or all the load that is being relocated.
Additionally, for all the Options, the utilities will extend to 120 days the deadline for submitting the Relocation Form.
Lastly, with respect to the same-ownership requirement for transferring service accounts between subsidiaries, the utilities will permit transfers between subsidiaries that are controlled by the same parent corporation, except for public university systems, which will be exempt from the same-ownership requirement.