|
|
|
|
Texas Retail Providers Oppose New Inadvertent Gain Fee Sought By AEP Texas
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a statement of position in AEP Texas' current rate case, the Alliance for Retail Markets opposed a proposed new inadvertent gain fee sought by AEP Texas
As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, AEP Texas proposed in its initial filing to institute an Inadvertent Gain Fee of $27, which would be applicable to REPs
The Inadvertent Gain Fee, "will recover the costs associated with resolving an inadvertent gain and should reduce the number of occurrences of this issue. The Company currently has to resolve over 700 inadvertent gain issues per month," a witness for AEP Texas had said
ARM said, "AEP Texas Inc. (AEP Texas) witness Mr. David A. Hawk requests approval of a new, nonuniform
discretionary service fee to recover the cost of resolving the inadvertent gain of a retail
customer resulting from an incorrectly submitted move-in or switch transaction. Currently, AEP
Texas recovers the cost of resolving inadvertent gains through operating and maintenance (O&M)
expenses recovered through base rates, similar to the manner in which it recovers the cost of
processing any retail market transaction, including move-in and switch transactions. ARM opposes
the adoption of the new inadvertent gain discretionary service fee proposed by Mr. Hawk on the
grounds AEP Texas has failed to meet its burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of
the fee."
ARM also addressed the following issues:
Rate Rider Matrix
"While AEP Texas seeks the approval of system-wide transmission and distribution (T&D)
rates for the Central and North Divisions in its certificated service territory, certain rate riders will
apply only to the Central Division. These include three existing riders—Transition Charge-2 (TC-
2), Transition Charge-3 (TC-3), and Nuclear Decommissioning Charge (NDC) -- and two future
riders, System Restoration Charge (SRC) and the associated Accumulated Deferred Federal
Income Tax (ADFIT) Credit. Furthermore, certain Intervenor proposals would differentiate
rates/credits between the two divisions, such as the Office of Public Utility Counsel witness Mr.
William Perea Marcus's recommendation to maintain separate Income Tax Refund riders for each
division," ARM said
"To ensure transparency and clarity with respect to the applicability or inapplicability of
AEP Texas's rate riders to specific areas within its certificated service territory, including the
McAllen/Mission area subject to the proposed transaction in pending Docket No. 49402, ARM
requests that the Final Order require AEP Texas to include a matrix in the appropriate section of
its Retail Delivery Tariff that communicates any differentiation in the assessment of rates and charges within its service territory. ARM likewise requests that the Final Order require AEP Texas
to post this matrix on an easily accessible page on its website," ARM said
Notice Period for and Effective Date of Approved Rates
Noting various requirements for REPs to reflect pricing in EFLs, ARM requested
that the effective date of all rates approved in the proceeding be, at a minimum, the 45th day
following the issuance date of the final order in the docket. "This notice period takes into
consideration the period of time in which compliance tariffs are filed, reviewed, and approved.
Ideally, the same effective date should apply to all rates and charges approved in this docket,
including rates and credits assessed pursuant to a rider," ARM said
"Furthermore, ARM requests that the effective date coincide with the first day of an AEP
Texas monthly billing cycle. Aligning the effective date in this manner will result in each customer
in a rate class being assessed the same approved rates during the billing month. Finally, ARM
requests that the effective date align with another AEP Texas rate change, if possible, to facilitate
greater efficiency in the recalculation of EFL pricing disclosures," ARM said
Customer Concentration Business Risk - Return on Equity
ARM said that, "AEP Texas witness Robert B. Hevert identifies the high degree of concentration of AEP
Texas's revenue from retail electric providers (REPs) as a business risk that, in part, justifies his
proposed 10.5 percent return on equity (ROE). In view of the financial safeguards in 16 TAC §
25.107, including the ability of a transmission and distribution utility (TDU) such as AEP Texas
to mitigate the risk of REP default through the creation of a regulatory asset for future recovery in
a rate case, ARM contends this particular argument is not relevant in the determination of AEP
Texas's ROE."
Docket 49494
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-19 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
August 15, 2019
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Operations/Settlement Analyst
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Supply RFP Coordinator
• NEW! -- Jr. Gas & Power Scheduler/Trader -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Marketing Coordinator -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Corporate Counsel - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Senior Counsel - Regulatory - Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sales Representative -- Retail Supplier
• Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|