|
|
|
|
Broker: Texas Strawman's Broker Compensation Disclosure Requirement Would Put Brokers Out Of Business, Only Benefit Large REPs
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Adopting a proposal in a strawman draft rule to require Texas electric brokers to disclose the amount or calculation of their compensation, from retail electric providers, to customers, "would have the end result of putting brokers out of business," and only serve to benefit large REPs, RES Nation, LLC, a broker, said in comments to the Texas PUC
See EnergyChoiceMatters.com's exclusive analysis of the strawman broker rules here
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the strawman would require that all brokers must disclose to clients, prior to the initiation of brokerage services, how the broker will be compensated for providing brokerage services, who will provide the compensation, and the amount or method of calculation of the compensation
RES Nation said in comments to the PUC that, "RES strongly objects to the overreaching and digressive requirements contained within staff's
proposed strawman rules. Specifically, our primary concern is the requirement contained in new
§25.486(d)(5) to disclose broker's fee structure. Such a disclosure would be a direct violation of
existing confidentiality agreements between the broker and Retail Electric Providers (REPs). In
the current market structure, broker fees are typically part of the pricing the broker has
negotiated with the REP for its customers. If those end- use customers think that price point is
too high, they will punish the brokers by taking their business elsewhere. Therefore, the market
already has a solution for customers who believe the prices being offered by the broker are too
high."
RES Nation further said, "There is nothing beneficial to be gained by requiring brokers to disclose either their fee or
the methodology by which their fee is calculated (if that would make it readily easy to back into
the fee, as would most certainly be the case.)
This rule provision, as it is proposed, would have the end result of putting brokers out of
business. Since many of the smaller REPs use brokers almost exclusively to gain customers, the
only beneficiary of this would be the largest (and former affiliate) REPs. That would result in
less competition and less choice for consumers, which stands in direction opposition of
deregulation efforts."
"Finally, if brokers are required to disclose their fees, then retailers and generators should also
have to disclose their margins and mark-ups," RES Nation said
In separately filed comments, several other brokers made a similar point on the proposed requirement for broker compensation to be disclosed, while REP margins are not required to be disclosed.
Professional Energy Management LP said in its comments that, "REPs are not required to disclose their margin."
Brokers also noted that the amount of compensation may not be known prior to the initiation of brokerage services as contemplated by the strawman
"[T]he amount is not necessarily
known/decided until broker actually knows the scope of services
desired, the load history and profile of the customer's load. As
in other competitive businesses, Customer is free to shop with
other brokers or shop directly with REPs. Customers are free to
purchase elsewhere and broker may opt to lower its margin to
win the customer's business. We hope the commission will
recognize that the scope and quality of brokerage services vary,
not only from broker to broker, but also from customer to
customer dependent upon the scope of services customer desires.
Some customers desire bill auditing, assistance with strategies
for lowering or controlling TDU costs (4CP exposure), guidance
regarding qualification for sales tax exemption, liaison to REP
for billing issues, etc. The service variations can be very
significant and therefore should not be treated as a commodity as
if it was an Amazon purchase," Professional Energy Management LP said
Professional Energy Management LP did not object to a requirement to disclose the presence of compensation, and who will provide such compensation, and the "method" of calculating such compensation, but opposed a requirement to disclose the "amount" of compensation
TruEnergy Services, LLC said in its comments that the compensation disclosure requirement does not exist for
aggregators, "even though they are obviously compensated for providing services."
TruEnergy also noted the compensation information may not be known before the start of brokerage services. "[P]urely from a logistical and feasibility
perspective, it may not be possible to know this information with any precision until after the client
has entered an agreement with a REP. The compensation may be transaction-based, load-based
(i.e., $/kWh), or based in something entirely different. Likewise, the amount and design of the
compensation can vary based on which REP transacts with the client. The best retail offering for
the client and, therefore, the selected REP cannot always be known at the beginning of the
interaction with the client. Even with its best efforts (ignoring the significant competitive harm of
such public disclosures), a broker might not be able to comply with this proposed language," TruEnergy said
The disparate treatment of REPs and brokers under the proposed strawman was also noted with respect to the proposed required renewal of broker registrations every three years
"This expiration date does not exist
for aggregators or REPs and is unnecessary," TruEnergy said
Likewise, Energy Edge Consulting LLC noted that, "a registration renewal is not required of other market participants
such as REPs, aggregators and power generation companies."
The Energy Professionals Association said that, "Compensation is considered proprietary and can vary by REP and customers.
Electricity brokering is an optional and bespoke service available to retail
electric customers. While brokers may elect to disclose their fees to their
clients, requiring disclosure is anti-competitive and will force the
commoditization of brokerage services to the detriment of customers."
"Stating the amount of compensation for brokers only and not stating for
other market participants is both impractical and also creates a regulated
environment in a deregulated industry," TEPA said
REPs Seek Prohibition On Use Of TDU Branding By Broker
Retail electric providers said in comments on the strawman that brokers should not be allowed to use the same name brand as a TDU
The Alliance for Retail Markets noted that the strawman places certain restrictions on the assumed or business names a broker
may use, stating that a business name, "must not be deceptive, misleading, inappropriate,
confusing, or duplicative in whole or part of any name currently in use or previously approved for
use by a broker, aggregator, or REP in a way that may be confusing or misleading."
"To cover all
bases, the list of prohibitions in this provision should include a reference to 16 TAC § 25.272,
relating to Code of Conduct for Electric Utilities and Their Affiliates, which would apply to the
assumed name of a co-branding broker affiliated with a transmission and distribution (T&D)
utility. Such co-branding should be prohibited because it would provide an unfair competitive
advantage to the broker affiliated with the T&D utility, contrary to 16 TAC § 25.272. Conversely,
to the extent a broker is affiliated with another competitive market entity, a business name
similarity and co-branding should not necessarily be prohibited," ARM said
In separately filed comments, Texas Energy Association for Marketers (TEAM) similarly said, "TEAM suggests that this language also include a restriction against co-branding with a
transmission and distribution utility. By its nature such co-branding could lead to confusion that
the broker is able to receive preferential treatment or reliability of service from the monopoly
provider of utility service."
TEAM suggested the following language for the rule: "A registering entity may operate under
a maximum of five assumed names. At the time of registration, the registering
entity must provide all names to the commission. Business names must not be deceptive misleading, inappropriate, confusing, or duplicative in whole or part of
any name currently in use or previously approved for use by a broker, aggregator;
or REP in a way that may be confusing or misleading. Business names may not
be duplicative in whole or in part of the brand or business name of a transmission
and distribution utility[.]"
Project 49794
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.
TEPA: Disclosure Would Lead To "Commoditization" Of Brokerage Services
Brokers Note Retail Providers Not Required To Disclose Margins
REPs Seek Prohibition On Use Of TDU Branding By Broker
October 1, 2019
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Sales Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- DFW
• NEW! -- Channel Manager - Retail Division -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Accountant -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Counsel -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• 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
• Corporate Counsel - Retail Supplier
• Senior Counsel - Regulatory - Retail Supplier
• Sales Representative -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|