Daily Email







Update: PSC Grants Extension For Filing Draft Supplier Consolidated Billing Regulations

August 12, 2020

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20
Reporting by Paul Ring •

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of

Updated, 8/12:

The Maryland PSC granted Staff's request, discussed in our earlier story below, for an extension until September 22, 2020 for the supplier consolidated billing working group to file draft SCB regulations and business processes

With respect to the process proposed by retail suppliers noted in our earlier story below, the PSC said, "The Commission also prefers that the workgroup follow its normal workgroup processes, as proposed by Staff, which encourages parties to find as much compromise as possible before filing proposed regulations. Parties may, as always, propose alternative language during a subsequent comment period."

The Commission established a deadline of October 9, 2020 for interested persons to file comments regarding the draft regulations and/or to provide any alternative language for consideration.

The Commission approved, subject to later adjustment by the Commission, the revised schedule proposed by Staff on June 11, 2020, as amended in Staff's August 11, 2020 extension request noted below


Staff of the Maryland PSC sought an extension of the deadline to file draft regulations and business processes to govern supplier consolidated billing (SCB)

The PSC had previously granted an extension until Sept. 1, 2020

Staff seeks an extension of the deadline for filing draft regulations and business processes for the Commission’s review from September 1, 2020 to September 22, 2020.

"Staff makes this request for relief due to resource constraints from ongoing regulatory proceedings, such as the Baltimore Gas and Electric multi-year rate case, and outstanding issues in the workgroup. Staff is committed to developing a final set of regulations for workgroup review by September 1, 2020. However, the current workload and additional items under discussion within the workgroup would not allow sufficient time to discuss the final draft regulations with the workgroup before Staff files and proposes a rulemaking. Staff believes the additional three weeks will allow parties a final attempt to come to agreement on non-consensus issues and ensure a cleaner final filing with the Commission," Staff said

Staff is not requesting a corresponding delay in other dates of the supplier consolidated billing timeline. If there are circumstances that require additional changes, Staff would propose to request those on behalf of the workgroup members or on its own behalf at that time.

NRG Energy, Inc.; Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. d/b/a IGS Energy; Direct Energy Services, LLC; ENGIE Resources LLC; and Vistra Corp. do not oppose Staff’s request but proposed that, for non-consensus items, alternative versions of specific regulations be included in the filing along with narratives

"[I]t appears that there will be certain issues – hopefully only a few by the time the draft regulations are filed – on which the working group will not reach consensus. These issues are extremely important to the various stakeholders and their view of how the new SCB program should be structured and implemented. Moreover, the resolution of each issue could affect other regulations. In the Retail Suppliers’ view, the Commission would benefit from having alternative versions of specific regulations included in the filing. Doing so would allow the Commission to have the different versions at the same time, from the outset, and begin to gain an understanding of these issues, the stakeholders’ positions, and how the different pieces of the SCB puzzle fit together," the suppliers said

"The Retail Suppliers also believe that a narrative accompanying the proposed regulations, including the alternative regulations and how they differ from each other, would be useful in explaining the various issues to the Commission. Once the draft regulations and narrative are submitted, the Retail Suppliers propose that stakeholders be allowed to submit written comments on the filing and any redlines they may have, with the goal that the material non-consensus items would be addressed in the alternative regulations that are filed which will limit the need for proposed redlines," the suppliers said

The suppliers proposed the following schedule for adoption:

• September 1, 2020 - Staff sends 'near-final' draft regulations to the working group

• September 1-21 - Working group continues to meet to work through issues and to propose alternative regulations on non-consensus issues

• September 22, 2020 - Working Group files consensus and non-consensus regulations, with a narrative explaining the various issues

• October 9, 2020 - Written Comments from Stakeholders on Proposed Regulations

• TBA - Reply Comments (if deemed necessary by the Commission)

• TBA - Rulemaking Hearing

Case No. 9641

NEW Jobs on
NEW! -- Energy Systems Analyst -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Billing Specialist -- Retail Supplier  -- Texas
NEW! -- Director - Distributed Generation, Demand Response, & Market Participation -- Houston
NEW! -- Retail Energy Account Executive -- Houston
NEW! -- Business Development Manager

Email This Story


Copyright 2010-20 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.



Daily Email