|
|
|
|
Updated: PUC Says Customized Flat Bill Offer Presupposes Reliance On Hourly Interval Data That Is Not Yet Available To Retail Suppliers
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Updated, 10/8:
PUCO has issued a written order denying, without prejudice, a petition from Astral Energy, LLC for a waiver of a rule requiring the specific listing of the rate to be charged per month in marketing materials that accompany a contract, for its flat bill product
Further details on Astral's sought waiver are in our earlier story below.
Of note in the written order is that PUCO premised its denial on the finding that a waiver is not justified given that, as found by PUCO, Astral, "is currently unable to offer any meaningful customer-specific, algorithmic pricing
options," because such customization, "presupposes reliance on hourly interval data reported by an
electric distribution utility to PJM for settlement purposes."
"As of the date of this decision,
this information is not yet available to Applicant or any other CRES provider," PUCO said
PUCO stated, "As to the merits of the application, we initially note that Applicant’s waiver
request is narrowly tailored to address marketing disclosures that do not exist under its
business model. Applicant proposes to prepare individual six-month flat-monthly rate
marketing offers based on a range of rate factors such as 'the customer’s historic usage, peak
vs. off peak usage, and other factors.' Application at ¶ 6. Applicant submits that it cannot
include a rate offer in its marketing materials as directed by Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1:21-
05(A)(4) because its offers will be based on a proprietary algorithm, which provides a
customized rate offer that is purportedly specific to each customer’s historic usage. With
this information in mind, the Commission must assess the value of the proposed consumer
product in comparison to the impact on the consumer protection safeguards that are the
subject of the waiver request."
PUCO stated, "Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4901:1-21 is intended to provide standards and
safeguards to protect consumers from deceptive, unfair and unconscionable marketing
practices and to ensure that they can make informed decisions about offers from CRES
providers. Within this chapter are defined marketing requirements that are intended to
allow customers ease-of-pricing comparisons in their CRES analysis before they commit to
service contracts. Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-05. In addition to requiring Apples-to-Apples
pricing information on marketing and solicitation materials, the rules provide that
marketers must include comparative pricing information on marketing materials that
accompany contract proposals, and on the EnergyChoice website so that customers can educate themselves easily and early in their decision-making as to potential choice
considerations. Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-03(D)."
"Applicant’s proposed business model is unique among CRES providers. Prior
to this waiver request, the Commission has yet to consider a flat-rate marketing model that
attempts to correlate monthly residential pricing to a customer’s actual, rather than
assumed, individual usage. Here, Applicant intends to individually tailor each of its flat-rate
customer pricing offers based on a computer algorithm, which will generate an offer
price based on a review of a customer’s historic electricity consumption as measured in load
and usage. As the load and usage of each customer may be widely variant, Applicant
submits that it is impossible for it to produce and include in its marketing materials 'a
specific listing of the rate to be charged per month for the duration of the contract,' as is
required by Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-05(A)(4)," PUCO said
"In considering Applicant’s waiver application, we note that we remain
supportive of the rights of consumers to purchase their electricity in a variety of ways, that
there may be value in the consumer’s mind to offering a flat-rate pricing plan, and that there
is no prohibition against this type of pricing plan, provided that it is offered into the market
in a manner consistent with existing rules. Such a plan might be preferable to some
consumers, whether that outcome is measured in terms of overall cost savings, budget
predictability, hedging against market conditions, incentivizing reduced consumption, or
some other consumer preference," PUCO said
"Juxtaposed against the benefit of consumer choice is the consumer protection
associated with the early marketing restrictions that the waiver encompasses. In
considering this aspect of the waiver request, we must consider the feasibility of Applicant’s
proposed business model as it relates to the provision of requisite data as described by
Applicant. There is no reason to waive consumer marketing protections unless Applicant
demonstrates a reasonable basis for why its product requires the waiver," PUCO said
"At this time, we conclude that Applicant has not shown good cause for the
requested waiver. The specific price comparison information that is required to be
incorporated in marketing materials and updated on the EnergyChoice Ohio website is a
critical consumer protection aspect of Ohio’s CRES choice program. In order to receive the
requested waiver, Applicant must demonstrate that the marketing and nonconforming
pricing of its services as described in its business model outweighs the negative impacts on
consumer protections provided for in Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4901:1-21. We find that
Applicant’s proposed business model currently fails to justify the requested waiver, as more
fully described below," PUCO said
"Applicant’s proposal to offer individualized pricing based on actual historic
customer load and usage presupposes reliance on hourly interval data reported by an
electric distribution utility to PJM for settlement purposes. As of the date of this decision,
this information is not yet available to Applicant or any other CRES provider. Accordingly,
Applicant is currently unable to offer any meaningful customer-specific, algorithmic pricing
options that would justify the requested marketing waivers. Absent the ability to make
marketing offers based on customers’ actual historic electricity load and usage, there is no
basis for diminishing the consumer protections from deceptive, unfair and unconscionable
marketing practices that safeguard consumers’ abilities to make informed decisions about
CRES," PUCO said
"While unique in its described approach toward conservation incentives and
customer budgeting, Applicant’s proposal does not provide for the required price
comparison information that benefits customers when initially considering CRES choices.
Further, the significance of the lack of price comparison is heightened by Applicant’s
purported need to access specific customer account and usage information in excess of the
information that marketers already receive in order to prepare individual rate proposals
prior to offering price information to proposed customers. Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-24(E)," PUCO said
"In disapproving Applicant’s current waiver request, we reserve the right to
revisit this issue in the future. Through the integration of advance metering equipment, it
is reasonable to conclude that the information needed to make meaningful customer-specific,
algorithmic offers may soon be available for Applicant’s intended use. Advanced
metering equipment that measures individual customer load and usage in a manner that
Applicant purports to consider for rate offering purposes is being widely deployed across
the state. It is reasonable to conclude that the granular customer-specific information that
Applicant requires to tailor its rate offers may be available at a future date. Assuming that
occurs, the Commission may re-evaluate the consumer protection analysis provided in this
decision. Moreover, we may also re-evaluate the criteria required for posting a residential
offer on the EnergyChoice website (Ohio Apples-to-Apples chart) in regard to a re-filed
waiver application should Applicant choose to propose an otherwise acceptable pricing
alternative that is offered on a non-volumetric basis relating to criteria other than the
individualized usage data that Applicant purports to presently require. Accordingly,
Applicant is authorized to file another request for waiver of the marketing considerations
described herein in the future should the customer-specific data necessary to implement its
marketing business plan become available. Until such time as that customer usage data is
available to Applicant, we decline to grant the requested waiver as proposed," PUCO said
Commissioner Daniel R. Conway dissented.
Among other things, Conway took issue with the Commission's emphasis that calculation of a flat bill price as proposed by Astral would be inappropriate without PJM interval settlement data
"Nor do I think that we should reject the Applicant’s waiver request based on a belief
that its proprietary algorithm is not an adequate tool for the Applicant to rely upon to
develop its customer-specific flat per-month rate. The adequacy of its algorithm to produce
price offers that are good enough to implement its business model is a judgment that, in my
view is squarely within the Applicant’s bailiwick, not ours. In that regard, I don’t believe it
is accurate to interpret the Applicant’s request, which the Entry does, as depending upon
having access to historical PJM load and/or usage data that is specific to prospective Ohio
customers in order to develop its flat per-month rate offers. As I read the filings that
Applicant has made, the customer’s historical retail billing information included in his/her
past bills, whatever that includes, will be sufficient for it to run its algorithm. In any event,
if the Applicant’s algorithm produces rates that are unattractive to prospective customers
(because, for example they are too high, coupled with other more qualitative benefits that
are not enough to offset the cost), the competitive market and shopping customers will turn
their thumbs down on the product. If the rates are too low to meet the Applicant’s profit
requirements, it will have to make adjustments to its algorithm, make changes to it
wholesale power procurement approach, etc., or exit the market," Conway said
Earlier (10/7):
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio today denied, without prejudice, a petition from Astral Energy, LLC for a waiver of a rule requiring the specific listing of the rate to be charged per month in marketing materials that accompany a contract, for its flat bill product
A written order was not available as of publication time. This story will be updated Thursday upon issuance of such order
As exclusively reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com (story here), Astral Energy, LLC filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio asking PUCO to waive application of Rule 4901:1-1-21-05(A)(4) with regards to Astral’s "Ultimate Power Plan" (UPP), which is a flat bill product
See background on the specifics of the product and waiver request in our prior stories linked below
Astral petition
PUCO Staff recommendation to deny petition
Under Astral’s UPP, the customer pays a flat-rate dollar amount per month for competitive retail electric service (CRES) for a six month contract period. Astral determines the customer’s monthly flat-rate price based on a proprietary algorithm that analyzes the customer’s historic usage, peak vs. off peak usage, and other factors. Thus, the flat rate charged is unique for each UPP customer.
In its original waiver petition, Astral said that the mechanics of signing a customer up for a UPP plan work as follows: a prospective customer first contacts Astral to request a quote for a UPP plan. Astral obtains permission from the customer to access the customer’s generation usage history. Astral then uses its proprietary algorithm to determine the flat-rate UPP offer, which typically takes 48 hours to generate. Astral contacts the customer with the flat-rate UPP offer and provides the customer with a proposed UPP contract with the flat-rate monthly dollar amount to be charged specifically listed. The customer then decides whether to accept the offer and execute the proposed UPP contract or to decline the offer. If the customer executes a UPP contract, once its six-month term has expired, the customer may choose to drop or switch service from Astral Energy without penalty or fee.
Astral noted that Rule 4901:1-1-21-05(A)(4) provides that each competitive retail electric service (CRES) provider that offers retail electric generation service to residential or small commercial customers shall provide, in marketing materials that include or accompany a service contract, sufficient information for customers to make intelligent cost comparisons against offers they receive from other CRES providers. By rule, offers shall at a minimum include, for flat-monthly rate offers, "a specific listing of the rate to be charged per month for the duration of the contract."
Astral sought a waiver due to the requirement for this "specific listing of the rate to be charged per month" with regards to marketing materials. Such marketing materials are provided before Astral obtains permission from the customer to access the customer’s generation usage history, which as noted above is used to generate a customer-specific offer that is then communicated to customers via a proposed UPP contract with the flat-rate monthly dollar amount to be charged specifically listed therein, Astral said
Astral has said that while the UPP is a flat-rate offer, by the nature of the program the flat-rate charged can be different for each customer. "Thus, it is not possible to identify a specific dollar amount in marketing materials for the UPP as Rule 4901:1-1-21-05(A)(4) requires. In addition, due to the number of factors that Astral’s propriety [sic] formula uses to determine the flat-rate offer, it could be misleading to provide a dollar amount in marketing materials that is identified as an 'average household' price," Astral said
At today's PUCO meeting, Commissioners voted to deny the sought waiver
PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo stressed that the Commission's action was without prejudice, and said that the Commission is trying to signal its interest in innovation while equipping customers with information to evaluate offerings
Randazzo said that there is nothing wrong with a flat monthly charge product, but that customers must have the information to determine what they're paying for the service (generation supply) versus the "insurance" associated with the flat bill offering
Commissioner Lawrence Friedeman also stressed that PUCO's order is not intended to be a blank prohibition on flat monthly bills and that 4901:1-1-21-05 addresses pertinent requirements for products
Case 18-743-EL-WVR
ADVERTISEMENT 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.
(Earlier): PUC Denies Rule Waiver Sought By Retail Supplier As Part Of Marketing Flat Bill Product, Without Prejudice
October 8, 2020
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Regulatory Affairs -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Energy Pricing Analyst -- Houston
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Account Executive -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sr. Sales Executive -- Retail Supplier
• Energy Systems Analyst -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|