|
|
|
|
|
PSC Staff, In Essentially Shuttered Retail Market, Apparently Issue Data Request To Retail Suppliers Seeking Views On "Path Forward" To Stable, Competitive, & Sustainable Market; Barriers; Billing Fees To Bring Back UCB
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the Maryland PSC apparently recently issued a data request to retail energy suppliers seeking suppliers' views on a "path forward" in the fostering of a, "stable, competitive, and sustainable residential retail energy market in Maryland."
The data request was not posted on the PSC's online docket system. However, at least one supplier response was publicly posted to the docket system. EnergyChoiceMatters believes that such supplier response reflects the accurate text of the data request's questions, but stresses that EnergyChoiceMatters could not verify such by publication time. The PSC did not respond to a request for confirmation by publication time. All quotes below are from the questions as listed in the supplier's response
As previously reported, 2024's SB1, among other things, imposed a price cap on residential retail energy offers, and also eliminated utility consolidated billing with POR for residential service.
As previously reported, UCB with POR is ending in December 2025 for grandfathered customers, and, due to implementation costs, the PSC has ruled that utilities are no longer required to provide any UCB service to retail suppliers as of January 1, 2026, though the PSC had also directed that stakeholders negotiate on billing in a post-POR world
The price cap is notable because it is based on the trailing 12-month SOS average rate (rather than the current rate) and does not include a % adder (such as in other capped markets). That means, in rising price environments, retail suppliers, but for the price cap, could potentially otherwise be able to offer rates that save customers money versus the current SOS rate, but suppliers are prohibited from doing so due to the cap's use of the lagging 12-month average rate
The number of residential customers served by retail electric suppliers in Maryland has fallen from 303,000 as of January 2024 to 81,000 as of August 2025 [the PSC's August migration report appears to erroneously label the data as of the month ending July 31, 2025, rather than August 31, 2025)
Staff's data request seeks suppliers' opinions of specific market barriers and mechanisms, in addition to broader questions
Under a section titled "A Path Forward", PSC Staff asked suppliers: "From your perspective, what is the single most important action that Staff could recommend to the Commission in order to foster a stable, competitive, and sustainable residential retail energy market in Maryland?"
Staff also asked suppliers to rank the following Senate Bill 1 reforms as barriers to the supplier's participation in the Maryland residential market (with 1 being the most significant barrier):
• The price cap based on the trailing 12-month utility average default commodity service rate.
• The 12-month contract term limit.
• The elimination of POR.
• The cost of the interim dual billing system.
• The energy salesperson and energy vendor licensing requirements.
Staff also asked suppliers about billing and the viability of specific billing mechanisms, including dual billing and non-POR UCB, and requested that suppliers report their likeliness to use various billing methods, if made available
Staff asked: "On a scale of 1 (Completely Unviable) to 5 (Viable for the Long Term), please rate the viability of dual billing as a permanent business model for serving your residential customers"
Staff also asked about Non-POR Utility Consolidated Billing (UCB), requesting that suppliers respond to the following: "On a scale of 1 (Would Not Use) to 5 (Would Definitely Use), how likely is it that your company would utilize a non-POR UCB system if it were made available?"
Staff also asked, presumably about non-POR UCB, "What is the maximum per-bill, per-customer fee your company would be willing to pay a utility to use such a system? Please provide a specific dollar amount (e.g., $0.75 per bill)."
One supplier responded with an amount of $3.00 per bill
The data requests also asked whether the supplier currently offers, or intends to offer within the next 12 months, retail energy products to Maryland residential customers, and the rationale for the supplier's position
The data request was issued to all licensed retail energy suppliers with authority to
serve residential customers in Maryland
PC65, PC 65
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
October 31, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|