|
|
|
|
|
PSC Staff Propose Retail Supplier Billing Rule Changes, Limit On Supplier Fees
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the Maryland PSC have proposed rule changes to, among other things, formally implement the prohibition on the purchase of retail energy supplier receivables by utilities for residential customers; to impose a limit of retail supplier late fees under dual billing; and to add rule language preserving the availability of potential future billing mechanisms without needing to re-open a rulemaking
In addition to prohibiting residential POR, Staff's proposed rule changes would modify the existing rules to provide that utility consolidated billing is only available if provided by the utility, and thus UCB is not required to be offered by the utility (amending current language stating that a supplier may elect UCB, with no current perquisite that UCB may only be elected by the supplier if UCB is offered at the utility). As previously reported, the Maryland utilities ended residential UCB as a means of complying with the end of residential POR, rather than implementing an alternative payment structure under UCB
Staff's proposed rules would also add new language allowing the use of a "payment posting sequence" (upon PSC approval of such sequence) to determine the payments owed by utilities to retail suppliers under UCB. Currently, the rule only allows suppliers using UCB to be paid based on either POR (still available for C&I but terminated for residential customers) or based on a pro rata method. No utility ever developed a pro rata method for UCB once the rules were changed about 15 years ago to require either UCB with POR, or UCB with pro rata (no utility has pro rata in place for UCB). The payment posting sequence language proposed by Staff as a new alternative under UCB would allow the mechanism formerly used by the utilities for UCB before POR, which was a waterfall-type payment hierarchy.
Staff does not propose any specific payment posting sequence under UCB as part of the draft rule changes, with such sequence to be determined by future PSC order(s). However, Staff's language does preserve the ability of the PSC to authorize the use of a payment posting sequence under UCB without having to undergo a new rulemaking.
Additionally, Staff's rules would limit the late fees that retail suppliers may impose on residential customers under dual billing
Late fees would only apply if payment is not received within 20 days after the date of rendition
Under Staff's proposal, the late payment charge may equal up to 1 and 1/2 percent of the unpaid bill, and at the end of the first nominal billing interval after that, an additional charge may be made equal to 1 and 1/2 percent of any portion of the original amount which remains unpaid at the time. "At the end of the second nominal billing interval, an additional charge to be [sic] made equal to 2 percent of any portion of the original amount which remains unpaid at the time," Staff's language states
Under the draft language, the total of the late payment charges "should" not exceed 5 percent of the original unpaid amount, Staff proposes, with the proposed late payment fee provisions said to align with the existing limits on utility late fees
Further, Staff proposes that, "For suppliers utilizing late payment charges, suppliers shall apply the late payment charges to any bill or part of a bill not paid within 20 days calculated upon the net total cost less applicable taxes and, when applicable, the environmental surcharge."
Staff's draft language would modify COMAR 20.53 (electric) and 20.59 (gas). The proposed rule changes are generally identical for each commodity.
The draft changes recognize that residential POR may continue for receivables purchased prior to Jan. 1, 2026, for the purpose of cancels/rebills and similar circumstances
Staff reported that the proposed revisions were circulated to the SB1 stakeholder list, and incorporate changes based on feedback from BGE, Pepco, and Delmarva Power, and the Office of People's Counsel. Staff reported that, following discussions, Potomac Edison agreed to the proposed revisions, and that SMECO expressed no concerns.
Staff alleged that, "No responses were received from retail choice suppliers."
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 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
May 11, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Director of Broker Relations -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|