Texas Won't Expand Rulemaking to Cover REPs' Disconnect/Reconnect Obligations

The Public Utility Commission of Texas will not expand the scope of a rulemaking concerning conforming changes to the disconnection and reconnection rules to address changes in retail electric providers' disconnection notices or their obligation to submit reconnection requests.

As only reported by Matters, Staff had sought guidance on whether changes to the disconnection notice, or reconnection timelines applicable to REPs, were appropriate to ensure that customers making a payment are reconnected as quickly as possible.

Staff noted that, by rule, the REP's obligation to send a reconnect request to the TDU is not triggered until, "a customer's satisfactory correction of the reasons for disconnection," and reported some REPs do not consider payments made at third-party authorized payment centers to meet "satisfactory correction" of the disconnection until the payment is posted to the REP by the authorized agent.

See prior story for greater discussion

Staff had proposed two alternatives: the first being a modified disconnection notice to inform customers of the most expeditious payment method to reconnect service; and the second being shortened reconnection timelines.

Chairman Donna Nelson noted there have been few complaints on the issue, and said that the proposals appear to attempt to fix problem where there's not anything broken.

Nelson, therefore, moved that the rulemaking should not be expanded to address these issues, as Nelson expressed concern about increased costs on REPs from changing the rules yet again, and that any such costs would be passed onto customers.

Nelson noted some REPs are already informing customers of the most expeditious payment method to effect a reconnection, while other REPs are already submitting their reconnect requests in a more expeditious manner than the timelines outlined in the rule. Nelson said that competitive market forces should be allowed to address any issues.

Commissioner Rolando Pablos agreed, noting that the issue comes down to customer service, and that if customers are dissatisfied, they will switch to another provider.

Commissioner Kenneth Anderson was prepared to take comments on the issue, questioning the cost impact any change would have on REPs since, for purposes of complying with other provisions of the rules, REPs must already consider payment received upon delivery by the customer, not the receipt or posting from an authorized agent. However, Anderson was not opposed to Nelson's approach, noting that a large number of REPs do not appear to be awaiting the posting of payments made to third-party payment agents prior to sending reconnect requests.

Nelson stressed that if reconnection problems become a big issue, the Commission can move forward at that time with any necessary changes.