Influential Texas Website Proposes "Range" of Retail Providers' Customer Count Be Disclosed by PUCT

TexasElectricityRatings.com, an influential Texas website with a record of driving discussion on electric market issues, has suggested that the Public Utility Commission of Texas publish a "ballpark range" of each retail electric provider's customer count, to provide greater transparency, particularly with regards to complaints.

In a blog posting concerning the utility of the PUCT's current complaint scorecard, TexasElectricityRatings.com suggested that the scorecard information should include a "range" of sizes for each retail electric provider.

TexasElectricityRatings.com is notable for making issues front and center in the Texas market, as it did most recently with questions concerning certain wholesale market outcomes in ERCOT, which prompted a response from the IMM.

Under the PUCT scorecard, REPs are scored into five groupings of approximately equal size based on a 6-month rolling average of complaint rates per 1,000 customers relative to other companies.

The complaint scorecard was recently expanded to include all REPs who meet a new threshold of 2,500 customers, but other than meeting this threshold level, no information on the size of each REP is disclosed.

"[I]f the commission is going to rate companies in part based on their size, shouldn't a range of sizes for each entity be provided to the customer as well," TexasElectricityRatings.com posits.

"Consumers should be able to see a general idea of how many customers a specific REP has in the state of Texas, or at the very least a ballpark range," the blog states.

"I don't think anyone is looking for specific customer counts, mind you, as that seems proprietary," TexasElectricityRatings.com stresses.

See more at TexasElectricityRatings.com's blog post

Of states with retail electric choice, Matters is only aware of two, Connecticut and Michigan, which disclose the individual customer count of each retail provider.

In Connecticut, this information is published monthly, about 15 days after the end of the reporting month.

In Michigan, the information is only published annually with data as of the year-end, in a report published about one month after the end of the calendar year. The Michigan disclosure also includes MW served by each retail supplier.

Various parties have repeatedly sought disclosure of ESCO customer counts in New York, and while such requests have been denied to date, the newly opened New York retail market investigation could address this issue yet again.