Maryland PSC Staff: "Overly Simplistic" To Conclude PSC Has Already Mandated Supplier Consolidated Billing

Staff of the Maryland PSC have opposed the relief sought from several retail suppliers, who have asked that the PSC implement supplier-consolidated billing (SCB) for electricity and natural gas by June 30, 2019, as Staff proposed that SCB be addressed in a collaborative process

See prior story for background on suppliers' SCB petition

Staff said that it, "has been generally supportive of SCB when the issue was presented."

Discussing the history of SCB in Maryland, and petitioners' argument that SCB is mandated under law, Staff said, "Based on a review of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions as well as the case law ... one could even conclude that the Commission has already mandated supplier consolidated billing. However, that conclusion would be overly simplistic since the Commission denied an applicant authority to provide SCB less than two months ago on the grounds that SCB, even without purchase of utility receivables, is not in the public interest '[U]ntil a clear regulatory framework for supplier-consolidated billing is adopted.'"

"Consistent with the Commission's letter order and the various gaps and inconsistencies described above [sic] maintains that supplier consolidated billing cannot without more [sic] be mandated by a date certain," Staff said

"Rather only once all the regulatory pieces have been assembled after examination by the stakeholders, can the full product of 'supplier consolidated billing' be presented to the Commission for its consideration and decision. Thus, Staff advocates that the Commission not mandate supplier consolidated billing in a vacuum but convene a Working Group comprised of representatives of the retail suppliers, the utilities, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Commission Staff, and other interested stake holders to consider the appropriate parameters for SCB, which in total would constitute the manner in which SCB would be accomplished in Maryland should these meet with Commission approval," Staff said

"SCB is complicated and retail choice issues are typically handled through a collaborative process with Commission guidance as needed. The Petition contains numerous suggestions, proposed rules, business practices and other issues that are best addressed in a setting that allows parties to ask questions, discuss alternatives and consider unintended consequences. The proposal does not lend itself to a litigated proceeding for determination, due to its complexity. Staff supports establishing a Working Group to address the Petition; however, the schedule should contain sufficient time to develop positions, collect data, design business processes/electronic transactions, review similar programs in other states, and contain entertain such other matters as may be necessary. The Commission, if it agrees, should direct the utilities and other interested stakeholders to participate in good faith to address the proposal in a reasonable time and provide some guidance on the willingness of the Commission to consider a program that allows termination of customers for non-utility commodity debt. If the Commission convenes a Working Group, a schedule should be developed after some initial discussions with the Working Group and presented to the Commission for approval," Staff said

Staff proposes that, to the extent the Commission authorizes a SCB regime, "there be specific qualifications for retail suppliers who provide SCB and that such suppliers be allowed to purchase the receivables of the utilities."

However, Staff does not recommend that the Commission adopt any of the policy recommendations proposed by petitioners at this time, but rather wait until the stakeholders have discussed the issue of SCB and its ramifications in order to present a SCB regime for the Commission's review.

"Staff requests any guidance the Commission may wish to offer at this time on the issue of supplier termination of service for non-payment," Staff said

Staff's working group proposal would bring a finished conceptual product consistent with any guidance the Commission provides as a result of stakeholder comments and hearing, if any. "Staff's conceptual product could be followed very quickly by regulations once approved in whole or in part by the Commission. However, a satisfactory set of regulations depends on resolution of whatever issues underlie the regulations themselves," Staff said

To the extent consensus is not reached in the working group, "Staff suggests a full report covering all issues, with guidance from the Commission as necessary followed by proposed regulations and a rulemaking, if appropriate," Staff proposed

"Staff is not submitting a schedule because it is Staffs position that a schedule would be premature at this time," Staff said of SCB

Consistent with its prior comments, the Maryland Energy Administrator supported implementation of SCB, stating that proper implementation of SCB, "is a crucial step toward a more customer-focused energy market and would cement Maryland as a national leader."

"MEA supports a more ambitious timeline than the one proposed. Ideally, SCB would begin by the end of 2018," MEA said