About

Archive

Contact

Consulting

Abbreviations

Search

Advance Pay REPs Seek to Link AMS Deployment to Proposed Prohibition on Advance Pay Products

Email This Story
December 7, 2010

Several REPs currently offering prepaid service in ERCOT without the use of a customer prepayment device or system (defined here as advanced pay, also known as financial prepaid service) urged the PUCT to not eliminate the ability of REPs to offer prepaid service based on estimated usage for those customers who do not yet have a provisioned advanced meter (38675).  

As first reported in Matters, Staff has proposed amendments to Subst. R. 25.498 which would eliminate the ability of REPs to offer prepaid service using estimated usage, and would require them to use a customer prepayment device or system (10/11).

Filing as the REP Group, several advance pay providers or vendors, including Acacia Energy, Andeler Power, Apollo Power and Light, ePsolutions, Penstar Power, and Pocket Power noted that advanced meter deployment will not be complete until 2013.  Meanwhile, customers currently on an advance pay product (estimated by Staff as 3% of the residential market), would be forced by the rule to transition to a post-pay product -- "often at a considerable financial hardship, simply because they do not currently have a specific meter type installed," the REP Group said.

The REP Group said that advance pay products should only be prohibited for customers with provisioned advanced meters.  

For consumers not having an advanced meter installed at their location as of the effective date of the rule, prepay service for those customers under a new contract should not have to comply with amended Subst. R. 25.498 until 45 days after smart meter installation, the REP Group suggested.  “Beginning six months after the installation date [of the smart meter], a REP shall not renew a contract for prepaid service that does not comply with this section," the REP Group added.

Young Energy LLC also supported linking the prohibition on advance pay products to the deployment of advanced meters, and said that in the interim, the Staff's concerns regarding estimated advance pay products could be addressed through more stringent advanced pay rules, such as requiring true-ups within 90 days, requiring reporting of true-ups and deviations as part of REPs' performance measures reporting, and inviting Commission oversight of REPs' estimation methodology.

Main Street Energy, a start-up which said that it soon intends to seek a REP certificate and enter the ERCOT market, similarly said that more frequent true-ups for advance pay customers, such as every 60 days, could be required to permit the advance pay product to continue while advanced meters are installed.  Main Street Energy reported that due to the unfavorable economics of customer prepayment devices other than advanced meters, REPs will not likely offer prepaid service to customers without advanced meters unless it is through the advance pay model.

Main Street Energy raised concerns that customers served on advance pay products could, due to credit issues, end up on POLR if the advance pay product is prohibited and such customers do not yet have advanced meters.  While not taking a position on the issue, the Office of Public Utility Counsel did, "highlight[] its concerns to the Commission relating to those current residential electric customers obtaining prepaid service that may be left without a viable service provider or product," under the proposed rule.

Nations Power took a different approach.  Rather than delay the prohibition on advance pay products coincident to the smart meter deployment schedule, Nations Power asked that REPs offering prepaid service to a customer, in order to offer a product not relying on estimated usage, be allowed to direct the distribution utility to install an advanced meter at the new prepay customer's premises upon enrollment, regardless of the utility's smart meter deployment schedule.

Direct Energy, First Choice Power, and the Alliance for Retail Markets opposed any continuation of advance pay products once the amended §25.498 takes effect, suggesting a 60-day transition period for existing customers to be transitioned off of advance pay products.

Consumer Advocate Comments
Texas Legal Services Center and Texas Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy offered the following recommendations:

TSLC and Texas ROSE also argued that the proposed rule is in violation of PURA § 39.101 since it accelerates the timetable for disconnection of service.  Under PURA, the disconnect timeline is based on the provision of a "bill," which does not occur in the prepay model.

REP Coalition Comments
Main points from the REP Coalition's comments include:

The REP Coalition is comprised of: Acacia Energy, LLC; Andeler Power; Andeler Retail; Apollo Power and Light, LLC; CPL Retail Energy, LP; Direct Energy, LP; ePsolutions, Inc; Fulcrum Retail Holdings LLC (Amigo Energy and Tara Energy); Gexa Energy, LP; PenStar Power, LLC; Pocket Power; TXU Energy Retail Company LLC; and WTU Retail Energy, LP.


Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing

Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters

Call Paul Ring

954-205-1738

 

 

 

 

 

Energy Choice
                            

Matters

About

Archive

Contact

Consulting

Abbreviations

Search