|
|
|
|
|
PSC To Seek Briefs On SB 1's Impact On Supplier Consolidated Billing, Set To Address SCB Implementation Pause
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Maryland PSC expects to quickly issue an order addressing whether implementation of Supplier Consolidating Billing (SCB) should be paused, while the PSC is also poised to seek briefing on the interaction of SCB and the newly enacted retail energy reform law, SB 1
As discussed further below, the PSC from the bench at its administrative meeting today set forth the above-described path of action, but, as of publication time, the PSC had not issued an order with specifics
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, and Delmarva Power & Light Company (who referred to themselves collectively as the "Exelon Utilities") had filed with the PSC a statement of intent to "pause" work on IT systems updates to implement SCB, citing SB 1's prohibition on the purchase of receivables by utilities for residential customers
After hearing the Exelon Utilities' request at today's administrative meeting today, the PSC took the matter under advisement
However, in doing so, PSC Chair Frederick Hoover said that something from the Commission will be issued "relatively quickly, like within a day or two", with such issuance focusing particularly on question of briefing (discussed further below) -- what the PSC wants briefed, and how soon it wants submissions
Hoover specifically said that within such order will be specific direction to the utilities on whether to keep working on SCB implementation, or to, "put down the shovels".
PSC Staff, in comments on the Exelon Utilities' filing, had suggested that parties brief the legal question of whether
SB 1 will preclude the further development of SCB. During the administrative meeting, Commissioners and parties discussed whether briefing should broadly address SCB in light of SB 1, or more narrowly focus on specific parts of SB 1 (such as the language concerning the POR prohibition)
The Commission did not indicate what specific issues will be briefed, which will be addressed by the forthcoming order
In comments to the PSC in advance of today's meeting, NRG Energy, Inc.; Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. d/b/a
IGS Energy; Just Energy Group, Inc.; ENGIE Resources LLC; Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.;
Vistra Corp., and their respective retail affiliates (collectively, the SCB Petitioners), the SCB Petitioners said that SB 1 does not preclude SCB and that SB 1's prohibition against residential purchase of receivables does not impact SCB, because SB 1 only prohibits the purchase of "residential electricity supply" receivables
Specifically, the SCB Petitioners said that SB 1's prohibition stating, "A residential electricity supplier may not sell to an electric company, and
an electric company may not purchase from the electricity supplier,
accounts receivable," is contained within subsection (d) of § 7-510, which expressly applies only to "residential electricity supply."
The SCB Petitioners said, "POR for SCB involves the supplier’s purchase of regulated utility charges
from the utility and the possible re-purchase by the utility of the same charges, at the same
dollar amount, in the event of a customer nonpayment."
The SCB Petitioners said, "POR for SCB has nothing to do with
electricity supply charges. Rather, its purpose is to keep the risk of unpaid regulated charges
with the utility and not transfer them to the SCB supplier. Therefore, the utilities’ concerns that
SB1 might prohibit the purchase or sale of a regulated utility receivable are misplaced and
cannot be the basis for pausing SCB implementation."
During the administrative meeting, several Commissioners expressed concern with cost recovery for SCB if retail suppliers do not participate in SCB, and that additional costs could be borne by ratepayers.
In adopting SCB, the PSC split cost recovery for SCB between SCB suppliers and distribution ratepayers, with SCB suppliers to be charged a $2 fee per supplier consolidated bill. If no suppliers use SCB, the costs allocated to SCB participants would ostensibly need to be recovered through other means
Commissioner Michael Richard noted that, in the debate concerning SB 1, several retail suppliers said, as paraphrased by Richard, "if this passes, then we're out of Maryland."
Commissioners also noted reports from the utilities that no suppliers have yet been willing to test SCB with the utilities
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 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
June 12, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Regulatory Specialist
• Sr. Market Risk Analyst -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|