|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Order Would Deny Utility's Tariff Change To End Retail Choice For Certain Customers
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A proposed decision from a Maryland Public Utility Law Judge (PULJ) would deny a lighting tariff change at Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative that would have, among other things, ended retail choice for the lighting customers at issue
The proposed lighting tariff change was made as part of a distribution rate case at SMECO.
Specifically, SMECO proposed to merge its two current lighting tariffs -- Area Lighting Service (Schedule AL) and Street Lighting Service (Schedule SL) -- into a single lighting tariff, Schedule LS -Lighting Service
Under the language of the current AL and SL tariffs, customers under those schedules may choose a competitive retail electric provider
In the rate case, SMECO proposed that customers under the new schedule LS would not be eligible to shop for a retail electric supplier
SMECO said during the case that, while the current lighting tariffs AL and SL provide for customer choice in electric supplier, SMECO has never "offered" retail choice to these lighting customers. SMECO said that it is actually not currently able to accommodate customer switches for these lighting classes, and would need to first undertake necessary system changes. If any AL or SL customer currently attempts to shop, the enrollment would be denied
SMECO said that it is not aware of any retail suppliers offering service to lighting customers in its service area, and said that undertaking billing system changes to allow for retail choice for lighting customers would cost $350,000
No retail suppliers intervened in the proceeding
However, Maryland PSC Staff opposed the use of a rate case to eliminate customer choice for lighting customers. Staff's stated concerns were essentially procedural, and, as such, Staff did not address the merits of whether retail choice should continue for lighting customers at SMECO
Staff said that the elimination of retail choice for lighting customers is a question of "policy" that requires "written justification" in seeking approval from the PSC for such a change. (SMECO in its original rate application had filed tariffs eliminating retail choice under new rate class LS, but did not discuss such change narratively, with SMECO's arguments supporting the modification raised in reply testimony after Staff had raised concerns)
In light of SMECO's statement that it is not currently offering retail choice to lighting customers not withstanding PSC-approved tariff language providing for retail choice specifically in the lighting classes, Staff had recommended that the PSC direct SMECO to file with the PSC, in a separate proceeding apart from the rate case, a review of the current status of customer choice for lighting customers. SMECO would, in such separate case, be free to propose any changes to retail choice for lighting customers, Staff said
The PULJ agreed with Staff that the question of retail choice for lighting customers should not be adjudicated in a rate case
The proposed withdrawal of retail choice eligibility for lighting customers, "involves policy considerations that extend well beyond the scope of a rate case and should be decided in a separate proceeding," the PULJ said
The PULJ's proposed order would not specifically direct SMECO to make a status filing regarding retail choice for lighting customers as proposed by Staff (SMECO would be free to make such a filing of its own volition), but the proposed order would deny the changes to the AL and SL tariffs which had included the proposed end of retail choice for lighting customers
Under the proposed order, the PULJ would deny the proposed merger of the AL and SL lighting classes into new rate class LS on various grounds concerning cost of service and revenue requirements. The existing AL and SL tariffs would remain in place, including their language allowing for a choice in retail supplier
The proposed order would approve the removal of language in certain SOS Time of Use rate classes which currently states that customers in these SOS TOU classes may take service from a competitive retail supplier. The TOU rates in such rate classes are limited to the SOS rate, with no time-based rates for any other charge in the non-SOS rates applicable to that rate class (distribution, etc.), and with the non-SOS rates identical to the rates in the associated standard (non-TOU) class. In other words, if a customer in these TOU classes shopped, they would bypass the TOU SOS rate, which is the only distinguishing feature of the TOU rate class. As such, retail choice under these classes is indistinguishable from the associated non-TOU rate class, and retail choice for such customers would be accomplished under the associated standard non-TOU rate class for such customers. This change was not opposed by any party to the rate case
Case 9738
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
October 4, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Policy and Research, Retail Energy
• NEW! -- Director, Load Forecasting
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Wholesale Markets Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Origination Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Settlements Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Billing Supervisor
|
|
|
|
|