|
|
|
|
|
PSC Further Revises Proposed Rules For Retail Supplier Penalties
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Georgia PSC has further modified proposed revisions to the rules governing service quality benchmarks for retail suppliers, including additional changes related to the penalties for non-compliance
The latest proposal -- a second revised NOPR -- maintains, from the first revised NOPR, the elimination of an earlier proposal that would have linked the presumptive penalty for non-compliance to a supplier's market share
The second revised NOPR maintains a presumptive penalty of $25,000 for non-compliance with a service quality (SQM) benchmark
However, the second revised NOPR modifies language concerning potential adjustments to the presumptive penalty
As before, the PSC has discretion to adjust any penalty from the presumptive amount set in rule.
But, under the second revised NOPR, only the "affected party" and/or PSC Staff may seek from the PSC an adjustment to the presumptive penalty, with the second revised NOPR explicitly providing that this adjustment may be, "up or down".
The earlier first revised NOPR would have more broadly allowed "any interested party", in addition to PSC Staff, to seek an adjustment to the penalty.
Under the second revised NOPR, an eligible party seeking an adjustment to the penalty still must "petition" the PSC for such relief.
Town Square Energy Georgia, LP had objected to requiring that a supplier must formally petition the PSC for an adjustment to the presumptive penalty amount. Town Square had suggested an informal process that would have given PSC Staff discretion to review penalty amounts, including based on discussions with retail suppliers and the nature of the non-compliance, and to present (outside of a formal petition) Staff's recommendation on the penalty for PSC review
Town Square had also requested that the PSC re-introduce presumptive penalty amounts based on market share that were set forth in the original NOPR, but that were eliminated under the first revised NOPR (see story here). The full details on the presumptive penalty amounts for each level of market share are listed in our prior story, but, as an example, the original NOPR would have established, for a supplier with a market share of 5%-10%, a presumptive penalty of $5,000 per violation
As noted, the second revised NOPR maintains a presumptive penalty of $25,000 per each non-compliance event, regardless of a supplier's market share
Town Square had argued that presumptive penalties linked to market share are appropriate given that the SQM benchmarks are percentages based on the number of non-compliance events versus the number of a supplier's relevant total customer touchpoints (e.g. number of inaccurate bills issued versus total bills issued, or number of calls not meeting the benchmark for answering time versus total calls received)
"It takes far fewer missed calls or bill errors for a small marketer to miss the SQM benchmark. As a result, each missed call or erroneous bill has much greater mathematical significance for a small marketer’s SQM compliance," Town Square had said
The second revised NOPR also modifies interim compliance benchmarks which are applicable once a supplier enters the remediation period for violations of the Call Center Service Level benchmark
The first revised NOPR would have required, for a supplier in the three-month remediation period for Call Center Service Level non-compliance, that the supplier meet the regularly applicable SQM benchmark of 80% during the third month of the remediation period (as opposed to after the end of the third month of the remediation period).
Suppliers argued that this effectively shortens the remediation period to two months, since the supplier must meet the standard benchmark of 80% during month three, as opposed to providing three full months for a supplier to reach the standard SQM level
The second revised NOPR apparently addresses this concern by providing that, during the third month of a Call Center Service Level remediation period, the supplier must meet a benchmark of 75%, not 80%
Specifically, under the Call Center Service Level remediation period, for a supplier to "pass" remediation and avoid a penalty, the supplier must meet a benchmark of 70% in month two (unchanged from the first revised NOPR), and 75% in month three
In contrast, the PSC did not modify the billing accuracy remediation period benchmarks in a similar manner
As under the first revised NOPR, the second revised NOPR provides that a supplier, in order to avoid a penalty during the billing accuracy remediation period, must meet the standard SQM benchmark of 98.5% during the second and third month of the remediation period.
Docket 15296
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 16, 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
|
|
|
|
|