|
|
|
|
|
Given New Dual Billing Mandate, Retail Suppliers Propose Compliance Mechanism To Allow UCB, Without POR, To Continue
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) and CleanChoice Energy Inc. (the supplier coalition) have proposed at the Maryland PSC a mechanism under which utility consolidated billing could continue for new and renewed customers, while also ensuring that receivables for such customers are not purchased by the utility, as an alternative to the PSC's recently adopted ban on UCB for new and renewed residential customers
As previously reported, due to SB1, the PSC ordered that residential POR may only continue for existing contracts (which must be fixed rates), and with such grandfathering lasting only through December 31, 2025 (the PSC's "POR order" or "billing order")
Because of system limitations which prevent the utilities from offering both UCB with POR for grandfathered contracts, and UCB without POR for new & renewed contracts (and also the time needed to develop a new payment logic for non-POR UCB), the PSC ordered that UCB shall not be permitted for new & renewed contracts, which must be billed under dual billing or supplier consolidated billing
Retail suppliers previously informed the PSC that suppliers would need 12 to 18 months for suppliers to implement dual billing in Maryland. SCB is not in place at any utility, except at WGL, where it was introduced on an ad-hoc basis separate from statewide implementation
Given this year-plus period in which no supplier enrollments may realistically occur due to the lack of UCB, the supplier coalition offered alternatives to allow UCB but to also comply with SB1's prohibition on POR for new and renewed residential service
The supplier coalition suggested that retail suppliers could identify and report to the utilities a supplier's new or renewed residential customers, which would result in the utilities paying $0 for such customers' receivables; or the supplier could "promptly" refund the utility any paid receivables for such non-grandfathered customers, in order to reverse any payment related to a receivable which may not be purchased
The supplier coalition further said, "the Supplier Coalition requests that the Commission allow suppliers to enroll and renew customers into SB1-compliant products, and to submit reports to the utilities to ensure that the utilities are not purchasing their residential receivables."
Additionally, the supplier coalition, whose requests were included in a motion for rehearing, asked that the PSC stay its order that non-grandfathered customers be dropped from UCB (and that UCB is prohibited for new customers), until such time as the PSC addresses the rehearing petition
The supplier coalition also sought modification of the PSC's established end date for grandfathered UCB with POR, noting that it is likely that most utilities will not have a non-POR UCB alternative in place at the time of such end date
Specifically, the PSC set an end date of December 31, 2025 for UCB with POR for grandfathered contracts. As previously reported, PSC Staff had proposed a June 1, 2026 end date for grandfathered POR, which was the earliest date by which a majority of the utilities could implement a new form of non-POR UCB (such June 2026 start date was estimated as of the fall of 2024; given that the PSC's end-of-POR order was issued at the end of Dec. 2024, the earliest start of non-POR UCB is now likely beyond June 1, 2026 at most utilities)
The supplier coalition opposed this "gap" in the offering of UCB, and favored setting the end of grandfathered UCB with POR as June 1, 2026, or an extended date if necessitated by specific utility implementation. The supplier coalition argued that no party opposed a June 1, 2026 end date for grandfathered UCB with POR
The supplier coalition also requested that the PSC clarify that a subset of variable rate contracts will be granted grandfathered status, and thus eligible for UCB with POR
As previously reported, the PSC in its billing order essentially denied grandfathered POR for any existing contract which has a change in rate (with grandfathered status terminating at the time of any rate change; see more nuanced discussion here)
The supplier coalition said that it was not seeking to re-litigate any prior PSC determination on variable rate contracts, but sought clarification from the PSC that the following specific type of contract is eligible for grandfathering: a residential contract that: (1) was entered into before January 1, 2025; (2) with a specific end date after January 1, 2025; (3) that authorizes the supplier to alter the supply price monthly; and (4) that does not auto-renew at the end of the agreement
The supplier coalition said that since these contracts have a specific end date and do not auto-renew, their continued service, albeit at a different rate, reflects an existing contract. SB1 provides that existing contracts shall not be disturbed by SB1, and thus the suppliers asked that these contracts, described above, be granted grandfathered status.
PSC Commissioners have previously noted, with respect to POR, that the program was created by the Commission, and thus POR program terms (such as eligibility) may be altered independently of SB1 (an initial PSC order on SB1 & POR also included a similar observation)
The supplier coalition asked that the PSC stay any requirement to drop such above-described variable price customers to dual billing, pending the outcome of the rehearing request
The retail suppliers also sought clarification that the PSC's billing order does not apply to non-residential service, consistent with the intent of SB1
As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the PSC's billing order had stated that utilities are not "required" to offer "any" utility consolidated billing as of January 1, 2026
As noted by ECM last month, the explicit language in such direction from the PSC was not expressly limited to residential service
The suppliers also made note of references within the PSC's order limiting billing options for "any" month to month contract, and "all" remaining contracts, without an express limitation that such descriptions are for residential contracts only
Given other language in the PSC's order which does narrow the order's scope to residential customers, "[T]he Supplier Coalition believes that the Commission intended for the POR Order to apply only to residential contracts, but the language in the POR Order itself is so broad that it could be misconstrued down the road," the supplier coalition said
The supplier coalition asked that the PSC clarify that its POR order does not apply to non-residential customers, and that, "non-residential customers will continue to receive UCB with POR and not be subject to the POR or UCB end dates or the 'good faith negotiations' regarding UCB, and other provisions of the POR Order."
PC65, PC 65
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 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
Suppliers Seek Stay Of Dual Billing Requirement, Attendant Drop Of Customers To SOS If Supplier Can't Dual Bill
January 27, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Manager / Director of Sales, PJM Commercial
|
|
|
|
|