|
|
|
|
|
Pa. PUC Makes Changes To Eligible Customer List Guidelines
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Pennsylvania PUC issued a final order maintaining the requirement for electric and gas utilities to make Eligible Customer Lists (ECLs) available to retail suppliers, but ordered various changes to the ECL process and addressed related issues
Certain utilities and OCA had proposed that utilities cease offering the ECLs to retail suppliers
For reasons discussed more fully below, the PUC decided that utilities should still be required to provide ECLs to suppliers, but adopted several changes regarding ECLs
Most notably, the PUC ruled that once a customer opts-out of inclusion in the ECL, that opt out shall remain in effect until the customer affirmatively opts back onto the ECL
Currently, an opt-out customer must renew their opt-out under periodic ECL refreshes (currently every three years, with a change to five-year refreshes noted below)
Opt-out customers will still receive the periodic notice of the ECL, but will not have to take affirmative action to remain off of the ECL.
The PUC said that opt-out customers can change their status at any time by
contacting their utility.
The PUC will also allow the utilities to periodically inform customers of the ECL and the opt-out ability, and to receive opt-outs, through electronic means (e.g. email, etc)
Under the order, the utility, for ECL notices, is free
to use the communication method identified by the consumer as the preferred method of communicating.
However, for those customers who have not opted to receive electronic communications or billing from the utility and for those who have not provided a contact for electronic communications to the utility, the utility must provide ECL communications, "using more
traditional methods." (presumably either bill insert or separate mailing)
The PUC will allow utilities to receive ECL responses (change in status / opt-out) via the utilities' websites,
mobile app, and telephonically
To the extent the utility offers all of these listed options for customer responses, the PUC ruled that the utility may decline to offer a paper/mailed response channel for ECL opt-outs. To waive the paper response channel, the utility must offer a telephonic response option in addition to website and app; offering only an online channel and app are insufficient to remove the paper response channel, the PUC said
As noted, utilities are currently required to, every 3 years, refresh their ECLs by notifying customers of the ECL, its purpose, and the opt-out ability
The PUC extended this refresh period to every 5 years
"The five year refresh cycle is to begin immediately in that the next
refresh is to occur five years after the utilities most recent refresh," the PUC said
The PUC declined proposals from some utilities that had proposed that retail suppliers should be assigned the costs of maintaining the ECLs
The PUC said, "The ECL
is created and maintained by the utilities – it is a utility function, and any costs associated
with it is a utility cost. Keeping the function with the utility but assigning the cost
recovery to another entity (the competitive suppliers) creates a possibly problematic
paradigm wherein the utility is no longer paying the costs, then no longer has any
incentive to create and maintain the ECL in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The
competitive suppliers then would be obligated to pay costs over which they have
absolutely no ability to oversee or control. This is not a sound ratemaking or cost
recovery practice."
As noted, the PUC rejected calls to eliminate the ECL
Most prominently, the PUC cited the existence of choice-ineligible customers (such as Customer Assistance Program customers, or CAP), and the need for an ECL for suppliers to avoid marketing to and enrolling CAP customers
The ECLs include a CAP flag
The PUC called the number of CAP customers "significant" -- standing at over 460,000 electric and gas customers as of the end of 2022
The PUC said, "Without being able to screen out CAP customers, suppliers could end up soliciting and
enrolling customers who are not eligible. Utilities would then have to send out
enrollment rejection notices, and CAP customers could be left confused, under the
mistaken impression that they are able to enroll and receive service from a competitive
supplier. This all leads to wasted time and resources for suppliers, utilities and CAP
customers alike. The ECL serves an important role in avoiding all this waste and
confusion."
The PUC also said that the ECL is needed to streamline customer shopping, since enrollment requires a utility account number, or at some utilities a separate Choice ID, with the PUC noting that the customer will likely not know such number, and to which the customer will not have ready access
The PUC said, "We also think the ECL plays a crucial role in providing suppliers with the utility
number that is needed to execute a supplier switch. As NRG notes in its comments,
customers do not memorize their utility account numbers nor walk around with a utility
bill. This is further complicated by the fact that many utilities no longer use the
customer’s account number to process switching, but instead use a special number
created specifically for that purpose."
"The ECL
plays a crucial role in making this number [Choice ID, etc] available," the PUC said
The PUC also rejected arguments from ECL opponents who said that suppliers can rely on other customer information sources for marketing
"While there may be other sources of information
available to suppliers that may include names and addresses, they are not necessarily
names and addresses linked to utility service. Also these other sources do not include the
utility account number (or the special number discussed above) needed to process
switching requests," the PUC said
"Furthermore, we agree with NRG when it notes that the Commission
adopted an opt-out ECL model because the incumbent utilities, as the historical
monopoly provider, possess all the customer information – with the ECL playing a key
role in providing a more level competitive playing field. Depriving competitive suppliers
of customer information would hobble the competitive market, leading to less
competitive supplier market share and more customers on default utility service –
reinforcing the incumbent utility’s monopoly position. This is not the pathway to a
vibrant competitive market," the PUC said
"We therefore conclude that retaining the ECL is necessary for a supplier to
develop specific pricing offers and to provide suppliers with a meaningful opportunity to
attract customers. Accordingly, we will continue to direct the utilities to generate and
make available to licensed suppliers an ECL on an opt-out basis," the PUC said
The PUC stressed various existing regulations which require that ECL information is private and confidential
Citing existing regulations, the PUC noted that a supplier may not release private customer information to a third party unless the
customer has been notified of the intent and has been given a convenient method of
notifying the supplier of the customer’s desire to restrict the release of the private
information
A separate provision requires that suppliers shall
maintain the confidentiality of
a consumer’s personal information including the name, address and telephone number,
and historic payment information, and provide the right of access by the consumer to their
own load and billing information
The PUC rejected a utility's [FE] request that other communications should be allowed via electronic means, such as switch confirmation letters, as the PUC said that such matter is more appropriate for a rulemaking
"For the
same reason," the PUC rejected OCA’s suggestion to create a "Do Not Switch" list.
Notably, the PUC said, "While these
suggestions from FE and OCA may have merit, they would have to be explored and
vetted via a formal rulemaking proceeding involving the switching regulations at 52 Pa.
Code Chapters 57 and 59."
The PUC rejected a proposal from RESA to add customer email
addresses to the ECL, "for generally the same reasons we do not include customer phone
numbers on the ECL."
"In weighing the policy concerns of promoting competition against
the privacy concerns and expectations of customers, we think the inclusion of email
addresses is unnecessary," the PUC said
The PUC emphasized that the ECL communications from utilities must be "neutral", but declined to take a more active role in managing utilities' specific communications
Retail suppliers have raised concern that some ECL communications to customers have gone beyond information and have encouraged customers to opt-out
The PUC said, "RESA and NRG ask that the Commission, and other stakeholders, play a
greater role in overseeing the development of utility messaging to customers concerning
the ECL. These parties point to utility refresh messages that they believe go beyond the
intent of the refresh (to remind customers of the ECL and their ability to opt-out), and
instead actively encourages customers to opt-out. These suppliers believe that this is
discriminatory and anti-competitive."
The PUC said, "We conclude that utility communications to
customers must be neutral in that they inform the customer of the existence of the ECL;
what it is and its purpose; what information is included on the ECL; how this information
is to be used by suppliers; how the information is to be safeguarded by utilities and
suppliers; and the potential benefits to the customers of having their information included
on the ECL. The notice should then inform the customer of their ability to opt-out (or to
opt back in if they are already out) and how to do so."
The PUC said, "However, we decline taking a more
active, interventionist role in developing this messaging at this time."
M-2010-2183412
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
Addresses Proposal For "Do Not Switch" List
March 13, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|