Supplier Consolidated Billing Revisited

Back in 2018 I wrote an article explaining all the reasons why supplier consolidated billing (“SBC”) was a good idea.[1]  Then, this morning, I saw an article in Energy Choice Matters, and it provided yet another reason why SBC should be the law.[2]  In the ECM story, the recently announced strategic initiatives of FirstEnergy Corp. (“FE”) were discussed, including an initiative to expand its offerings of products and services other than commodity to its captive electric distribution customers.   The FE press release extolled that these are “products and services that customers want” including energy efficient lighting, smart home products, maintenance, warranty, and home services.  These are all products and services that electric generation suppliers (“EGS”) and natural gas suppliers (“NGS”) provide to their customers and similarly wish to bill along with the commodity charges on a single bill.  The discussion makes it clear that FE believes that the billing relationship with customers is a key means of providing value to customers in the form of desirable products and services conveniently billed along with energy while providing incremental income opportunities for the provider of that commodity.  The article reveals another data point and strengthens the argument for SBC on grounds that not allowing it demonstrates discrimination and lack of fairness.

It is ironic that it is FE that is making this announcement, because FE presently is involved in litigation over this very issue, i.e., that billing for its own products and services on the utility bill while refusing to bill for suppliers serving customers on its system, for the exact same products and services, is discriminatory.  That matter is presently before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and should be decided soon. Unfortunately, resolution of that case is not likely to result in supplier consolidated billing being permitted, but at least could provide more fairness, via access to the utility bill for non-commodity products and services, which is the second-best choice.

 

[1] https://www.hmslegal.com/why-the-skeptics-are-wrong-about-supplier-consolidated-billing

[2] http://www.energychoicematters.com/stories/20210128a.html.

Electricity Default Service Plans – The Next Generation

Two electric distribution companies, First Energy and PECO Energy Company, have filed their default service plans for service that will begin in 2013 – before the PUC has issued final guidance on what those plans should include.

In an apparent effort to be the first ones through the gate, both companies have filed their plans, and are litigating those plans, before the Commission has issued final guidance as to what it expects to be contained in those plans.  The Commission Order addressing the specifics of the next generation default service plans is expected to be issued in the first week of March.

The Commission issued a Tentative Order at Docket No. I-2011-2237952, proposing requirements for default service plans for the June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015 time period.  Shortly thereafter, the First Energy Companies submitted a Joint Petition seeking approval of their own view of what default service should look like in the future.  The First Energy plan, which does not exactly track the Commission Order, does include competitive enhancements such as a retail opt-in auction and customer referral program.  Perhaps the most novel proposal is First Energy’s market adjustment charge which would be a half cent adder to the price to compare that will compensate the companies for the risk of providing default service.  The First Energy matter is being litigated before a Commission ALJ and should be resolved in the fall of 2012.

Following close behind the First Energy Companies, PECO filed its default service plan for the June 2013 through May 2015 in early January.  It too has proposed retail opt-in auctions and customer referral programs.  A prehearing conference in that case will be held in early March.

As the litigation of these two cases proceeds, the parties will have to wait and see what the Commission’s expected Final Order in the Retail Markets Investigation process yields with regard to guidance on the default service plans for that same time period.  Based upon ALJ Elizabeth Barnes’ recent ruling in the First Energy case, we may see testimony adjustments in those ongoing cases as a result.

The Commission has been investigating ways to improve the competitiveness of the retail electricity market in Pennsylvania for nearly a year and the Final Order on the next default service plans, which is expected to be issued shortly, will likely not be the final word.

Stay Tuned….