The Connecticut PURA issued a final report to the General Assembly on electric supplier consolidated billing, and consistent with a draft, the report doubts the benefits of SCB, while concluding SCB would create customer confusion

First, the report concludes that SCB cannot be implemented without a statutory change

The report also says that, "shifting the responsibility of consolidated billing from the EDCs to potentially 50-plus Suppliers would, in the Authority’s view, likely increase customer confusion and decrease customer service satisfaction. The EDCs are and will most likely continue to be the best equipped to address issues pertaining to the services that they provide. It is not reasonable for these entities to address issues concerning each other provider’s services. Additionally, customer confusion under the current UCB may be alleviated by modifying the UCB billing format to more prominently display Supplier information and responsibilities."

"The billing of all electric services by a multitude of Suppliers at this time does not seem practical. The reasons are numerous. First, and foremost, there does not appear to be real benefits to ratepayers. If the desired result is to offer ratepayers the convenience of a single electric bill, the UCB is the most administratively and perhaps cost efficient way to provide this benefit. Second, while there is interest among some Suppliers who participated in this proceeding to provide SCB, the lack of Supplier participation in this proceeding seems to infer that to many, especially smaller companies, the interest in SCB is also lacking. Requiring the EDCs to make the necessary and potentially costly changes to their respective customer information systems and other processes to accommodate SCB for a small number of interested Suppliers would not be practical. Third, the billing components of electric service consist of numerous charges, the vast majority of which are for services provided or administered by the EDCs. These EDC charges are very complex with some having annual or semi-annual reconciliation mechanisms. Fourth, while the costs are unknown, it appears likely that enabling the EDCs to transfer the necessary billing information and for the Suppliers to obtain the necessary resources to successfully assume the billing responsibility could be costly to the EDCs and Suppliers and ultimately, to ratepayers. Fifth, other options exist for Suppliers to achieve the same or similar desired result. Finally, given the responsibilities that the EDCs have for billing aspects, such as meter installation and reading, bill inserts, and implementing rate changes, transferring the billing responsibilities to entities that have no responsibilities in these matters seems ill advised," the report concludes

See the full report (13-08-15)