Texas PUC Publishes Written Order On Elimination Of SBF-Tied Benefits, Broad Preamble
April 25,2018
The Public Utility Commission of Texas has published a written order amending various rules in light of elimination of the Lite-Up Texas program, including elimination of customer benefits previously extended to customers qualifying for the Lite-Up Texas program, such as, based solely on the customer's Lite-Up status (and regardless of whether the customer met any other eligibility criteria): the ability to pay deposits in installments, the waiver of late fees, and requirements for the offering of level and average payment plans, and deferred payment plans
As previously reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the PUC denied a proposal to require that retail electric providers extend to all residential customers the ability to pay deposits in excess of $50 in two equal installments
Consistent with discussion adopting an order at the PUC's most recent open meeting, the final order reflects revised language proposed by PUC Chairman DeAnn Walker for the final order's preamble concerning rejection of the proposal to allow all residential customers to pay deposits in installments
The published final order states, "The commission agrees with ARM that the split deposit provision would be inconsistent with PURA §17.007(c). While it is unclear the amount of the costs to the REPs as a result of the commission adopting the proposed rule to split the deposit for all customers, it is clear that there would be costs that would not be reimbursed, which would be contrary to the new provisions in SB 1976. Therefore, the commission removes the requirement for REPs to provide a two month deposit option to all customers."
As previously observed by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, such language ostensibly endorses a broad reading of SB 1976's clause concerning the PUC's authority to require customer benefits or services that result in expenses not reimbursed to the REPs
Senate Bill 1976, in adopting PURA § 17.007(c), states, "The commission may not require a retail electric provider or a certificated telecommunications utility to offer customer service, discounts, bill payment assistance, targeted bill messaging, or other benefits for which the provider or utility is not reimbursed."
As noted previously by RetailEnergyX.com, while the rest of SB1976 is aimed at low-income customers, the language of the unreimbursed expense provision is not limited, in its text itself, to low-income customer benefits, throwing into question all customer service benefits or protections contained in PUC rule for which REPs are not reimbursed
With regards to the final published order, by citing the issue of unreimbursed expenses associated with a split deposit requirement for all residential customers (not only low-income), the preamble ostensibly provides that the unreimbursed expense clause is relevant, and governing, over the proposal, suggesting that the PUC, per SB 1976, is not only prevented from adopting customer benefits that are unreimbursed for low-income customers, but for all customers. Arguably, certain customer benefits currently required under the current Substantive Rules, and which are not otherwise required specifically by PURA, require REPs to incur unreimbursed expenses, as the split deposit requirement for all customers would have done, and which, as noted above, the preamble says was contrary to SB 1976 for this reason