News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Parties File Comments On RESA’s Request For Clarification On Two SB1 Issues
In Maryland, comments were filed by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Washington Gas Light Company, and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative and Office of Staff Counsel and Office of People’s Counsel.
From Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Washington Gas Light Company, and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative’s (Joint Utilities) Comments:
[ *** ] First, the Supplier Coalition requests that the Maryland Public Service Commission (the “Commission”) clarify whether existing customer contracts that include variable monthly pricing but do not renew monthly fall under the grandfathering provisions of SB1. The Joint Maryland Utilities take no position on this question. However, the Commission should note that the Joint Maryland Utilities are not privy to contracts between suppliers and customers. Therefore, the Joint Maryland Utilities have no way of knowing whether customers have month-to-month contracts with suppliers or contracts that include variable monthly pricing.
Second, the Supplier Coalition requests that the Commission clarify that an account that a utility categorizes as residential, but which operates as a business should be treated as a nonresidential account for purposes of SB1 compliance. The Supplier Coalition makes this request because it alleges that the utilities “miscode” accounts served under a commercial customer name as residential. The Joint Maryland Utilities maintain that whether a customer should be classified as residential or non-residential is determined by each utilities’ Commission-approved tariff. For example, each of the rate schedules in the Exelon Utilities’ Commission-approved electric and gas tariffs include an “Availability” section that determines the customers to be served under each rate schedule. Specifically, the Availability provisions in BGE’s Electric Schedule R and Gas Schedule D residential service tariffs clearly demonstrate that it is the manner in which the premises is being utilized that dictate whether a customer is classified as residential or non-residential. Customers do not have the authority to dictate their classification.
From Office of Staff Counsel’s Comments:
[ *** ] RESA requested that the Commission provide guidance regarding residential retail supply perpetual contracts that include a price that may, and usually does, change monthly. RESA asserted that these perpetual contracts, with indefinite duration terms, be considered “grandfathered” and therefore not subject to the price caps pursuant to § 7-510(d) and § 7-604.2(b) of the Public Utilities Article. Staff disagrees with RESA. These Comments explain in detail how contract law operates on automatic renewal, month-to-month, and perpetual residential supply retail contracts. Staff concludes that SB 1’s price caps apply to each. [ *** ]
In its filing, RESA, NRG, and CleanChoice seek clarification from the Commission regarding [ *** ] whether customers with a ‘residential meter’ that the filing states are commercial retail supply customers, are subject to the trailing 12-month default gas and electric commodity service average price caps in § 7-510(d)(1)-(2) and § 7-604.2(b)(1)-(2). RESA requests that the Commission state that these customers are commercial customers. It is Staff’s position that the issue of what rate schedule the customer is served under by the utility, and whether that rate schedule is the correct rate schedule for the customer, are dictated by existing utility tariffs and thus requires no action by the Commission. [ *** ]
From Office of People’s Counsel Comments:
[ *** ] OPC recommends that the Commission exercise its authority over the retail energy supply market under Sections 7-504 to 7-517 and 7-601 to 7-607 of the Public Utilities Article (PUA), (as well as the Commission’s “implied and incidental powers” under PUA 2-112(b)(2)), and reject the supplier coalition’s assertion that existing month-to-month variable rate contracts fall within the grandfathering provision of SB1. OPC further recommends that the Commission instead rule that any month-to-month contracts described in the supplier coalition’s request be considered as renewing at the end of each 30-day period and subject to SB1’s consumer protections for any additional 30-day periods taking effect following the effective date of SB1’s consumer protection provisions on January 1, 2025.
Additionally, OPC recommends that the Commission require utilities and retail suppliers to provide additional information demonstrating that commercial customers are in fact being served on residential rate schedules before granting the supplier coalition’s request for these accounts to be treated as non-residential for the purposes of SB1. [ *** ]
View all comments here.
PC65 (07/23/2024)
(Accounts Receivable Related to Residential Electric And Gas Supply)
