Document Search
Site Search
Advanced Search
Updates & Alerts
News & Media
Upcoming Meetings
Deregulation Library
Member Services
Ambit Energy
Blue Rock Energy
Columbia Utilities
Consumer Energy Solutions Inc
Dickinson Wright
Energy Next
First Energy
Forest Capitol LLC
Glacial Energy
GCS Agents
Goeken Group
Haines and Company Inc.
IDT Energy
Interstate Gas Supply
Infinite Energy
Integrys Energy Services
Intelligent Energy
MX Energy
National Fuel Resources, Inc
PPL Solutions
ProLiance Energy
Shell Energy
South Star
Spark Energy
Suburban energy
USCL Corporation
Vectren Source
Voice Log BSG
Washington Gas Energy Services Inc.
Former Members
Accent Energy
Agl resources
Commerce Energy
ConEdison Solutions
Electric America
Energy America
Energy Source
Goodwatts Energy
Green Mountain
ICE Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
InBusiness TeleServices
Liberty Power
Matrix Imaging
Media Fusion
National Grid
New York Energy
New York Mercantile Exchange
Pinnacle West
PowerDirect Telemarketing
The SPI Group
Watts Marketing & Management Services, Inc.
November 22, 2013
NEM Winter Executive Committee Meeting

Please mark your calendar and plan to join us for our Winter Executive Committee Meeting on January 27-29, 2014. The meeting will be held at SCRA headquarters located at 5300 International Blvd., Charleston, South Carolina. Many thanks to Bill Mahoney and SCRA for once again hosting this important meeting. Please REGISTER at your earliest convenience so that we can plan for an appropriate amount of meeting materials. NEM has a block of rooms available at the Hilton Garden Inn for meeting attendees.

NEM Annual National Energy Restructuring Conference

Please mark your calendars and plan to attend NEM’s Annual National Energy Restructuring Conference to be held April 29th-May 1st, 2014. This Conference is NEM’s premier event in which we host top energy industry regulators and legislators to share their views on the cutting edge issues in competitive energy markets. Registration is available at this hotlink. Accommodations are available at the Embassy Suites Washington, DC - Convention Center at this hotlink.

2013 Report on Enforcement

FERC Enforcement Staff issued its 2013 Report on Enforcement. Enforcement Staff priorities for 2013, continuing into 2014, identified are: fraud and market manipulation; serious violations of the Reliability Standards; anticompetitive conduct; and conduct that threatens the transparency of regulated markets.

It reports that in 2013, "DOI staff opened 24 new investigations while bringing 29 to closure with no action, a settlement, or a formal enforcement proceeding. Enforcement’s settlements in FY2013 included the largest civil penalty the Commission has assessed to date. During FY2013, staff obtained a total of over $304 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of almost $141 million in unjust profits."

The full text of the 2013 Report on Enforcement is available on the NEM Website.

Click here to view all past updates.
Commission to Consider Changes to Consumer Protection Rules

The Commission has observed an increase in marketing to residential and small commercial customers. It also reports concerns have arisen in this regard with respect to presentation of misleading information, autmoatic renewals at different terms, customer account transfers among suppliers, and supplier and customer obligations in the fixed term contracts. As a result it has determined to review existing consumer protection regulations to consider the following proposed changes:

"*A requirement that any comparison with standard offer include the term length for both standard offer and the CEP offer;
*A prohibition in promotional or marketing activities on any suggestion that the CEP is associated with the utility, as well as a requirement for clear identification of an entity as a competitive provider of electricity not associated with the utility;
*A prohibition on automatic renewals without affirmative customer consent if the price or other significant terms (e.g., length of contract term) are changed;
*A prohibition of the transfer of customer accounts to another CEP unless the previous terms are honored, and customers are given the option to change suppliers; and
*A requirement that any contract that binds customers for a particular term also bind the supplier for a same term (e.g., contract cannot obligate customers for a 12 month term, while simultaneously allowing the supplier to terminate at any time)."

The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

Click here to view all past updates.
MIPSC and Michigan Energy Office Submit Final Electric Choice Report

Following on Governor Snyder's Special Message on Energy and the Environment that was issued last year which charged the Commission and Michigan Energy Office with undertaking an information gathering process to formulate state energy policy, a final report on electric choice has been submitted to the Governor. Since the draft version of the report was posted, additional information has been included in the report pertaining to choice participation, customer savings and the impact of the choice cap change on the financial stability of utilities; rate levels in deregulated versus regulated states; and rate volatility and pricing stability.

The Report discusses issues associated with three different electric choice policy outcomes, namely adjusting the current 10% shopping cap; moving to full regulation; or moving to full customer choice or full deregulation.

Policy considerations attendant with adjusting the shopping cap were described in the report as, "Should a modification to the cap be implemented, policymakers may consider the level of the adjustment to the cap as well as the possible implications of such an adjustment. In consideration of the adjusted cap, there could also be the potential of setting separate caps for different classes of customers. Policymakers could also consider granting the MPSC the authority to adjust the cap, which may provide for increased flexibility and responsiveness in the long run administration of the program. Although not required, policymakers could consider and address the additional loss of full-service load that a regulated utility may expect to experience and how the loss of such load should be handled for ratemaking purposes. Examples of these considerations may relate to the possible provision for immediate rate relief for large volume losses to customer choice or alternatively the requirement that a utility not be able to project customer choice load loss as part of a rate case before the loss has materialized. This option assumes that the generation assets of any affected utility operating under an adjusted cap would remain regulated by the MPSC, although that may be a policy consideration depending on the cap amount and other factors. Policymakers may also be confronted with issues related to allocation of certain types of costs to full-service customers versus all customers, including those on choice."

Regarding a move to full regulation, the report identifies these policy considerations: "A decision to move to full regulation would require policy considerations regarding the implementation process. Specifically, it would be necessary to determine what would be done with customers currently taking service from an AES. There are many paths that could be taken during the transition to full regulation. Customers being served by an AES could be allowed to continue the service through the end of their contract or could be asked to go back to full service by a certain date. Policymakers could also consider allowing current choice customers to remain on choice until a time when they choose to take full service from the utility, simply closing the door to new entrants. This provision could also be extended to customers currently waiting to move to customer choice. Although not presented in the public comments, policymakers should be aware of and consider the potential impact and ramifications of interference with contracts within a move to full regulation (or decrease of the 10% cap). The provisions outlined above may or may not impact current choice contracts in such a transition. These are just a few of the many possible paths policymakers could take to transition to full regulation."

Finally, with respect to a move to full customer choice or full deregulation (no regulated rate option), the policy considerations identified in the report include: "A move to full deregulation (no regulated rate offering) is an option that requires considerable policy consideration. The main points of consideration would be whether or not to require the divestiture of generation assets and the treatment of stranded costs, if applicable. Policymakers could consider requiring the divestiture of generation assets, whether such divestiture is to an unregulated affiliate of the utility, spun off to create a new public entity or a sale to an independent party. In lieu of this, divestiture may not be required but could be incentivized by other policy considerations. Should divestiture be required, policymakers may need to consider the treatment of stranded costs and whether these costs would be allowed to be collected from customers. In addressing stranded costs, policymakers may consider the option of allowing for securitization of the assets. Given the potential impact of the collection of the stranded costs, policymakers may also give consideration to temporary rate freezes or other rate structures for the default provider during this transition period."

The full text of the Energy Choice Report is available on the NEM Website.

* Member Login :

User ID: 



*****   Click Here to stop receiving NEM Regulatory Updates    *****

3333 K Street, N.W., Suite 110
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: (202) 333-3288     Fax: (202) 333-3266

© Copyright 2004 National Energy Marketers Association