Two bills were recently introduced in the California Assembly to reinstate retail electric choice. Assembly Bill 428 would compel large business and industrial customers to choose their own power providers starting in 2006, and give residential and smaller businesses customers the option to do so. Assembly Bill 816 calls for the reinstatement of retail choice under three conditions: (1) that utilities are buying their own power instead of being supplied by that state; (2) that the state has issued bonds to pay for long-term contracts; and (3) that exit fees are established for customers who left a utility service. All three circumstances have been met, though an exit fee is still being considered by state regulators, with a final decision expected by July. The full texts of AB 428 and AB 816 are available on the NEM Website.

The NYPSC has requested comments on a series of questions related to implementation of HEFPA provisions applicable to marketers. The Commission indicated it would be issuing proposed rules for comment at a later date.

The Commission is particularly interested in comments on pro rata allocation of residential and commercial customer payments on a consolidated bill. Specifically the Commission asked: 1) whether a billing party should be required to pro-rate customer payment on consolidated bills; 2) what procedures are needed to provide notice to the customer and the non-billing party that payments are pro-rated, and what customer response to the notice, if any, should be required; 3) how should payments be pro-rated - based upon the proportion of each party’s charges to the total bill; and 4) how long would it take to implement billing system modifications to provide pro-ration.

Additional questions for consideration include: 1) the effect of the statute extending HEFPA requirements to marketers; 2) whether any statutory provisions require an ESCO to provide commodity service to residential customers; 3) what should constitute effective marketer notice of customer termination and documentation, what time limits and other procedures should be required for transmitting the notice and disconnecting service, and should marketers submit sample termination notices for Department review; 4) whether marketer termination and distribution utility suspension notices should be issued jointly; 5) how can a utility verify that a marketer's customer contract allows the marketer to refuse resumption of commodity service; 6) can the distribution utility refuse to disconnect its service if it is not satisfied with marketer HEFPA compliance procedures; 7) whether the suspension of delivery service by a combination gas and electric utility that is requested by a terminating marketer limited solely to the commodity that the marketer is terminating; 8) can a marketer seek suspension of delivery service before one year elapses from the termination of commodity service, but after the customer begins service with a different marketer or returns to full utility service; 9) what constitutes a reasonable amount of time for utility disconnection of delivery service; 10) how should the value of "full utility service" be determined for purposes of customer payment to permit reconnection; 11) can marketer contracts include provisions that prohibit use of deferred payment agreements (DPAs) as a condition of service reconnection; 12) can marketers receive direct payments from social service agencies to permit service reconnection; 13) what constitutes a prohibited security deposit under the new law; 14) if the distribution utility and marketer are owed arrears that led to the suspension of service, are both entities required to offer DPAs, and, if so, must they offer a combined DPA; 15) should the same criteria be utilized for a customer’s eligibility for a DPA from a marketer and the distribution utility; 16) does the new law require allocation of customer payments if the distribution utility and the marketer each have a separate DPA with the customer or if the marketer is the only entity that has a DPA with the customer; 17) should marketers be required to offer budget billing or levelized payment plans to existing customers; 18) if the distribution utility adjusts the delivery charges on the bill as a result of customer complaint, must the marketer make a corresponding adjustment in commodity charges; 19) should the entity responsible for issuing a consolidated bill be responsible for issuing all annual notifications, or, if the marketer and utility issues separate bills, should the distribution utility be responsible for issuing annual notifications; 20) and how should marketers and utilities share responsibility for investigations related to shared meter conditions.

Initial comments are due March 17, 2003, and reply comments are due March 31, 2003. Those that wish to be on the active parties list must notify the Commission by March 3, 2003. The full text of the Notice Requesting Comments is available on the NEM Website.

The NYPSC approved the TS568 Account Receivables Advisement and TS568 Payment Advisement transaction standards and related business processes. The Commission also approved modifications to the existing TS810 Invoice - Utility Rate Ready Billing transaction standard, updates to the existing EDI test plans associated with implementation of the utility bill ready consolidated billing model and approval of test plans and remittance procedures for the single retailer model. In addition, the Commission ordered that the proposed TS810 Invoice transaction standard for ESCO consolidated billing be remanded back to the New York EDI Collaborative for further development. The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

Staff will convene Supplier of Last Resort (SOLR) and Provider of Last Resort (POLR) working group meetings on March 25, 2003, in Hearing Room 1 of the Commission's Harrisburg offices. The SOLR meeting will begin at 10:30 AM, and the POLR meeting will begin at 1:30 PM.

The SOLR working group will examine issues related to standards for Commission approval of an alternative SOLR as well as how to ensure that an alternative SOLR's rates are just and reasonable. Staff has prepared a proposal pertaining to financial and technical requirements for alternative SOLRs, the application process for alternative SOLRs and cost recovery mechanisms. Considerations will also include the extent of an alternative SOLR's responsibilities to customers. The full text of the Supplier of Last Resort Working Group Meeting Notice and Proposal is available on the NEM Website.

The POLR working group will initially consider: "1) defining the ECDs' continuing obligations to connect, deliver and acquire electricity, 2) establishing a method for determining prevailing market prices, and 3) creating a mechanism for the full recovery of all reasonable costs by the EDCs." Staff has prepared a proposal for consideration on these issues. Subsequent issues for the group to consider will include standards, rules and procedures applicable to alternative POLRs. The full text of the Provider of Last Resort Working Group Notice and Proposal is available on the NEM Website.

NEM submitted comments on Staff's proposal regarding competitive metering for C&I customers to be implemented by January 1, 2004. NEM urged the Commission to implement a timeline, which provides utilities with targeted, time-sensitive, performance-based incentives to implement the operational systems necessary to support competitive metering so the benefits of these upgrades can be realized at the earliest possible date. NEM recommended that the Commission provide shopping credits to consumers equal to the fully allocated embedded costs of all metering services and related information technologies including ownership, installation, servicing of equipment, maintenance, testing, reading, data management, validation, editing, estimations, pulse output transmission via Internet and billing. NEM urged the Commission to clarify what constitutes an eligible commercial and industrial customer and submitted that the definition be construed broadly to permit the largest number of customers to participate in the benefits of competitive metering. The full text of NEM's Comments is available on the NEM Website.

Staff has issued a report and proposed rules on electric meter ownership for industrial and large customers. By the terms of the proposed rules, customer ownership of the meter would consist of financial ownership and would result in a back-out credit on the customer's bill. However, the utility would continue to have full electronic and physical access to the meter whereas the customer will have read-only access to the meter. The utility will continue to be obligated to perform testing, replacement, customer accounting, reading and data management functions. The full text of Staff's Report and Proposed Rules is available on the NEM Website.