Texas Register, Volume 35, Number 42, Pages 9167-9436, October 15, 2010 Page: 9,245
9167-9436 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Reliant recommended that proposed subsection (h)(3) be modi-
fied to clarify that the 6-month true-up and the monthly average
of the payment amount are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Commission Response
The commission notes that the rule allows a REP to make de-
ferred payment plans available at any time of the year. The
commission believes that the effect of requiring REPs to offer
deferred payment plans only during certain times of the year is
mitigated by the expansion of customer eligibility for payment
plans.
The commission concurs with the REP Group's recommendation
to use a 12-month reconciliation for any over- or under-payments
to minimize volatility for the customer. The commission also
agrees with the REP Group recommendation to use the term rec-
oncile rather than the terms bill or credit to be consistent with how
level and average payment plans are implemented by REPs. Ad-
ditionally, the commission agrees with the REP Group's recom-
mendations to restore the phrases "consistent with the REP's
terms of service" and "at least" to provide REPs flexibility in the
provisioning of level and average payment plans. The commis-
sion amends the rule accordingly.
During post-comment meetings, Consumers did not oppose the
REP Group recommendation to require reconciliation of level or
average payment plans at least every 12 months rather than ev-
ery 6 months as in the proposed rule, as long as language was
added to require the REP to describe the reconciliation process
for a level payment plan and that REPs be required to collect
any under-payments over a period no less than the reconcilia-
tion period. The commission agrees with the REP Group that the
twelve month reconciliation would result in less payment volatil-
ity for the customer and the rule being adopted includes the re-
quirement that level or average payment plans be reconciled at
least every twelve months. The commission also agrees with
Consumers that REPs should be required to describe the rec-
onciliation process to customers at the time the level payment
plan is established. The commission modifies the proposed rule
accordingly.
New Paragraph (4)
The REP Group proposed an additional paragraph that would
allow REPs to require customers enrolling in a level or aver-
age payment plan to pay no greater than 50% of any delinquent
amount to initiate the plan. The REP Group argued that this
would establish more reasonable parity between the level or av-
erage payment plan option and the deferred payment plan op-
tion. The REP Group stated that its proposed language would
allow REPs to assist low-income customers by combining de-
ferred payment and level or average payment plans. The REP
Group added that Commissioner Anderson's April 1, 2010 memo
indicated that this combination of plans might be a good option
for some customers.
Commission Response
The commission does not agree with the REP Group that Com-
missioner Anderson's April 1, 2010 memo indicated that a com-
bination of plans might be a good option for some customers.
Rather, Commissioner Anderson's memo sought clarification of
whether this was the intent of the proposal and suggested that
the language be clarified before adoption. The commission ap-
preciates the comments of the REP Group concerning the need
for clarification and amends the rule accordingly.
New Paragraph (5)The REP Group strongly supported a policy that allows switch-
holds to apply to level or average payment plans in certain cir-
cumstances. The REP Group proposed removing the switch-
hold policy provisions from paragraph (1) and moving them to
this new paragraph and expanding the application of switch-
holds so that REPs would be allowed to request a switch-hold
when any customer who is delinquent agrees to a level or aver-
age payment plan. The REP Group rationalized that level and
average payment plans result in REPs extending credit beyond
the normal post-pay environment at least in some months; there-
fore, switch-holds should be allowed if a customer is delinquent
when the level or average payment plan is established.
Cities urged the commission to reject the REP Group's proposed
language that would allow a REP to implement switch-holds for
a greater proportion of customers under a level or average pay-
ment plan than under the proposed rule, which limits switch-
holds only to customers eligible for a rate reduction program un-
der 25.454.
Commission Response The commission agrees with the REP
Group recommendation to allow switch-holds to customers en-
tering into a level or average payment plan when the customer is
delinquent in payment at that time. The commission must be eq-
uitable in the application of its standards. So, if anyone, regard-
less of income-level, enters into a level or average payment plan
while delinquent in payment, the switch-hold may be used by the
REP. The commission would like to emphasize to REPs the im-
portance of implementing the switch-hold measure in a non-dis-
criminatory fashion. These switch-hold provisions are intended
to provide a buffer against the extension of customer protections
contributing to any further bad debt. The commission modifies
the rule consistent with this recommendation.
New Paragraph (6)
The REP Group noted that under the existing rules when a cus-
tomer on a level or average payment plan becomes delinquent,
a REP's option for managing bad debt is to remove the customer
from the plan. The customer then may be faced with a very high
bill as a result of the full account balance being added to the
bill. The REP Group proposed adding this new paragraph that
would prohibit REPs from placing a switch-hold on customer ac-
counts that are not delinquent when the level or average pay-
ment plan is established. The language would allow REPs to
place a switch-hold on accounts that enter into a level or aver-
age payment plan if the customers incurs two late payments or is
disconnected for non-payment during the first 12 months of the
plan for residential customers and during the first 24 months of
the plan for non-residential customers.
Commission Response
The commission declines to adopt the REP Group recommen-
dation to allow a REP to place a switch-hold on a customer's ac-
count if the customer incurs two late payments or is disconnected
for non-payment during the first 12 months of a level or aver-
age payment plan for residential customers and during the first
24 months of the plan for non-residential customers. Instead,
based on discussions that occurred during meetings following
the comment period, the commission allows a switch-hold to be
placed when the customer chooses to enter into a level or av-
erage payment plan under subsection (j)(2)(B)(ii) of this section.
This is a reasonable application of the switch-hold because the
customer chooses a level or average payment plan instead of
paying the balance due. The commission believes that it is im-
portant that a switch-hold that is applied pursuant to this para-ADOPTED RULES October 15, 2010 35 TexReg 9245
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 35, Number 42, Pages 9167-9436, October 15, 2010, periodical, October 15, 2010; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth129013/m1/77/: accessed May 9, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.