The Energy Regulatory Commission issued a new ruling allowing customers to switch between retail electricity suppliers without securing clearances from current suppliers.
It amended Resolution No. 9 Series of 2018 or the “Rules Supplementing the Switching and Billing Process and Adopting a Disconnection Policy for Contestable Consumers” to give greater effect to consumer choice.
The regulator conducted a review of the rules following the receipt of numerous complaints from contestable or large consumers against alleged rate adjustments implemented by their RES.
“Contestable consumers claim that the rate adjustments are imposed with threats of disconnections in case of non-payment even as disputes are pending for resolution with the ERC or regular courts,” the ERC said.
Under the amended rules, a contestable consumer already being served by a RES would be allowed to switch to a new RES or supplier of last resort, notwithstanding the existence of an outstanding balance.
The ERC said the rules state that the contestable consumer should remain responsible for the fulfillment of its lawful obligations with its incumbent RES.
The rules said no consumer would be allowed to do the initial transfer to a RES from its distribution utility without first settling their accounts with the DU.
Such consumers doing the initial switch to RES from their DUs would be entitled to the refund of security or bill deposits.
Under the retail competition and open access program pursuant to the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, consumers that meet a certain threshold of electricity consumption are allowed to choose their electricity suppliers.
The RCOA gradually reduces the energy threshold of the program until it reaches the household demand level.
The ERC said the amendment to Resolution No. 9 Series of 2018 is a “curative resolution” made to ensure the alignment of its rules with the policies of the Department of Energy.
Several large companies earlier asked the ERC to issue temporary restraining orders and cease and desist orders preventing their RES from disconnecting their supply.
The companies alleged that the RES breached their supply contracts by imposing higher charges beyond what was agreed upon and wanted to impose fuel cost recovery adjustments due to the alleged extraordinary increases in fuel costs.
