Posts Tagged ‘retail competition’

h1

The (soon to be revised) history of electric competition in Lubbock

November 5, 2009

Michael Giberson

The city of Lubbock Texas has had two competing electric power companies since 1917.  If a just announced deal goes through, competition will be eliminated.

The new “official story” is that competition produced inefficiency, but this view is in stark contrast to old “official story” as told in the “The History of Lubbock Power & Light” posted on the LP&L website.  That historical review makes the case that competition has been a good thing for the city.

Here’s the first paragraph from the historical review, with some emphasis added:

In the electric utility industry, retail competition for electric customers is a relatively new concept. Not so in Lubbock, Texas. The good people of Lubbock have benefited from retail competition for electricity since 1916.

The short version of the story is that city officials were unhappy with an early electric utility supplying Lubbock, so started a municipal utility to provide more reliable service and reasonable rates.  The private utility tried to sell its distribution system to the city at the time, but the city refused to buy it.  (Various dates are mentioned here: 1916, 1917, and, below, 1942.  See a note below explaining these dates.)

According to the existing LP&L history, competition began paying off right away:

The effort by those early Lubbock leaders was realized a success on September 28, 1917 as the municipal power plant began producing electricity priced at only ten cents a kilowatt-hour. The other utility cut its rates accordingly soon after. Imagine that!

The private utility had been charging 20 cents per kilowatt-hour and under pressure from the city had previously only reduced its rates a few pennies.  Competition brought down rates.

Today, the vast majority of Lubbock remains dual-certified and customers still have a choice of electric utility providers. Customers whose account balances are current are allowed to switch from one company to the other at their discretion. The competition for the electric dollar in Lubbock has resulted in some of the lowest electricity costs in the state of Texas and in the nation. Another major benefit of competition is that customers enjoy increased levels of customer service than would be found in cities this size with only one electric provider.

Lubbock Power & Light’s mission is to provide low cost, reliable electric service. We feel we’ve been successful in that mission. All electric customers in Lubbock have benefited from the decision of those early pioneers to begin retail competition.

I’m guessing the official story is about to change. These remarks clearly may be seen as inconvenient given the recent agreement between LP&L and Xcel. (As mentioned here earlier, the municipal utility has agreed to acquire Xcel’s distribution assets in the city and take over retail power service to current Xcel customers.)

The new story, as explained in the LP&L news release :

Since 1942 Lubbock has been served by both companies, resulting in duplication of electric power services, lines, poles and substations. Both companies have determined this to be an inefficient and intrusive way to provide electricity to the community.

Here is the viewpoint from the Xcel representative, also in the LP&L news release:

“The duplication of retail electric service in Lubbock has not been efficient, and we believe we can best serve Lubbock and our other Texas retail customers by only providing the low-cost wholesale electricity to LP&L,” said David Eves, president and CEO of Southwestern Public Service, an Xcel Energy company.

Lubbock’s mayor, also from the LP&L news release:

“It’s natural for LP&L to pick-up the Xcel retail electric service, since the City of Lubbock already provides utility service to all the properties in Lubbock,” Mayor Tom Martin said.

Some questions based on the LP&L history:

  • If the duplication of facilities has not been efficient, why did rates drop in 1917 after a duplicate system was built?
  • If this system is inefficient, why is it that electric rates are comparable to other systems in the area and relatively low compared to elsewhere in the state?
  • If the existing system is inefficient, and the new system is better, they why isn’t LP&L promising to lower rates after the wasteful, duplicative system are consolidated? Are they planning to reduce costs and not pass the savings along to consumers?

According to the now inconvenient history on the LP&L website, a “major benefit of competition is that customers enjoy increased levels of customer service than would be found in cities this size with only one electric provider.”

If this deal goes through, we will become one of the “cities this size with only one electric provider.” LP&L’s message is that we should expect customer service to suffer if the deal goes through.

NOTES ON DATES: The decision to start the utility was made in December 1916, but the system didn’t go into service until September 1917.  The “1942″ reference above is to the date that Southwestern Public Service bought the Lubbock distribution utility from Texas New Mexico Utilities. Southwestern Public Service is now a unit of Xcel Energy.  TNMU was a successor company to the private utility that the city was unhappy with in 1916/1917.

h1

BREAKING NEWS: RETAIL POWER COMPETITION TO END IN LUBBOCK AFTER MORE THAN 90 YEARS

November 4, 2009

Michael Giberson

This morning, November 4, municipal utility Lubbock Power & Light and local regulated utility Xcel/Southwestern Public Service announced that the city utility will buy out the Xcel distribution system within the city and LP&L would become the monopoly retail power provider.

The press conference hosted by the city emphasized the costliness of maintaining duplicate distribution system. The announcement didn’t explain why it made more sense for LP&L to buy out Xcel than for Xcel to buy out LP&L.  A press release (reproduced below) contains more details.

(Oddly, the press conference held by the city seemed mostly focused on the redevelopment of Lubbock’s downtown area.  Apparently the costs of moving two sets of wires was a significant problem for the company in charge of redeveloping the downtown area; with that problem resolved the redevelopment should be cheaper to manage.  Will the developer be refunding the savings to the city?  As part of the deal Xcel will donate its downtown building to Texas Tech University and consolidate its activities at a southwest Lubbock location.)

One local commenter observes this will mean an end to the big advertising spending by LP&L and Xcel, to the detriment of local media companies.  A radio show host said on his blog:

Good bye Xcel Energy (at least in Lubbock) and good bye competition! Today Lubbock announced it was spending $87 million dollars to buy out the Lubbock customer base of Xcel Energy. According to the city, this is great for downtown redevelopment. OK, great.Mayor Tom Martin was quick to say at the presser that your rates won’t change because of this. Really? Does anyone buy this? LP&L has no competition in Lubbock (for the most part) and we shouldn’t expect rates to change? We shouldn’t expect customer service to change?

I’m sorry but the only people who will benefit from this buy out are the people in charge at City Hall. And how about the timing? The city keeps this whole thing quiet until after the bond election.

I can imaging that I’ll have updates once more information is available.

MORE DETAILS: From the LP&L press release:

Electric Companies Move to Benefit Lubbock

(Lubbock, TX) – Representatives from Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L), Xcel Energy and the City of Lubbock made an announcement today that will lay the foundation for the future of power in Lubbock.

LP&L and Xcel Energy have reached a mutually beneficial agreement that will allow LP&L to purchase Xcel Energy’s electricity distribution system within the city and to serve all of Xcel Energy’s Lubbock retail electric customers. Since 1942 Lubbock has been served by both companies, resulting in duplication of electric power services, lines, poles and substations. Both companies have determined this to be an inefficient and intrusive way to provide electricity to the community.

“The duplication of retail electric service in Lubbock has not been efficient, and we believe we can best serve Lubbock and our other Texas retail customers by only providing the low-cost wholesale electricity to LP&L,” said David Eves, president and CEO of Southwestern Public Service (SPS), an Xcel Energy company. “Xcel Energy customers in Lubbock will be served by LP&L, but Xcel Energy will continue to supply the wholesale power and transmission services.”

Currently LP&L provides power to more than 77 percent of households in Lubbock but purchases its power wholesale from Xcel Energy.

“It’s natural for LP&L to pick-up the Xcel retail electric service, since the City of Lubbock already provides utility service to all the properties in Lubbock,” Mayor Tom Martin said.

Because LP&L will use its solid financial position and bond ratings to fund the purchase through electric revenue bonds, electric rates for their customers will remain some of the lowest in the state.

“We want all our customers to know that your electric rates will not increase as a result of this new relationship. LP&L electric customers will continue to see low electric rates,” W.R. Collier, LP&L Electric Utility Board Chairman, said.

Electric customers in the Panhandle and South Plains enjoy some of the lowest electric rates in Texas because of Xcel Energy’s low-cost power generation system and abundant renewable resources. Xcel Energy will remain a significant part of the Lubbock community and will continue its civic involvement in Lubbock as a regional hub of operations and as a wholesale electricity provider for LP&L and retail provider in other areas of the South Plains.

Xcel Energy has received approval from the Xcel Energy Board of Directors to proceed with the sale of these assets, and the company is expected to gain regulatory approvals within the next nine months. LP&L will be seeking approval from the LP&L Electric Utility Board and the Lubbock City Council.

“This decision was made in the best interest of the citizens of Lubbock as well as in the best interest of dozens of Texas and New Mexico communities where Xcel Energy will remain the sole retail provider. This will not be an immediate change, and we will do everything we can to make this transition as smooth as possible for our customers,” Eves said.

LP&L and the City were advised by RBC Capital Markets with respect to financial matters, R.W. Beck with respect to operational matters and Vinson & Elkins with respect to legal matters.

Customers with questions regarding their service are encouraged to contact their current electricity provider.
***

Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) is a major U.S. electricity and natural gas company with regulated operations in eight Western and Midwestern states. Xcel Energy provides a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related products and services to 3.4 million electricity customers and 1.9 million natural gas customers through its regulated operating companies. Company headquarters are located in Minneapolis, with Amarillo serving as the headquarters for Xcel Energy’s regional operating company, Southwestern Public Service Company. More information is available at www.xcelenergy.com .

Lubbock Power and Light (LP&L) is the municipally owned electric utility of the City of Lubbock. LP&L provides electric service to over 70% of the electric market in Lubbock Texas and offers consolidated billing for City of Lubbock Utilities. LP&L has provided the lowest electric rates and most reliable electricity in Lubbock for more than 90 years. For more information, visit www.lpandl.com.

h1

Is consumer protection lacking in Texas retail electric power market?

October 4, 2009

Michael Giberson

The Dallas Morning News has published an in-depth story detailing the apparent lack of effort put into consumer protection issues in the restructured retail power market in Texas. The story focuses on the prepaid end of the business, which mostly services customers lacking established credit and unable to post a deposit.  Rates tend to be much higher, cutoffs happen more quickly, and complaints are more numerous than for standard retail service.

Retail electric power providers have to be licensed by the state – yes, even in competition-crazy Texas – and there is some question about how diligent the state has been about policing the parties to whom they grant licenses.  (“Consumers filed 54,356 complaints against electric providers from July 2002 to May 2009. PUC staff found rule violations in 11 percent of those and made only 34 attempts to seek sanctions.”)  Still, the story provides relatively little evidence of company rule violations that imposed hardships on consumers.  Mostly, the story illustrates the hardships that come with poverty, a difficulty in paying for power service being among those hardships.

The two customer hardship cases described in the story – a heart patient who relied upon an oxygen machine, a paraplegic – both lost power after failing to make payments.  The article mentions that the heart patient’s power retailer was Freedom Power – subject of many, many customer complaints and perhaps not qualified to hold a license under state standards – but the article doesn’t link the heart patient’s troubles to any shady practices.  The paraplegic customer’s power company was among the five companies bankrupted by high wholesale power prices, but he only lost power after he failed to pay a deposit to the new company to which he had been assigned by the state’s transitioning policies.

The article quotes Texas PUC chairman Barry Smitherman as saying, “prepaids, like any other provider, must abide by the disconnection rules despite any difficulties it might pose… you have to understand there are going to be periods of time when you are going to be giving power away.”  But retail power providers ought not to be made into part-time charitable institutions when customers are unable to pay bills.  If a consumer fails to pay a bill, the consumer should expect to lose service.

Maybe actual charitable institutions should devise a low cost service for Texans unable to pay for the power they use, or maybe local government could fund the service.  Forcing retailers to take the risk that they’ll be required to “give power away” adds to the costs of serving the prepaid market and pushes up rates for other prepaid customers.

No doubt there are problems in the retail power market in Texas – it would be surprising to have no problems in such a large industry with so many participants operating under relatively new rules.  But this news article mixes in stories about the hardship of being poor with problems of PUC licensing review, various other regulatory policy discussions, and numerous but not-well-detailed customer complaints. With 54,356 complaints filed over the past seven years, couldn’t the Dallas Morning News come up with at least a case or two of real consumer hardship caused by shady power retailer practices?

Reform of the state’s consumer protection rules can’t do much about poverty, the problem is larger than utility rules can deal with, but the rules can and should help protect consumers from bad operators.  If existing rules are inadequate, they ought to be changed.  The story doesn’t inform us of how consumers have been harmed by existing failures of the rules or even the failure of the PUC to enforce existing rules.

The story is just the first of a two-part series.  Maybe the real substance is in part two.

h1

Volatile prices decrease consumer satisfaction with Texas competitive retail suppliers

August 20, 2009

Michael Giberson

From a press release by J.D. Power and Associates:

Wide fluctuations in electricity prices during the past year have led to a decrease in overall customer satisfaction with residential retail electric providers in Texas, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Texas Residential Retail Electric Provider Customer Satisfaction Study released today.

The study, now in its second year, measures customer satisfaction with retail electric providers in Texas by examining four key factors (listed in order of importance): pricing; billing and payment; communications; and customer service. According to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 45 percent of 5.5 million eligible Texas residential customers were served by competitive retail electric providers by the end of 2008.

See ratings for 15 electric retailers here.

One thing that kind of lept out at me when scanning the ratings: retailers associated with former regulated utilities in Texas appear to have the worst overall ratings.

Here are the worst rated companies and the former electric utility that the retailer is or was affiliated with.

Lowest, with a 2 out of 5 overall rating, is CPL Retail Energy (from the former Central Power and Light, once part of AEP) and First Choice Power (affiliated with the Texas-New Mexico Power Company). Scoring 3 out of 5 were TXU Energy (TXU of course), Reliant Energy (formerly with CenterPoint Energy, Inc.), GEXA Energy (non utility*), and Direct Energy (also affiliated with CPL and West Texas Utilities, previously part of AEP in Texas). (*GEXA was purchased by FPL in 2005, a Florida-based energy company affiliated with regulated utility Florida Power & Light, but GEXA is not affiliated with former Texas regulated utilities.)

Eight companies were rated 4 out of 5, and just StarTex Power achieved a 5 out of 5 rating. So far as I can tell – by visiting company websites, Wikipedia, Yahoo Financial, and other online resources – none of these top nine companies are affiliates or former affiliates of the pre-restructuring electric utilities in Texas.

Just to review, that is 5 companies that were or are affiliated with the pre-restructuring regulated electric utilities in the state, and all 5 are rated 2 or 3 out of 5 possible in overall satisfaction. A total of 10 companies do not have direct affiliations with the legacy Texas electric utilities, and 9 of the 10 are rated either 4 or 5 out of 5 possible in overall satisfaction.

Coincidence?

h1

Home energy management and home security product bundling

August 5, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

In a Cnet Green Tech article, Martin LaMonica points to some developments in an area that I’ve been pushing on for years: the potential consumer value creation from bundling residential electricity service with home security services. The potential for such bundling is one example of why I argue so emphatically for retail competition: in an industry with government-generated entry barriers, a company like ADT or Brinks cannot legally enter and provide retail electricity service to residential consumers.

LaMonica’s article describes a start-up company called iControl, that could be a technology provider to such a company:

iControl’s approach is to create a hub, connected to a home broadband connection that has wireless connections to IP cameras and security boards as well as thermostats and lighting. To control energy-related devices, it uses the Z-Wave wireless standard for home automation which can also control doors and locks.

iControl intends to sell its technology through other providers, such as home-security companies and utilities looking to offer networked services to consumers.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers