News Stories

On October 16, 2026 the District of Columbia electricity Standard Offer Service (SOS) workgroup filed its SOS Working Group Report.

This workgroup report outlines previously proposed changes to SOS.

As background on May 20, 2026, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia issued FC1017 – Order No. 22870 (SOS Admin Audit).pdf, which accepted Atrium Economics, LLC’s Audit Report on Pepco’s ) Standard Offer Service Administrative Charge Report and also directed Staff to convene a Standard Offer Service (“SOS”) Working Group meeting or meetings to discuss several of the recommendations included in the Atrium Report.

The Commission Staff convened SOS Working Group meetings on August 18 and September 3, 2026, respectively.

Note that no specific workgroup recommendations were detailed in the report but rather reiterated stakeholders views on the different topics raised in this matter as highlighted below.

Continuation of SOS Price Adder

Pepco disagrees with proposal to link or benchmark costs to highest third-party supplier rate, based on affordability concerns and lack of transparency, among other reasons cited in the PowerPoint.

Pepco supports the recommendation to increase administrative charge if administrative costs are more than the administrative charge, which is consistent with current practice. would provide more timely/contemporaneous return of Adder to customers.

RESA referred to its 2025 comments and continuation of the Adder in some form.

Bates White (“BW”) asked to clarify Pepco’s position and Pepco responded that it would propose to eliminate the adder for all rate classes. AOBA supports maintaining the Adder for all customer classes at this time. Pepco also stated that the Adder is part of the SOS process in Maryland but calculated differently.

Reporting Requirements for Administrative Costs

“Pepco agreed that annual reporting should continue but noted that it would propose including actuals through December of the previous year to reduce lag. Pepco also emphasized its need for certainty regarding what costs related to Community Renewable Energy Facility (“CREF”) are allowable for recovery under SOS given the numerous orders over the last several years that have been issued further defining these costs. In response to a Department of Energy & Environment (“DOEE”) question, Pepco pointed to the supporting material in its annual SOS retail rates filing in FC 1017.”

SOS Procurement Process  – Separate RPS REC Procurement

“Pepco has proposed considering the removal of Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) compliance from the SOS product and be responsibility of the utility. Under the proposal, Pepco could purchase RPS Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs”) and potentially reduce costs and could make the costs of RPS transparent.”

“Pepco agreed with Staff that such changes could only be made, if at all, starting on or after June 2028 and not affect the current/upcoming SOS auctions.”

“RESA noted that it supports the current framework but noted in general that the concern from Third Party Suppliers (“TPS”) is that the REC procurement is a competitive service within SOS and on the TPS side is a product currently offered. DOEE also stated that it understood the “transactional efficiency” of Pepco handling REC administration, noting some issues with how suppliers pay the District now – noting that there may be administrative efficiencies to gain by streamlining the process (though not necessarily Pepco’s proposal). Staff also asked if there were any Pepco proposals to explain administrative costs and any market power concerns. Staff asked BW, which explained that it is generally supportive of the type of proposal to break out RPS from the SOS product for the reasons discussed by Pepco. BW said that several other states, like OH, DE, IL, MA and others, separate RPS from the backstop supply services.”

Changes to Duration of SOS Procurement and Timing of Auction

“Staff discussed the current timing for procurements. Pepco explained that it supported the current, three-year SOS procurement for Residential and Small Commercial. Staff asked if Exelon utilities have any period beyond 3 years, and Pepco responded no. RESA’s position is that shorter contract durations are more market reflective. AOBA agrees that shorter contract durations are more market reflective. BW agreed with Pepco that they are unaware of contracts with duration longer than 3 years. 1 to 3 years is most common.