News Stories

The ALJs recommended decision, asks the Commission to approve the non-unanimous stipulation without modification.  Among other things, adoption of the contested settlement would implement a monthly bill chart, to appear on the first page of utility consolidated bills, comparing the costs to shopping customers under their retail supplier versus the amount the customer would have paid under PECO’s price to compare.

As background, a proposed settlement was supported by, among other parties, by PECO, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, and Pennsylvania Office of Small Business Advocate.  However, other parties including RESA, NRG Energy, APG&E and other parties had opposed the proposed settlement.  

The ALJs proposed decision adopts the contested settlement in PECO’s default service proceeding that, among other things, would include a new comparison and chart of shadow-billed default service costs on shopping customer bills.  The ALJ’s recommended approval of the contested settlement also would require customers in PECO’s Standard Offer Customer Referral Program (SOP) to be dropped to default service at the end of the initial SOP term if the customer does not take any affirmative action at the end of the SOP term.

In general, the ALJs found that RESA/NRG/AP&G and other parties did not support with record evidence their opposition to various terms of the settlement, and that the adoption of contested terms as proposed in the settlement would be in the public interest.

Excerpts from ALJs’ Proposed Decision:
[***] After reviewing the evidence in this case, the Joint Petition, the Statements in Support, RESA and NRG’s objections, and the Briefs, we recommend that the Joint Petition be approved without modification. 

With respect to RESA’s proposals the Commission: 1) institutes a statewide investigation to investigate its approved messaging of default service as the “Price-to-Compare” to include discontinuing use of that term by replacing it with “default service rate;” 2) rejects PECO’s proposal to add a comparison chart to residential customers’ bills showing what the customer would have paid if they had been on default service as well as a comparison of the two charges; 3) directs PECO to include specific processes to work collaboratively with competitive suppliers during the implementation period for its new Customer Information System to ensure that suppliers are able to continue providing service and making offers to customers; 4) rejects PECO’s proposal to include a Capacity Proxy Price as part of its wholesale default service supply procurement process; and 5) to the extent PECO’s proposal to double the amount of its solar AEC procurement for default service is recommended for approval, the Commission require PECO to allocate any solar AECs acquired through its long-term contract procurement process to the supply load for all distribution customers, not only to default service customers, we recommend that the proposals be denied. [***]

Exceptions to the decision, if any, must be: 1) filed with the Secretary of the Commission, and 2) to each party of record. Exceptions are due by 4:30 p.m. on September 10, 2024.

Replies to Exceptions, if any, must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission and served on each party of record and the Commission’s OSA, in the manner described above. They are due by 4:30 p.m. on September 16, 2024.

Recommended Decision (09/03/2024)
Secretarial Letter  (09/03/2024)
P-2024-3046008  
Petition of PECO Energy Company for Approval of Its Default Service Program for The Period From June 1, 2024, Through May 31, 2029