News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Consumer Advocates Asks PUC To “Clarify” That Retail Supplier Costs Above Default Service Are Not Proof Of Customer Harm, Is Not Broadly Precedential
In a request for reconsideration of a recent Pennsylvania PUC order requiring that PECO’s standard offer customer referral program (SOP) shall continue without the modifications sought by consumer advocates, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate requested that the PUC “clarify” that the PUC’s findings with respect to EGS costs which exceed default service costs are limited to the SOP, and will not serve as broadly applicable precedent in reviewing cost comparisons between default service and retail supplier service.
In denying a change to the SOP program sought by consumer advocates, under which customers would have been dropped to default service at the end of the SOP term absent an affirmative action, in contrast to the current practice of remaining with their SOP supplier, the PUC found that consumer advocates had not demonstrated harm from the current practice that keeps the customer with their SOP supplier
OCA requested that the PUC clarify that any precedential value from the discussion of PTC versus retail supplier rates in the PECO SOP order, “is limited only to SOP related proceedings and cannot be extrapolated or interpreted in future, non-SOP Commission proceedings.”
OCA sought this clarification to the extent that the PUC does not grant reconsideration and adopt on reconsideration the SOP changes supported by OCA, due to the harm alleged by OCA
In separate rehearing requests, both OCA and TURN/CAUSE-PA argued that the PUC wrongly applied evidentiary standards in rejecting their proffered showings of harm to customers from the SOP.
Joint Petition For Reconsideration/Clarification – Turn & Cause-Pa (11/22/2024)
Petition For Reconsideration/Clarification – OCA (11/22/2024)
