News Stories

Main Brief – Constellation Energy Generation LLC And Constellation NewEnergy Inc. – “Viewed in its entirety, the Non-Unanimous Settlement is not in the public interest because it adopts several proposals that further entrench default service, restrict customer choice, and place competitive suppliers at a structural disadvantage relative to the utilityprovided default service product. Most notably, the Settlement would:

1. Require electric generation suppliers (“EGSs”) serving residential customers under contracts entered into after June 1, 2027 to return customers to default service at the end of a fixed-duration contract unless the customer affirmatively elects to remain with the supplier in response to the notices required by 52 Pa. Code § 54.10;
2. Require EGSs, utilizing utility consolidated billing, to use “rate-ready” billing and must charge a rate at or below the Price-to-Compare (“PTC”) at the time of enrollment or rate change in order to remain eligible for Purchase of Receivables (“POR”) for that customer account;
3. Require quarterly attestations of affirmative customer consent for residential customers served on variable-priced month-to-month products; and
4. Eliminate the Customer Referral Program (“CRP”) without implementing any successor program designed to facilitate customer participation in the competitive market.

MAIN BRIEF – RESA – “Nearly every proposal challenged by RESA departs from that statutory framework. Whether by redesigning wholesale default service procurement to produce a potentially lower default service price, broadly conditioning participation in Commission approved market mechanisms upon an EGS’s pricing and fundamentally restructuring long-standing components of Pennsylvania’s competitive retail market based upon residential affordability concerns that were never shown to justify such broad changes, automatically returning customers to default service, or otherwise impairing competitive market participation, FE PA’s proposals seek to influence the prices customers pay for generation service through regulatory intervention rather than competitive market forces. Although FE PA presents these challenged proposals as measures intended to address customer affordability, they are, in substance, efforts to regulate generation pricing and competitive market outcomes in a manner the Competition Act does not contemplate.”

“Because FE has failed to satisfy either the Competition Act or the Commission’s own standard for restricting competition, the ALJs should recommend that the Commission reject both the challenged provisions of the Joint Petition and the corresponding proposals in FE PA’s underlying Petition.”

MAIN BRIEF – TOWN SQUARE ENERGY EAST LLC AND WGL ENERGY SERVICES INC. – The Non-Unanimous submitted in the present case achieves none of the policy goals underlying the Commission’s preference for settlements. With respect to the retail shopping issues6 , the “settlement” is nothing more than a wholesale adoption of FirstEnergy’s initial proposal with no modification, even though it is actively opposed by all of the EGS parties who will be directly affected by the proposal. The settlement did not narrow any issues in dispute, it did not lessen the time and expense for the parties or the Commission, it did not conserve the Commission’s administrative hearing resources and it will not avoid the preparation and service of briefs, reply briefs and, likely, exceptions and reply exceptions.”

“Less than half of the parties participating in the case joined the Settlement. Only three of the six signatories to the Joint Petition presented evidence or testimony regarding the supplier issues during the course of the proceeding, and two of the signatories (OSBA and Walmart) took no position on the supplier issues in their statements in support. By contrast numerous parties who are directly affected by the retail shopping issues are not parties to the Settlement. The Settlement cannot be considered a universal resolution of highly disputed issues when the Settlement is nothing more than a restatement of the original FirstEnergy proposals on those issues,7 that are wholly opposed by the retail supplier parties who are most affected by the proposals. More importantly, as set forth below, the Settlement is not supported by substantial evidence and it legally defective in multiple respects, and therefore must be rejected.”

MAIN BRIEF – SHIPLEY CHOICE, LLC D/B/A SHIPLEY ENERGY AND INTERSTATE GAS SUPPLY, LLC D/B/A IGS ENERGY –  Burden of Proof  -“At issue here is FE PA’s Petition for Approval of Its Default Service Program that will establish FE PA’s approach to acquiring the energy for, and the rate structure of its provision of default service for the next four years. These proceedings are required by and conducted in accordance with the Commission’s Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 54.181– 190. As the party submitting the Petition, FE PA is the proponent of the rule or order in this matter and bears the burden of proving that every proposal made or approval requested is just and reasonable and in the public interest.1 Section 1301(a) of the Code mandates that “[e]very rate made, demanded, or received by any public utility … shall be just and reasonable, and in conformity with [the] regulations or orders of the [C]ommission.”2 That burden does not shift to parties opposing the approval of FE PA’s petition. Instead, the utility’s obligation to prove the justness and reasonableness of each component of its request remains affirmative and stays with the utility throughout the proceeding.”

Questions Presented – “These questions presented for Commission review lie outside of the issues addressed in the dubiously named non-unanimous settlement. The EGS Parties respectfully request that the Commission answer these negatively and conclude that FE PA’s requests remain contrary to law and long-standing policy.

1. Whether the Commission should approve the Company’s proposal to return customers to default service at the end of a fixed-duration contract unless the customer affirmatively chooses to remain with the EGS in response to notices required by 52 Pa. Code § 54.10. Suggested Answer: No.”
2. Whether the Commission should approve the Company’s proposal to require quarterly attestations of affirmative customer consent for residential customers served on month-to-month variable-price products. Suggested Answer: No.
3. Whether the Commission should approve FirstEnergy’s proposal to restrict POR eligibility to customer accounts charged a rate-ready price at or below the PTC at enrollment or at the time of a pricing change. Suggested Answer: No.”

See docket link for all briefs filed in this matter.

As reported previously on July 2, 2026, a Joint Petition for Nonunanimous Settlement regarding FirstEnergy Pennsylvania Electric Company petition that was filed on February 3, 2026  seeking the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval of its default service program for the period from June 1, 2027, to May 31, 2031.

In its joint petition the parties request that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) approve the Settlement without modification.

The Briefs will be filed according to the schedule set forth in the Administrative Law Judge’s June 24, 2026 Interim Order.”  Per the interim order all briefs shall be filed by June 18, 2026.