About

Archive

Contact

Consulting

Live Blog

Search

Md. OPC Petitions PSC for Modifications to Price to Compare Info

Email This Story
February 11, 2011  

The Maryland Office of People's Counsel has petitioned the Maryland PSC for an order clarifying the PSC's earlier order on the Price to Compare, and directing the Pepco, Delmarva, and Allegheny Power to correct what OPC alleged is "erroneous" SOS information on each utility's website (Case 9228).

As only noted in Matters (6/25), the PSC in a June 2010 order modified the Price to Compare information to include the following: 1) Actual pricing for the current SOS period (including base generation, transmission, and reconciliation); 2) Actual SOS pricing for the next SOS period (when known) and statement of the date beyond which SOS pricing is not known; and 3) A weighted average blend of the two most recently known SOS period prices to develop a yearly average.

Although there remains some confusion based on the PSC's language (suggesting the information applies to "all" SOS classes), these requirements were essentially only required for residential and Type I customers.

OPC alleged that that the information found on customers' bills and some of the utilities' websites, "contain inaccurate and outdated information."

Specifically, OPC alleged that a January 21, 2011 Pepco bill only listed the SOS price through May 31, 2011, even though the SOS price for the June 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011 period was known at that time and should have been listed as well.  Additionally, the weighted average used on this bill reflected the weighted average through May 31, 2011, rather than September 30, 2011, which OPC argues should have been used.

"A historical weighted average price is useless and misleading to customers," OPC said.  Of course, while OPC meant this as applying to using a prior SOS period price in the weighted average price, it also rings true for the weighted average OPC wishes to be used (current SOS and immediately known forward SOS), because, except at the very start of the pricing period, the static SOS rates for the current period become "historic," and are of little value in projecting forward rates, which is the inherent problem in attempting to create some sort of 12-month proxy for SOS rates when SOS rates for mass market customers change, at a minimum, twice a year (and more frequently when including changes in the reconciliation component and transmission).

Because SOS pricing has been decreasing with each successive RFP under current market conditions, using older SOS rates in the weighted average results in a higher Price to Compare.

OPC alleged that bills from Allegheny and Delmarva contained the same deficiencies.  OPC also alleged that each of the three utilities' websites contained the same deficiencies in listing Price to Compare information.

It should be noted that for Allegheny, some of its mass market SOS rates were not filed in tariffs until late January 2011 (due to its unique procurement schedule), and it does not appear that the tariffs containing these new rates have been approved by the PSC yet, and therefore unclear if it would be appropriate to use these rates in updated Price to Compare information.

For Delmarva and Pepco, new mass market SOS rates for the summer 2011 period were filed in early November, but the associated tariffs were not approved until December 3.

It's also an interesting aside that Baltimore Gas & Electric, which has posted updated Price to Compare information online using the new summer 2011 rates, and is using this info in its bills, actually hasn't filed the new SOS rates in a tariff with the Commission, which caused some confusion for Matters when the new rates appeared online but were not formalized in a tariff (BGE had said that due to service not starting until June 1, the updated tariffs would be filed with a future change in SOS prices, perhaps when non-summer rates are set in April, see 11/11/10).

OPC recommended that the PSC establish specific deadlines for the updating of Price to Compare information once the new rates are known after an RFP.  OPC suggested that utilities be required to file updated SOS tariff sheets within 1 week of an RFP result being approved, and, at the same time, be required to update their website with the new Price to Compare information; however, with such information labeled as "tentative" since, although the tariffs will have been filed, they will not have yet been approved by the PSC.

Within 2 days of the PSC approving the new SOS tariff sheets, utilities should be required to start using the new information on bills and update their websites to indicate the prices are no longer tentative, OPC said.

However, OPC conceded that even under this proposed schedule, there are quirks.  Most notably, under the schedule for the April RFP process, the new non-summer SOS rate for the following October will be known; however, since April itself is part of the non-summer period, there are essentially two "known" SOS prices for the non-summer period -- the current, soon ending non-summer period (April and May), and the following non-summer period starting in October.  This presents the problem of which of these two non-summer prices should be included in the weighted average Price to Compare for the months of April and May.

OPC recommended using the forward non-summer price (e.g. the one beginning in October) in the April and May weighted price comparison, since this price will more closely correspond to the service period for a 12-month contract from a competitive supplier.

Of course, this discussion also ignores the fact that while base generation rates for SOS are known according to a fixed schedule, transmission and reconciliation rates do not change on a fixed schedule, and are typically either not known for months beyond the next two to three months (for the reconciliation component) or, for transmission rates, are "known" in so far as the current rates continue to apply in perpetuity until a new tariff filing to replace them, but this tariff filing can occur at any time as the FERC-established rate is modified (unlike with the reconciliation factor where the future rate may be unknown, but there is a clear end date for the current rates).


Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-11 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing

Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters

Call Paul Ring

954-205-1738

 

 

 

 

 

Energy Choice
                            

Matters

About

Archive

Contact

Consulting

Live Blog

Search