Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Small Business Advocate Seeks Two-Month Extension For Comments In Proceeding Examining Major Changes In Pennsylvania Default Service

Proceeding Could End Plain Vanilla Default Service, End Use Of Full Requirements Contracts

April 1, 2019

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

The Pennsylvania Office of Small Business Advocate has asked the Pennsylvania PUC for a 60-day extension for the filing of initial comments in the PUC's new proceeding examining "smart" default service rates, cost allocation, and rate design (captioned officially as "Investigations into Default Service and PJM Interconnection, LLC. Settlement Reforms")

As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the PUC in the proceeding launched a review of wholesale cost allocation and default service rate design and procurement reforms due to the installation of smart meters, which could lead to a significant change in how default service is procured and priced, including a departure from plain vanilla default service served primarily through load-following full requirements contracts

Commissioner Andrew Place had requested that such a proceeding be opened as he expressed concern that non-shopping customers under the current default service rate design (flat pricing) would not be rewarded for "positive" behaviors, such as load shifting, peak reductions, etc.

In requesting stakeholder comments, the PUC asked, among other things, if default service should have a Time of Use, critical peak, peak time rebate, or other dynamic pricing structure

The PUC also asked for comments on changes in the procurement method and contracts used for default service, including whether full requirements contracts remain appropriate or whether long-term contracts should be used

See our prior story for a full discussion of the PUC's investigation

The PUC had ordered that comments in response to an initiating order are due no later than 90 days from the entry date of the order, which was issued February 26, 2019. The PUC ordered that reply comments are due 120 days from the date of the order

OSBA asked that initial comments be due 150 days from the entry date of the order and that reply comments be due 180 days from the entry date of the order

OSBA stated that it contacted the Office of Consumer Advocate, the Energy Association of Pennsylvania, and the Retail Energy Supply Association regarding its request and each of these parties indicated they have no objection to the relief requested

M-2019-3007101

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Retail Energy Operations Specialist
• NEW! -- Account Manager, Energy Choice
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager
• Chief Operating Officer -- Retail Supplier
• Retail Energy Channel Manager -- Retail Supplier
• Energy Sales Broker