Recommended Decision Addresses Contested Issues In Utilities' Default Service Proceeding -- EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Recommended Decision Addresses Contested Issues In Utilities' Default Service Proceeding

Settlement Already Addressed Change In Fixed PTC Term, CAP Customers, & Referral Program

June 29, 2022

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 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

A Pennsylvania ALJ has issued a recommended decision that would adopt, without modification, an uncontested settlement that would establish a default service plan for the FirstEnergy Pennsylvania utilities ("the Companies") to govern default service for the period June 1, 2023 through May 31, 2027 (DSP VI)

Full details of the uncontested settlement were first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com in April

Notable terms in the settlement include a longer fixed rate period for the Price to Compare, the removal of several short-term products from the SOS portfolio, the termination of CAP customer shopping, and issues related to the customer referral program and POR clawback charge.

See our prior story here for full details on the settlement, which the ALJ proposes to approve without modification

The ALJ's recommended decision addresses several contested issues raised by distributed generation stakeholders

The ALJ found that issues related to compensation to excess generation from distributed generation providers are not appropriate for a default service proceeding, and would dismiss such issues raised by distributed generation stakeholders

Additionally, in the proceeding, Sunrise Energy LLC argued that the EDCs are improperly excluding certain costs incurred to comply with the broad-reaching AEPS Act from their price to compare, including "indirect" costs associated with EDC personnel spending time processing interconnection and net metering applications

The ALJ would find that Section 3 of the AEPS Act details RPS-style obligations associated with default service supply that are separate from obligations, such as interconnections, in other sections of the Act.

"The Companies’ PTC and HP Riders are generally designed to recover Section 3 compliance costs, including the types of costs specified in the Commission’s regulations," the ALJ noted

"The Companies’ evidence established that the PTC and HP Riders appropriately exclude the costs of interconnecting distributed generation to the Companies’ distribution systems," the ALJ found.

Sunrise requested that the Commission conclude that AEPS Act expenses should not be grossed up for line losses and/or be subject to the gross receipts tax. The ALJ would reject these arguments

Docket P-2021-3030012 et al.

Email This Story

HOME