|
|
|
|
|
PSC Opens Inquiry Into Future Of Purchases Of Receivables (POR) Program, Issues Questions For Comment
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The District of Columbia PSC has formally initiated, "an inquiry into the adequacy of the," purchases of receivables programs at Pepco and Washington Gas Light
The PSC's intent to open such a review of the POR programs had been first reported by ECM in March
As previously reported, the PSC has both expressed concern that high POR discounts may chill retail competition, while expressing concern (and rejecting attendant discounts) that discounts which do not appropriately reflect levels of bad debt may result in costs ultimately being borne by non-shopping customers, which the PSC had said would not be just and reasonable
In March 2025, the PSC, "reaffirmed a guiding principle associated with the formation of the POR
program, that 'no part of the POR program costs should be recovered from ratepayers.'"
In March 2025, the PSC had observed that, "it is apparent from reviewing Pepco’s proposals that there is no simple way to mitigate a high
POR Discount Rate without impacting non-POR ratepayers," while adding that, "[T]he Commission still
believes that the POR program must be a self-contained program with all of its cost components
contained therein."
In opening the inquiry, the PSC noted increased bad debt balances at each utility which have resulted in residential POR discounts of 11% at Pepco and nearly 8% at WGL (with the tariffed WGL POR calculation resulting in a 15% POR discount had the PSC not modified the values used in the calculation)
"The Commission also recognizes
that increased electricity and natural gas commodity costs impact the competitive suppliers' ability
to compete with Pepco or WGL," the PSC said
In light of the above, the PSC issued the following questions for stakeholder comment:
a. Is the POR program still necessary to encourage utility competition in the District?
b. Should the POR Discount Rate calculation be modified? If yes, explain how it should
be modified for Residential, Small Commercial, and Large Commercial Customers,
and why?
c. How should the Commission direct Pepco or WGL to treat existing and future undercollections
and or over-collections?
d. Should the Commission change the POR Discount Rate calculation when there is a
change in the utility commodity cost? If so, how should the threshold be determined?
e. What is the current status of the utility competition (both electric and gas) in the
District since the POR programs were introduced? Please provide the status for
residential and commercial suppliers separately, if available.
f. At the outset of the POR programs in DC, proponents claimed that the POR program
would incentivize retail market supplier competition in the District and provide more
choices of utility supply for DC customers.
i. Have DC customers benefited from the DC POR program? If so, explain the
benefits, including the impact of the POR program on customers and the
competitive market in DC.
ii. How would the discontinuation of a POR program affect the retail suppliers
and/or DC customers?
g. What additional factors (if any) should the Commission consider when deciding
about the future of the POR program in the District?
Dockets PEPPOR-2025-01, WGPOR-2025-01
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
June 18, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|