|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania PUC Denies Municipalities' Petition For Declaratory Order That Opt-out Aggregation Does Not Constitute Slamming
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Pennsylvania PUC denied a petition from the Boroughs of Camp Hill, Carlisle, Hatboro, Lansdowne, Media, Narberth, State College, and Swarthmore which had asked the PUC to hold, via a declaratory judgment, that the opt-out nature of their proposed municipal aggregation (community choice aggregation) will not constitute "slamming" and will not violate Public Utility Code Section 2807(d)(1).
A written order was not immediately available, but based on discussion and vote by the PUC at its meeting this morning, the PUC generally did not deviate from its prior findings with respect to opt-out aggregation, in which the PUC has found that opt-out aggregation is inconsistent with statute (namely, Section 2807(d)) in the absence of specific legislative authority or emergency circumstances
Section 2807(d) of
the Public Utility Code provides that the PUC shall establish
regulations to ensure that an electric distribution
company does not change a customer’s
electricity supplier without direct oral
confirmation from the customer of record or
written evidence of the customer’s consent to a
change of supplier
See background on the Boroughs' petition here
In a statement, PUC Chair Stephen DeFrank said that granting authority for opt-out aggregation under the circumstances raised in the Boroughs' petition
would exceed the PUC's authority under statute
DeFrank encouraged the Boroughs to either consider opt-in aggregation, or pursue legislative changes to the extent the Boroughs still wish to conduct opt-out aggregation
In a statement, Vice Chair Kimberly Barrow noted that statute allows for the designation of an alternative default service provider other than the utility, with Barrow noting that such alternative provider would, under present PUC regulations, serve the entire service area, not only specific boroughs. Barrow also noted that such alternative default service would need to be consistent with the statutory requirements, including the use of a prudent mix of contract lengths that results in the least cost over time
Barrow said that the issues implicated in the alternative default service provider mechanism, "do not create
insurmountable challenges."
Although it is clear that the PUC denied the use of opt-out aggregation as requested by the Boroughs, it was not immediately clear, absent a written order, if the PUC accomplished such by issuing a declaratory judgment denying the Boroughs' sought interpretation of statute and court cases which the Boroughs have said allow opt-out aggregation, or if the PUC instead declined to issue any declaratory judgment, with the PUC finding the Boroughs' petition to be the improper vehicle to address this policy issue (thus leaving the current precedent and PUC policy discussed above in place)
P-2024-3049623
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
August 14, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|