|
|
|
|
|
Regulator Seeks Comments On Procurement Manager's Recommendation For Reduction In Use Of Full Requirements Contracts For Default Service
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Connecticut PURA has invited public comment on a report from Connecticut's Procurement Manager (PM) for electricity default service, and has asked for stakeholder responses to specific questions
As previously reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the state's Procurement Manager has recommended that the utilities rely on direct purchases (self-supply) from the ISO New England markets for a non-binding target of 20% of default service load for customers under 500 kW (standard service)
The PM has recommended that the utilities begin using the 20% target for direct ISO NE market purchases, also termed dynamic market purchases, in the earliest feasible procurement term. The level for the non-binding dynamic market purchase target would be reviewed annually, under the PM's recommendation
See a full discussion on the Procurement Manager's recommendations in ECM's prior story here
The PM's recommendation was made in a report on proposed changes to standard service procurement due to legislative changes adopted last year (see background here)
Notably, in the context of a potential volatility mitigation fund (which is not proposed by the PM), PURA asked whether any guardrails, such as re-enrollment restrictions or other provisions, should be considered. One such guardrail raised in the proceeding is requiring customers leaving utility standard service to wait a period, such as at least 6 months, before re-enrolling on standard service
Among other things, PURA requested comment on whether the Authority should adopt the Procurement Managers’ recommended 20% non-binding dynamic market purchase target. If not, PURA directed that stakeholders identify alternative targets or structures recommended by stakeholders
PURA asked: If a non-binding target is adopted, identify and discuss the factors or decision rules that should govern deviations from that target, including any recommended bid-competitiveness thresholds, comparison metrics, or planning-phase analyses.
PURA asked for comment on additional risk-mitigation measures if dynamic market purchases are authorized above 20%
PURA also directed stakeholders to discuss whether further investigation is warranted into changing standard service delivery terms or forward purchases.
PURA also sought comment on the appropriate proxy price to be used in setting default service rates when dynamic market purchases are used for a portion of default service
Specifically, PURA asked whether the lowest rejected Full Requirements Service bid in the final solicitation should serve as the proxy price for the portion of standard service served through dynamic market purchases. If not, PURA sought alternative proxy price mechanisms from stakeholders, requesting that proposals explain, "how that method would better maintain market-reflective pricing, account for customer migration risk, supplier bid behavior, emerging capacity market uncertainty, and limit over- or under-collections."
PURA asked whether mid-period reconciliations should be adopted for standard service, including the threshold or trigger for such
PURA also sought comment on a plus-or-minus 0.5 ¢/kWh deadband for reconciliations. If an alternative deadband is proposed, stakeholders were directed to, "Explain why any proposed alternative would better manage volatility without distorting customer enrollment decisions."
For any reconciliation or a deadband-based cost-spreading mechanism, stakeholders were directed to, "identify and discuss any implementation constraints, timing concerns, or customer communication issues that should be addressed"
PURA also sought comment on whether a volatility mitigation fund should be adopted for standard service
PURA issued data requests to the utilities, seeking, among other things, whether the EDC is able to implement dynamic purchases for the October 2026 procurement cycle
Docket 12-06-02RE05
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 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
April 13, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• NEW -- Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager - TX -- Retail Supplier
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|