|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania PUC Modifies Settlement In PPL Electric Rate Case; As-Filed Settlement Removes Proposed Per-Transaction EDI Fee On Retail Suppliers; Other Changes To Supplier Tariff
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Pennsylvania PUC adopted with a modification a non-unanimous settlement in PPL Electric Utilities' rate case, with the adopted settlement, if maintained, removing, from an earlier proposed supplier coordination tariff, PPL Electric Utilities' original proposal that retail electric suppliers (EGSs) shall be subject to a per-transaction fee for EDI transactions
The sole modification made by the PUC to the settlement in adopting the settlement relates to the treatment of certain agricultural customer-generators in terms of their classification into a default service rate class (hourly vs. fixed price), which determines the level of their net metering compensation (such modification adopted by the PUC is discussed further below)
No party opposed the EGS tariff-related provisions of the settlement
However, the modification by the PUC to the settlement does allow any party to the settlement to withdraw from the settlement, which would result in litigation of the entire rate case resuming. Settling parties were given a deadline of five business days, from the issuance of an order on adoption, to withdraw from the settlement in light of the PUC's modification. To the extent there are no withdrawals, the modified settlement would be adopted as final.
PPL Electric issued a news release touting approval of the settlement, with what PPL Electric termed a "minor modification" to the settlement. Though not explicit, such news release appears to indicate that PPL Electric will not withdraw from the settlement
Concerning the EGS-related terms, as first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, PPL Electric Utilities had originally proposed that PPL Electric Utilities would, "directly assign EDI Transaction fees to each EGS [electric generation supplier, aka retail supplier] for their EDI transactions. PPL Electric will charge its actual costs incurred for EDI transaction fees."
This previously proposed per-EDI transaction fee provision was excluded from the settlement, and the exclusion was not disturbed by the PUC's modification to the settlement
Another proposed new charge for EGSs was included under the adopted modified settlement.
Specifically, PPL Electric Utilities had proposed to allocate, to EGSs, DUNS Testing Fees incurred by PPL Electric for on-boarding new or modified EGSs into its systems. Specifically, PPL Electric had proposed to recover, from EGSs, DUNS testing fees for the following types of testing: (1) 'Full' testing, which is to test DUNS activity for a new supplier; and (2) 'Abbreviated' testing, which is to test DUNS activity for an existing supplier requesting an additional DUNS number. The DUNS fees were proposed to be directly assigned to the EGS for each test performed.
At the time of PPL Electric's original proposal, the DUNS testing costs were $4,867.20 for full testing and $2,215.98 for abbreviated testing.
Under the settlement, the DUNS testing fees would be adopted with an effective date of January 1, 2027
Under the settlement, PPL Electric is to also delete all proposed new credit requirements for EGSs, including the previously proposed provisions discussed below
PPL Electric had originally proposed to include in the EGS tariff new language stating that PPL Electric requires an initial credit amount of $250,000 from an EGS, and that PPL Electric shall adjust the amount required, "commensurate with the financial risks placed on the Company by an EGS, including recognition of an EGS’s performance."
PPL Electric had originally proposed that, "An EGS shall satisfy its Creditworthiness requirement and receive an unsecured credit limit which will be a maximum of 5% of an EGS’s Tangible Net Worth by demonstrating that it has, and maintains, investment grade long-term bond ratings," from any two of the following four rating agencies: Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors’ Services, Fitch IBCA, and Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Company
PPL Electric had originally proposed that, "The EGS may choose from any of the following credit arrangements in a format acceptable to the Company: an irrevocable Letter of Credit; a cash deposit established with the Company; including the Company as a beneficiary; or other mutually agreeable security or arrangement."
Under the settlement, PPL Electric further agrees that all EGSs currently registered and operating in its service territory will be allowed to continue service on an uninterrupted basis until January 1, 2028, regardless of the changes to the requirements for registration of coordination services adopted under the settlement
The EGSs currently registered and operating in the PPL Electric service territory will need to provide the information and materials required under the revised coordination tariff (including any newly required information and materials) no later than January 1, 2028, in order to continue operating in PPL Electric’s service territory
The settlement does not include a clean or redlined version of the supplier tariff envisioned by the settlement agreement
However, based on earlier proposals in the case, it appears that such additional requirements under the revised supplier tariff, that EGSs would need to provide, may potentially include, among other things, a service agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service under the PJM Tariff (it is unclear if an EGS could use a non-affiliate to receive NITS service, which may not be a common practice now but has been used previously); a Market Participant Agreement as defined under the PJM Tariff; and a copy of the EGS’s license issued by the PaPUC.
PPL Electric agrees that EGSs can satisfy any requirements under the coordination registration requirements through affiliates
The settlement strikes a provision which would halve limited available rate options to be used by EGSs
Under the settlement, the specific following proposed language has been struck from the coordination requirements: "for EGSs that use Consolidated EDC Billing, a copy of the EGS’s rate schedule must be provided to the Company. When an EGS requests the implementation of 'Standard Rates' on or after registration, or revisions to existing Standard rate schedules, the Company will implement the requested EGS rate schedule(s) within 14 calendar days. Standard Rates include fixed cents per kWh rates, starting from $0.0500 through $0.1199 per kWh in $0.0001 increments, and up to four decimal place precision. A 'percent off' of shopping rates would be available from 1% through 50% off the Price to Compare in one-half percent increments. An EGS will be limited to no more than 200 discrete Rate Ready rates per calendar quarter. Additionally, any rate design other than the one specified in Rule 12.1 may delay power flow to a Customer billed under Consolidated EDC Billing"
The only opposition to the settlement concerns the classification of "no load" customer-generators with distributed generation, who are eligible for net metering, into either hourly priced default service or fixed priced default service. The default service classification and rate determines the net metering compensation to these customers
PPL Electric had proposed to use a customer's "maximum registered peak load" for the purpose of classifying customers into their respective default service rate schedules (this would essentially move many "no load" customer-generators into the hourly priced service class, and change their net metered compensation to hourly rates, rather than the small customer fixed default service rate)
See background here
The as-filed settlement would have generally adopted PPL Electric's proposed use of "maximum registered peak load" to classify customers into default service and to set their attendant net metering compensation, with a grandfathering provision.
At a high level, the grandfathering would have allowed certain existing customer-generators to remain on their current default service class/net metering compensation for 10 years, subject to a total cap on the grandfathered load
In a motion from Commissioner Kathryn Zerfuss adopted by the PUC, Zerfuss said that the grandfathering provisions are in adequate, and said that dairy farmers and other customer-generators have not been shown to be true "no load" customers, which consume little power and which act as merchant generators sending nearly all of their power to the grid, and whose net metering compensation the settlement is trying to address
Under the adopted motion from Zerfuss, agricultural customer-generators that use anaerobic digesters or biogas generation systems fueled by biologically derived methane gas that are owned or operated by persons engaged in agricultural operations will not be subject to the Maximum Registered Peak Load provision, and such agricultural customer-generators would maintain their current default service class and net metering compensation (which typically for such customers is currently the small customer SOS class and fixed net metering rate)
Specifically, under the adopted motion, an agricultural customer-generator, as defined below, shall not be subject to the Maximum Registered Peak Load classification
adopted in Paragraphs 98 through 105 of the Settlement.
Under the adopted motion, "agricultural customer-generator" means a retail
electric customer-generator whose alternative energy generating facility is:
a. An anaerobic digester or biogas generation system fueled primarily by
biologically derived methane gas, as defined in the Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standards Act, 73 P.S. § 1648.2 -- meaning gas from the
anaerobic decomposition of animal waste, agricultural residue, or food
processing waste -- at a facility on land actively used for agricultural
production;
b. Owned or operated by a person or entity primarily engaged in animal
agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, dairying, poultry
production, and swine production; and
c. Not included within the scope of these Ordering Paragraphs are
biodigesters that operate as commercial off-farm facilities, such as
standalone or regional plants.
Aside from this carve-out, the Maximum Registered Peak Load provision would be adopted under the PUC's order
R-2025-3057164
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
June 4, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
|
|
|
|
|