|
|
|
|
|
State's Consumer Advocate Questions How Customers Will Benefit Under Time of Use Rates If Default Service Contracts Remain Non-TOU Full Requirements Power; Says Load Shifting May Lead To Supplier Windfalls
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Maine Office of the Public Advocate has expressed concern regarding if, and when, customers would receive benefits from Time of Use electric rates (including potentially TOU default service rates) in Maine, given that straw proposals under consideration would not change the wholesale default service product used to serve non-shopping load
As previously reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com (story here), the straw proposals contemplate that TOU rates for Standard Offer service would be set administratively by the PUC based on the flat wholesale bids. There would be no change in the flat, full requirements SOS product due to the implementation of TOU Standard Offer rates, under the current straw proposals
Under one straw proposal, TOU Standard Offer rates would be the default price for non-shopping customers, with the ability for customers to opt-out onto a flat default service rate (or take competitive retail supply, with both opt-outs subject to minimum stays)
OPA noted that, in an Ontario opt-out TOU program, customer load response declined from an initial 3% response down to
approximately 1%.
OPA said that, given the current full requirements process for procuring standard offer supply, which relies on only 1-year contracts, "the OPA struggles to
see how small shifts in customer usage, which, as in the Ontario example, may wane
over time, would come to be incorporated into the standard offer bids in a
measurable and statistically significant manner. Our concern is that any such load
shift would merely become a windfall to the SOS provider and would be
overwhelmed by the risk premium that is baked into every SOS bid."
The OPA requested that the PUC Staff's TOU consultant provide a detailed explanation, "of how and when it envisions any impacts on energy and capacity system costs would
flow through the standard offer provider to reach customers," including addressing the following questions: How long will the
load shift need to persist before a standard offer provider would be likely to
incorporate it into its bids? How will the standard offer provider hedge the risk that
the customer response to alternative rate designs will wane over time? How will risk
premiums be affected?
OPA also generally said that the outline for the methodology,
assumptions, and data requirements to be used in the TOU cost/benefit analysis to be developed by a PUC Staff consultant lacks details, with OPA seeking that the consultant update the consultant's outline to provide "far more" detail
regarding the key assumptions that the consultant will use to model the load shift that the consultant expects in
Maine, "taking note of our dramatically lower central air conditioning load and the
likelihood of a decline in customer response over time".
Docket No. 2025-00176
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 23, 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
|
|
|
|
|