|
|
|
|
|
PUC Staff Provide More Details On Straw Proposal's Switching Restriction
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the Maine PUC, in conjunction with Staff's consultant, have provided a further response to the utilities' questions concerning a minimum stay, or switching restriction, that would apply in certain straw proposals for time of use default service rates
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, Staff has previously detailed that the proposed minimum stay under a relevant straw proposal would apply to shopping customers who choose a competitive electricity provider (CEP) as well as standard offer supply customers, but would only apply once an active choice is made by the customer
Staff previously said, "the 12-month stay requirement will only apply after an initial active choice. For example, if a customer is defaulted to a TOU SOS rate, they are free to opt-out and receive either a flat SOS rate or a CEP rate at any time. However, once they make this election, they will be required to stay for 12 months."
Staff previously confirmed that, under the relevant straw proposal, if a minimum stay is triggered, the utilities shall reject a CEP enrollment if the customer has not fulfilled the 12-month period on standard offer TOU
Versant sought further clarification of how to implement the minimum stay, including, notably, how to treat a customer who seeks to return to TOU SOS from a retail supplier, and with which supplier (and rate) the customer should be placed in light of the rejected migration
In a new response, Staff stated that, "Customers ineligible to switch should remain on/be returned to their previous applicable rate. In the case of CEP [retail supply] service, customers should be returned to SOS if their CEP contract has expired or has otherwise been terminated."
Staff also said that, "Existing systems that manage customer switching should be modified to address these restrictions, including protocols to communicate with both customers and CEPs."
In another development, the Office of the Public Advocate has expressed concern with one straw proposal's reconciliation and revenue neutrality approach for TOU default service rates (reconciliation is needed since the SOS supply will not be specific to the TOU customers, and wholesale bidders will be paid a flat rate for the entire SOS load)
OPA said that the straw proposal would conduct separate reconciliations for TOU SOS customers, and non-TOU SOS customers, and, importantly, would ensure that both sets of customers pay the same average rate to ensure revenue neutrality
However, OPA said that this separation would essentially undo any load shifting benefits from TOU customer behavior
The straw proposal, "would result in the erasure of all of the bill savings associated with load shifting," OPA said
"For example, if TOU customers substantially reduce on-peak consumption and increase off-peak consumption, Staff’s [straw] proposal would increase the off-peak rate (and/or otherwise adjust TOU rates) to ensure that TOU customers are still paying the same average rate as flat-rate customers. In the extreme case, if TOU customers shifted all usage to off-peak periods, the off-peak rate would be set to equal the flat SOS rate, eliminating the economic benefit of load shifting," OPA said
"To avoid this issue, other jurisdictions typically combine flat rate and TOU rate schedules into the same customer class for purposes of revenue recovery and reconciliation. Under this approach, the TOU rates would be designed to be revenue neutral at the class level rather than within the subset of TOU participants. Customers who reduce usage during high-cost periods and increase usage during low-cost periods would realize bill savings, while any resulting over- or under-recovery would be reconciled across the entire class," OPA said
The Office of the Public Advocate has also once again asked that the procedural schedule in the TOU policy review be paused to allow for settlement discussions on an agreed framework for a cost/benefit analysis
OPA said, "Over the course of the last 30 days, the OPA has expended significant internal resources and incurred extensive costs from our outside expert to work through the iterative process of establishing the cost, benefit, and reconciliation models for this case. We expect that finishing that iterative process will cost the OPA a significant amount of additional resources. We urge staff to pause that process while the parties work together to bring forward an alternative resolution for this Docket."
Docket 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 26, 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
|
|
|
|
|