Retail Suppliers Note Inconsistency In Proposed Order That Would (Maybe) Impose Price Cap For Purchase Of Receivables Eligibility, Seek Rejection

The Retail Energy Supply Association filed exceptions to a recommended decision from a Pennsylvania PUC ALJ that appears to adopt limits on the purchase of receivables program at Peoples Natural Gas Company, but does so through conflicting discussion and proposed ordering paragraphs

EnergyChoiceMatters.com exclusively first noted the ambiguity in the recommended decision (RD)

In brief, the RD, in a proposed ordering paragraph in a Peoples Natural Gas Company rate case, specifically recommends that, "The Commission adopt CAUSE-PA’s [Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency in Pennsylvania] proposals regarding the Purchase of Receivables Program." [note plural, emphasis added]

CAUSE-PA recommended that a retail supplier's product should be ineligible for POR if the product has a rate which exceeds the price to compare, with the rate comparison ostensibly occurring at the time of enrollment (though CAUSE-PA was not always explicit that the price comparison would only occur at enrollment). CAUSE-PA said that if such limit is not adopted, POR should be terminated entirely

In contrast, in the recommended decision's narrative concerning POR, the ALJ recommends that, "I recommend that the Commission adopt Peoples’ proposal, which incorporates recommendations of CAUSE-PA."

However, Peoples, in a reply brief, explicitly said of POR, "Peoples has not adopted CAUSE PA’s proposal," and that, "To clarify, although Peoples acknowledges certain merits of CAUSE PA’s proposal, Peoples has not 'adopted' CAUSE PA’s recommendation".

See a full discussion in ECM's prior story here

In exceptions, RESA cited the ambiguity of the RD as requiring rejection of the RD's POR recommendations

RESA noted that, "Ordering Paragraph 74 ... adopts 'CAUSE-PA’s proposals' (plural). CAUSE-PA’s proposal contemplated a notice to suppliers, an effective date of June 1, 2027, an updated POR Agreement and Affidavit, and a price certification for contracts entered or renewed after that date, and CAUSE-PA urged elimination of POR in the alternative. The Recommendation, however, says the Commission should adopt 'Peoples’ proposal,' though Peoples’ direct case proposed no POR change other than a lower discount rate."

"It is impossible to tell from the R.D. what Peoples would be ordered to do, by when, or how any of it would apply to existing contracts," RESA said

"An order that cannot be implemented or enforced as written should not be adopted," RESA said

RESA further cited, as ECM did, the lack of substantive discussion in the RD concerning the ALJ's conclusion on POR

RESA said, "The R.D. devotes approximately six pages to describing the positions of Peoples, CAUSE-PA, and RESA on POR. It then disposes of the issue in a single sentence: 'After considering the various positions of the parties, I recommend that the Commission adopt Peoples’ proposal, which incorporates recommendations of CAUSE-PA.' That sentence is the entirety of the ALJ’s reasoning. It does not say what 'Peoples’ proposal' is, what it 'incorporates,' what evidence supports it, why RESA’s evidence and arguments were rejected, or what legal authority permits it."

RESA said, "The description of Peoples’ position reproduces Peoples’ Main Brief nearly verbatim. The summaries of CAUSE-PA’s and RESA’s positions likewise track their briefs. A recitation of what a party argued is not a finding that the argument is correct. It does not tell the Commission, or a reviewing court, why the ALJ accepted one side and rejected the other."

"This is error. Adjudications of Commonwealth agencies must be in writing and must contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication," RESA said

RESA said, "The omission is also prejudicial. RESA presented both statutory arguments, including that the proposal constitutes unauthorized price regulation and unlawful discrimination, and evidentiary arguments, including that the proponents failed to establish causation, that the proposed remedy is not appropriately tailored to the alleged harm, and that the proposal would be difficult to implement in practice. The R.D.’s summary of RESA’s position, however, ends after discussing the discrimination argument and does not address Sections C and D of RESA’s Main Brief at all."

RESA's exceptions also addressed legal and policy arguments against any limit on POR eligibility, reiterating arguments raised earlier in the case, including the argument that a price cap for POR eligibility constitutes unlawful price regulation of retail suppliers, and that a price-based restriction on POR would be discriminatory, contrary to utility statutes

Docket R-2026-3060855