PSC Staff Offer Further Modifications To Proposed Bypassable SOS Administrative Adjustment At BGE

In surrebuttal testimony, Staff of the Maryland PSC further revised their recommendation for the bypassable electricity SOS Administrative Adjustment at Baltimore Gas & Electric, with the rates marginally higher than Staff's previously proposed rates

Staff has now proposed the following amounts for the BGE electricity SOS Administrative Adjustment

Updated (Surrebuttal)
Staff Recommended SOS Administrative 
Adjustment Rates By SOS class

            mills per kWh
Residential      1.46
Type I           1.25
Type II          0.49
Hourly           0.36

Staff's changes result from reviewing additional data responses provided by BGE

For comparisons, in prior rebuttal testimony, Staff had previously recommended the following amounts for the BGE electricity SOS Administrative Adjustment

Prior (Rebuttal)
Staff Recommended SOS Administrative 
Adjustment Rates By SOS class

            mills per kWh
Residential      1.37 
Type I           1.17
Type II          0.46
Hourly           0.33

Currently, the SOS Administrative Adjustment component is 0¢/kWh, as set in a prior Commission order

As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, BGE has proposed to set the bypassable SOS Administrative Adjustment at 1.00 mill per kWh, for all of BGE’s SOS customer classes, after BGE provided a cost of service study finding that the costs included under the SOS Administrative Adjustment at 0.99 mills per kWh. BGE continues to recommend this level in surrebuttal testimony

In surrebuttal testimony, a coalition of retail suppliers continues to recommend setting the SOS Administrative Adjustment as follows (see background on costs driving the supplier proposal here):

Coalition Recommended SOS Administrative 
Adjustment Rates By SOS class
            mills per kWh
Residential     11.82 
Type I          21.06 
Type II         21.06 
Hourly          21.06 

OPC continues to oppose SOS Admin. Adjustment proposals offered by BGE, suppliers, and Staff

Case No. 9610