PUC - HMS Legal

PUC Streamlines Gas Cost Rate Filings for Small Gas Companies

William Lehman on March 14, 2016

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) recently issued a final rule making order concerning recovery of fuel costs by gas utilities at Docket No. L-2013-2346923. The full order can be found here: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol46/46-4/110.html The Order is designed to simplify and streamline information and procedures for small gas utilities (gross intrastate operating revenues of $40 million or less) when submitting gas cost rate (GCR) filings with the PUC.

Specifically, in this Order, the PUC implements the following changes to its regulations: (1) classify all natural gas utilities not qualifying for 1307(f) treatment as small gas utilities; (2) modify the schedules included in small gas utilities’ GCR filings for purposes of efficiency; (3) provide small gas utilities with uniform time schedules to allow more accurate gas cost projections as winters approach; (4) allow small gas utilities to collect interest, at the prime rate for commercial borrowing, on both net over and under collections from ratepayers; (5) eliminate the requirement that at least 90% of a small gas utility’s annualized gas costs be rolled into base rates; and (6) implement a GCR interim tariff filing procedure to be effective on ten days’ notice.

Highlights of each Section:

52 Pa. Code 53.63 – classifies gas utilities into two types: Large (gross intrastate operating revenue over $40 million) and Small ($40 million or less).

52 Pa. Code 53.66 – sets filing requirements for small gas utilities when filing GCR tariffs under 1307. Subsection (a)(1) lists 11 Schedules that must be included with the filing. Subsection (a)(2) allows for small gas utilities to file a preliminary and a final GCR to be effective November 1. The preliminary filing is to be made by September 2. The final filing should be made on October 2. Subsection (c) requires small gas utilities to file a reconciliation statement under 1307(e) for the 12-month period running from Sept. 1 through August 31 by October 1. Subsection (d) allows small gas utilities to collect interest on both over and under collections from ratepayers. Subsection (e) states the notice requirements to customers when recovering fuel costs under the GCR and Subsection (g) requires small gas utilities to monitor GCR activity to avoid becoming materially over/under collected by more than 2% which would allow the small gas utility to submit an interim GCR filing to be effective on 10 days’ notice.

52 Pa. Code 53.68 – requires small gas utilities filing a GCR to provide notice within 5 days of the preliminary filing (or by Sept. 7) by publishing in a major newspaper within the utility’s service area.

Columbia seeks yet another rate increase

Todd Stewart on March 27, 2015

Almost one year to the day from its 2014 rate increase filing, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania is back before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission seeking an additional $46 million in revenue.

Columbia has continued its streak of rate cases, filing almost annually since the General Assembly passed the DSIC bill that was touted as being the antidote for frequent rate cases. In addition to seeking recovery of main replacement costs in excess of the 5% cap imposed by the DSIC statute, Columbia’s rate filing includes an innovative approach to extending its gas infrastructure to reach more customers.

PUC regulars will recall that in its last rate case, Columbia proposed a New Area Service rider (“NAS”) that allowed customers that did not have the ability to pay an upfront deposit for extending Columbia’s facilities to their premises to pay that amount, either the full or partial deposit, over a period of 20 years on a monthly basis. The testimony that was included in Columbia’s filing correctly points out that while the NAS program does help to mitigate one barrier to extending facilities, i.e., the sometimes significant upfront costs, it does not eliminate the cost, and those costs can add to customer’s bills for a long period of time.

In order to help, Columbia has proposed to develop new incentives that would encourage more customers to switch to natural gas service. The first would be a footage allowance for up to 150 feet of main line extension per applicant without the need of a net present value (“NPV”) analysis that is normally done; the second would be an allowance of 150 feet of service line in normal situations for those portions of Columbia’s service territory where the Company has lines; and third would be reimbursement of up to $1,000.00 for installation of house piping where the projected revenues exceed projected costs by a certain threshold, when the Company does the (“NPV”) analysis. What this means in real terms is that new customers will have the opportunity to receive gas service with an allowance of 150 feet of main-line extension and 150 of service line—at no charge, which should allow many new customers to connect to Columbia’s facilities.

With all these innovative programs that Columbia is proposing, it seems inevitable that they will have included a few items that parties will not like. In this case, Columbia has resurrected, yet again, its intention to charge shopping customers for the right to shop, by seeking to impose upon them a substantial charge, Rider CAC (customer access charge) that purports to recover Columbia’s costs of providing choice service. Columbia proposed the same Rider in its last rate case but withdrew it as part of a settlement. It is interesting that this charge recovers substantially more dollars than Columbia purports to spend on its own gas acquisition; and, therefore, it is much larger in order of magnitude on a per customer basis than the charge that Columbia is proposing to recover for its gas procurement costs (“GPC”). This seems a little odd to this observer.

This matter has not yet been assigned to an administrative law judge. The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate has filed a complaint, which almost ensures that the rate filing will be suspended and sent for hearings before an administrative law judge sometime this summer. Stay tuned.

“Tip Letter” and Records Related to Investigation Leading to PUC-Approved Settlement Not Subject to Disclosure

Christopher Arfaa on January 5, 2015

The PUC is not required to disclose a utility employee’s “tip letter” or other records relating to an investigation of the utility’s practices where the documents are not considered by the Commissioners when approving the resulting settlement.

A panel of the Commonwealth Court has held that documents relating to a settled, informal investigation of a utility by the PUC’s Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement (I&E) are not subject to disclosure under either section 335(d) of the Public Utility Code or the provisions of Right to Know Law (RTKL), where the documents are not provided to or considered by the commissioners. The opinion in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Seder, No. 2132 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 3, 2014), reverses orders by the Office of Open Records directing the PUC to provide news reporters and their publications with access to an anonymous “tip letter” from a purported PPL employee and other documents relating to the resulting I&E informal investigation of the utility. As the court itself acknowledged, its construction of section 335(d) and the RTKL allows the parties to a PUC settlement “great leeway in determining which documents are subject to public disclosure.”

The court considered the requirements of section 335(d) and the RTKL in turn. Under section 335(d), the PUC must disclose documents related to an investigation of a public utility if (1) the commission has made a decision, entered into a settlement or taken any other official action under the Sunshine Act, and (2) the commission relied on the documents in question when doing so. 66 Pa. C.S. § 335(d). The key question before the court was who constitutes the “commission” in the context of section 335(d): the commissioners themselves, or the entirety of the PUC, including I&E. Conceding that the statute is not a model of clarity, the court determined that “commission” means only the commissioners themselves, because they alone are entitled, by majority vote, to make the decisions, enter into the settlements and take the other official actions that are the subject of section 335(d). The first prerequisite to disclosure was satisfied when the PUC approved the settlement with PPL, but the second was not, because the commissioners did not have access to or rely upon the “tip letter” or other documents when deciding to enter into the settlement.

The court then held that the requested documents are also exempt from public access under section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL, which exempts agency records relating to noncriminal investigations, including complaints, investigative materials, records containing the identity of a confidential source, and records containing information made confidential by law. 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17)(i)-(iv). The “tip letter” is exempt from disclosure because it was the basis for I&E’s institution of an informal investigation. The remaining documents are exempt because they were created or collected as part of an informal investigation to determine compliance with regulations. The court reasoned that to require the PUC to disclose the requested documents could lead to public utilities and employees being less likely to provide information out of fear of retaliation or public embarrassment, thus “frustrating the purpose of [the] PUC’s investigations and lessening the effectiveness of the PUC in monitoring the utilities’ compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” (The court concluded with a separate determination that a legal memorandum prepared by an I&E prosecuting attorney analyzing whether the allegations against PPL violated the Public Utility Code is legally privileged and therefore also exempt from disclosure.)

A copy of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Seder, No. 2132 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 3, 2014) is available here.

Victory For Sunoco Pipeline in Second Round Before PUC

Whitney Snyder on October 6, 2014

Public Utility Commission (PUC) Commissioners gave Sunoco Pipeline a fighting chance at exemption from local zoning for outbuildings housing utility structures on the Mariner East Pipeline, finding prima facie evidence that Sunoco is a public utility and overruling the ALJs’ July 23, 2014 Initial Decision granting preliminary objections finding to the contrary.

The Commissioners’ October 2, 2014 Motion dismissed the ALJs’ reasoning that relied on the unpredictable “to or for the public” standard to find lack of public utility status, instead focusing on the fact that pipeline routes and services have been certificated since the 1930s and the Commission’s July and August 2014 grant of certificates to Sunoco, finding this to be prima facie evidence of public utility status. The Motion also criticized the reasoning of the ALJs, holding that wholesale service alone can constitute service to or for the public.

The Commission remanded what it termed the “narrow” issue in the case – whether to exempt from local zoning the buildings housing the 18 pump stations and 17 valve control stations Sunoco plans to install along the pipeline – noting this case does not concern approval of the overall Mariner East project or construction of the actual valve controls and pump stations.

In a procedural twist, the Commission also dismissed the parties’ other preliminary objections, including issues such as whether the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits Sunoco’s requested relief, even though the ALJs did not rule on these objections. Commissioner Cawley dissented, arguing that the objectors should have the opportunity to get an ALJ ruling on these issues. Given that these issues were resolved only through preliminary objections, which carry a high standard of proof and only prevent the case from going past the pleading stage, the ALJs and Commission will likely be presented with the questions again after the hearing.

NIMBYs and Environmental Groups Win First Round Before PUC Against Sunoco Pipeline

Kevin McKeon on August 19, 2014

Sunoco’s proposed Mariner East pipeline that would transport natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Pennsylvania’s rich Marcellus Shale production in Western Pennsylvania to processing plants in southeastern Pennsylvania, received a blow from Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ALJs on July 23, 2014.

Under Pennsylvania law, if the PUC finds public utility buildings or structures to be “reasonably necessary,” they are exempt from local zoning. Seeking such an exemption for the 18 pump stations and 17 valve control stations enclosed in metal buildings that it plans to install in 31 separate locations in order to carry the NGLs across Pennsylvania, Sunoco Pipeline filed petitions with the PUC seeking such an exemption and requesting a finding that the buildings are “reasonably necessary” for the operation of its pipeline. The rub is that the exemption is not available unless the applicant is a “public utility,” and under recent PUC decisions, the determination of whether an entity is a public utility has gotten less and less predictable.

In reaching their conclusion the ALJs relied on a number of factors, ranging from Sunoco’s recent abandonment of service on portions of the line to questions about whether the new proposed service transporting propane and ethane is subject to regulation at all, and, even if it is, whether the service to be provided will be, as required under the statute, “to or for the public.”

The ALJs summarized Sunoco’s petitions as “premature at best” because Sunoco’s applications to operate its NGL service from west to east are still pending before the Commission in other dockets, and its status as a public utility entitled to the exemption is not clear.

Sunoco has the opportunity to file exceptions to the ALJs’ decision to the PUC.

PUC Divested Of Remaining Marcellus Zoning Duties

Kevin McKeon on July 23, 2014

In Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901(Pa. 2013) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of Act 13, the statute that removed from local zoning control the power to regulate oil and gas operations through restrictions on the placement and operation of oil and gas facilities. The Court remanded to the Commonwealth Court to consider whether other provisions of Act 13, including provisions that give the PUC power to review local zoning ordinances and withhold impact fees, remain viable.

The Commonwealth Court on remand has now invalidated and enjoined enforcement of those other provisions that give the PUC jurisdiction to review the provisions of local ordinances to determine whether they comply with Act 13 and, if not, to withhold impact fees imposed on drillers and operatorsto alleviate the “impacts” of drilling on municipalities or to impose attorney fees and costs on the municipalities. Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, __A.3d __ (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)(July 17, 2014).

Specifically, the Commonwealth Court enjoined enforcement of sections 3302 and 3305 to 3309 of the statute. Section 3302 provides that “[n]o local ordinance adopted pursuant to the MPC [Municipalities Planning Code] or the Flood Plain Management Act shall contain provisions which impose conditions, requirements or limitations on the same features of oil and gas operations regulated by Chapter 32 or that accomplish the same purposes as set forth in Chapter 32. The Commonwealth, by this section, preempts and supersedes the regulation of oil and gas operations as provided in this chapter.” The Court held that the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Act 13’s preemption of local regulation necessarily invalidates section 3302.

The Commonwealth Court invalidated sections 3305-3309 for similar reasons. Section 3305 provides that municipalities may seek an advisory opinion from the PUC as to whether a proposed ordinance complies with Act 13, and provides that well operators and residents may seek similar opinions once a local ordinance is enacted. Section 3306 provides that any person aggrieved “by the enactment or enforcement of a local ordinance that violates the MPC, this chapter or Chapter 32 (relating to development)” may bring an action in the Commonwealth Court “to invalidate the ordinance or enjoin its enforcement” whether or not initial review by the PUC was sought. The Court determined that the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision “is that the statutory scheme cannot be implemented. Local zoning matters will now be determined by the procedures set forth under the MPC and challenges to local ordinances that carry out a municipality’s constitutional environmental obligations. Because challenges to those ordinances must be brought in common pleas court, it would further frustrate the purpose of the Act in having a uniform procedure.” The Court invalidated section 3307 (relating to the award of attorney fees and costs in actions brought under section 3306), section 3308 (relating to the withholding of impact fees for municipalities enacting or enforcing local ordinances that violate the MPC or Chapters 32 or 33), and section3309(a) (relating to the applicability of Chapter 33) for similar reasons.

A copy of the Commonwealth Court’s decision is available here.

Kevin J. McKeon awarded the prestigious James S. Bowman Award.

Judith Cassel on June 10, 2014

On May 15, 2014, during the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s annual meeting, the PBA’s Administrative Law Section presented the James S. Bowman Award to Kevin J. McKeon of Hawke McKeon & Sniscak, LLP. The award honors a lawyer who is making a significant impact on the practice of administrative law and who is demonstrating leadership in mentoring administrative law practitioners. McKeon regularly represents clients before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and also serves as lead counsel on significant cases before Pennsylvania’s appellate courts and the federal circuit courts of appeal. He serves on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee, is a co-author of Pennsylvania Appellate Practice, and is a frequent lecturer on topics in administrative law and appellate procedure. The award is named for the late Honorable James S. Bowman, the first President Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, whose comprehensive knowledge of administrative law, government law and appellate procedure was widely recognized and respected.

PUC To Consider Revised Labeling Requirements for Electricity Suppliers

Todd Stewart on June 28, 2013

The Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) recently issued a Tentative Order in the matter of: The Use of Fixed Price Labels for Products With a Pass-Through Clause, Docket No. M-2013-2362961 (Tentative Order entered May 23, 2013), in which it requested interested parties to comment on what it views as an emerging problem: certain Electric Generation Suppliers (“EGS”) offering products labeled as “fixed price” when the products clearly are “variable price” products. Comments were filed June 24 and a PUC decision is expected soon.

A number of EGSs recently have begun offering longer-term products (3-7 years) under the label of a “fixed price” despite the fact that the products contain “pass-through” clauses that allow those EGSs to substantially increase the overall price customers are asked to pay, without notice. Such contracts often have substantial early termination fees, effectively trapping customers who are unhappy about unexpected increases. The typical pass-through clause does not permit the EGS to increase the commodity price component, but does allow increases to track changes in transmission charges, reliability charges, etc., and which substantially lessen the risk of long term contracts for those EGSs, by placing that risk on the customer.

In its Tentative Order, the PUC expressed concern that customers could be misled into believing that the products were fixed price; that the price was indeed fixed for the life of the contract, and that customers would not pay attention to the fact that their price could rise over the contract period of time, and that even if the customers did pay attention, they would be helpless to do anything. Moreover, those suppliers who have abided by the Commission’s rules–which require that a product offered as a fixed-price product be a fixed-price product—are continuing to be competitively disadvantaged, because customers are attracted to these misleadingly lower-priced offers.

A number of parties submitted comments. The parties can be divided into two groups. The first group, exemplified by First Energy Solutions (“FES”), believes that offering a product as “fixed price” when it contains a substantial pass-through clause is perfectly acceptable and that the Commission should not be permitted to regulate the words used to describe these products, as that would constitute impermissible rate regulation. It should be no surprise that FES has been actively offering these pass-through products.

On the other side of the debate are the “playing by the rules” suppliers, such as Dominion Retail, who believe that labeling a product as fixed price when it contains an expansive pass-through clause which could result in substantial price increases to customers is, at best, a matter of false advertising. Dominion and others are gravely concerned that changing the rules to allow for such contracts to be labeled as anything other than variable price contracts could leave customers with no ability to assess the basis for those charges, to understand the risks associated with such charges or to adjust their behavior (including leaving the contract without substantial penalty) in the event of a price hike. These commenters believe that any product labeled as fixed must be fixed for the initial term of the contract. To do otherwise will lead to substantial customer dissatisfaction and further disaffection with the competitive market. The PUC is expected to issue an order by the end of summer.

For Pennsylvania’s energy markets to mature, suppliers need to adopt sustainable marketing techniques that foster the long-term best interests of the market. If the marketers will not police themselves and curb this type of behavior, it is clear that the Commission will come under increasing pressure to do so, from the public and the General Assembly. Making questionable offers to customers results in negative attitudes about competitive markets and is a sure way to endanger the gains that have been achieved in Pennsylvania to date.

First Energy Pays Price for Being First

Todd Stewart on September 24, 2012

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) caused quite a stir with its August 16, 2012 Order[1] that partially approved the jointly filed default service plans of the four First Energy electric utility affiliates serving in Pennsylvania.

[1] Joint Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company and West Penn Power Company for Approval of their Default Service Programs, Docket Nos. P-2011-2273650 et al. (Order entered August 16, 2012)(“First Energy Order”) .

The First Energy Order, the result of a binding pole of the issues conducted at the PUC’s August 2, 2012 Public Meeting, made substantial changes to ALJ Elizabeth Barnes’ Recommended Decision which had been issued earlier in the summer. Prominent among the modifications were the PUC’s changes to a Retail Opt-In (“ROI”) Auction program. The ROI program is intended to encourage default service customers to shop by offering a discount off of the Price to Compare (“PTC”) and a $50 rebate to customers and has been the centerpiece of the PUC’s suite of proposed market enhancements.

First Energy had proposed the ROI in a form that largely reflected the PUC’s wishes for such programs as expressed in its Retail Markets Investigation Order,[1] and with a few exceptions, notably cost recovery, the ALJ had largely adopted First Energy’s proposal. First Energy had proposed a 12 month ROI product with the discount set by a descending clock auction among participating electric generation suppliers (“EGS”). The PUC rejected the descending clock auction, and the very concept of an auction, and replaced it with a ROI aggregation program in which any eligible supplier raising its hand can receive an assignment of a percentage of participating customers. The PUC also modified the offer that would be provided to customers, replacing the 12 month fixed price with a four month offering at a fixed five percent (5%) discount off of the PTC at the time of the offer. Customers will still receive a fifty dollar ($50) bonus payment if they stay with their assigned supplier for the initial four (4) month term. In a new wrinkle, however, the PUC added an eight (8) month component to follow the initial 4 month term, but did not specify a price for the that component other than to say that the PUC would review the terms and conditions. Importantly, the PUC deferred the issue of how to pay for the ROI to a collaborative process between First Energy and the supplier parties. First Energy is required to make a compliance filing to the PUC within sixty (60) days — by October 15, 2012 that reflects a consensus proposal.

The uncertainty created by several aspects of the First Energy Order, and the ROI program in particular, provoked Petitions for Reconsideration by the Office of Consumer Advocate (“OCA”) and the Retail Energy Supply Association (“RESA”) among others (including First Energy). Answers were filed by a number of parties. In general, most agree agree that the PUC should have provided more specific direction for the eight (8) month component of the ROI product, and should have addressed cost recovery more definitively.

First Energy, in its Petition for Clarification, raised concerns about the finality of the First Energy Order with regard to its procurement plan — First Energy’s procurement plan has it beginning to purchase energy in October 2012. In an apparent effort to emphasize its concern, on September 6, 2012 First Energy filed a revised Default Service Plan that made revisions to its procurement plan as required by the PUC’s Order.

At its September 13, 2012 Public Meeting, the PUC granted reconsideration of all six (6) Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification that had been filed, pending further consideration on the merits. The Commission’s action allows it to retain jurisdiction and effectively stops the appeals clock from ticking until the PUC enters an Order that clarifies and/or reconsiders its original Order. The next Public Meeting is scheduled to be held on September 27^th.

All of this drama has occurred while the Default Service Plans of the other three (3) large electric distribution companies, PECO, PPL and Duquesne Light Company, are pending. A Recommended Decision on PECO’s plan already has been issued by ALJ Dennis Buckley, and Exceptions and Replies to Exceptions were filed by a number of parties. Both PPL and Duquesne have been through the hearing phase and briefs are due in early October, with ALJ decisions expected in November or early December.

The First Energy Order has created palpable uncertainty, particularly concerning the PUC’s intention to use the Order as a model for the default service plans yet to come before it. The uncertainty has caused parties in those other proceedings, which were at various stages of litigation, to introduce alternative proposals that address the potential for the PUC to use First Energy as the standard. A rapid and decisive PUC decision that clarifies the First Energy Order will allow parties in those ongoing proceedings to have the benefit of that information; at least for PPL and Duquesne, where the briefs have yet to be written.

In other related developments, the PUC is expected to issue a Secretarial Letter seeking comments in the RMI proceeding in late September. That Secretarial Letter is expected to outline the PUC’s vision of the “end state” of the electricity market, and seek comments of interested parties prior to issuing final guidance on the “end state” in late November or early December 2012.

[1]Investigation of Pennsylvania’s Retail Electricity Market; Intermediate Work Plan, Docket No. I-2011-2237952. (Order entered March 2, 2012)(“IWP Order”).

PUC Denies PPL Migration Rider

Todd Stewart on July 23, 2012

Providing a win to competitive suppliers, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) at its July 19 public meeting unanimously denied PPL’s request for a migration rider for default service customers.

In a decision that should help sustain the momentum of competitive market enhancement in Pennsylvania, all five PUC Commissioners voted to reverse Administrative Law Judge Susan D. Colwell’s Recommended Decision (“RD”) in which she would have approved a migration rider proposed by PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (“PPL”). PPL had dubbed its migration rider a “reconciliation” rider, or “RR.” Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval to Implement a Reconciliation Rider for Default Supply Service, Docket No. P-2011-2256365 (Opinion and Order entered July 19, 2012).

The RR would have allowed PPL to continue to charge customers for some portion of the costs of default service for up to a year after the customer had switched to a competitive supplier and, likewise, would have excused customers who switch back to PPL’s default service from paying a potentially significant portion of those default service costs for up to a full year. Thus, the RR would have created a perverse incentive for customers to switch back to default service. The PUC denied PPL’s request for an RR but without prejudice, which would allow PPL to file another similar petition in the future.

The decision, however, may prove to be less than fully satisfying for the competitive suppliers in the case in that the PUC found only that PPL failed to carry its burden of proving that the RR was necessary and did not reach the legal argument raised by some suppliers that migration riders generally are prohibited under the statute and the PUC’s regulations. The PUC also rejected PPL’s exceptions to a separate part of the RD in which the ALJ had rejected PPL’s request for a competitive transition rider (“CTR”), which would have allowed PPL to charge all customers for any unrecovered default service costs incurred before June 1, 2012. The PUC similarly found that PPL had not sustained its burden of proving that the CTR is necessary and that PPL had failed to provide evidence that the CTR would recover a substantial variance that “could not be recovered through its currently existing reconciliation mechanism.” (slip op. at 23).

As a result of this process, the PUC recognized that “traditional methods of reconciliation accounting associated with default service costs in this post-rate cap era may have resulted in excessive rate volatility and inaccurate price signals for electricity consumers in Pennsylvania.” (slip op. at 38). The PUC now believes that any revisions to the current reconciliation process that would be required to limit volatility should be made on a prospective basis in a generic proceeding where all affected utilities and interested parties would have the opportunity to participate.

Also on July 19, the PUC adopted Commissioner Cawley’s motion to open a generic proceeding on default service reconciliation issues. Default Service Reconciliation Interim Guidelines, Docket No. M-2012-2314313

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available from the PUC’s website by clicking here.

A copy of the Commissioner Cawley’s Motion opening the generic proceeding is available from the PUC’s website by clicking here.