Pa. PUC Would Maintain Current Treatment of Uncollectibles in PPL POR Under Non-Binding
Poll
Email This Story
December 3, 2010
In a non-binding poll, Pennsylvania PUC Commissioners unanimously endorsed an ALJ's
recommendation regarding the treatment of uncollectibles under PPL Electric's Purchase
of Receivables program, including rejecting the Retail Energy Supply Association's
proposal (9/7) to institute a nonbypassable surcharge to recover uncollectible costs,
as done at PECO.
The non-binding poll, which came in PPL's rate case (R-2010-2161694) does not represent
a final vote, and the matter will come before the Commission again at a subsequent
meeting.
The Commissioners all agreed with the ALJ's position to adjudicate POR uncollectible
issues in the following manner:
- RESA's petition to replace the current uncollectibles discount rate and merchant
function charge with a nonbypassable charge to recover uncollectibles should be denied
- RESA's petition for an adjustment to the filed uncollectibles rate, to reflect actual
experience under POR rather than a five-year average, should be denied
- RESA's petition to end the tracking of supplier-specific uncollectible rates for
small business customers (with the discount rate potentially applied as a remedy
against cherry picking) should be denied.
Under provisions of the ALJ's recommended decision endorsed by the non-binding poll,
the residential discount rate would increase from 1.37% to 1.855%. The non-residential
discount rate would decrease to 0.06% from the current 0.17%.
Regarding the all-in/all-out requirement for POR participation in the residential
customer class, Commissioners John Coleman, Jr. and Robert Powelson, and Vice Chairman
Tyrone Christy, supported the ALJ's position to retain the all-in/all-out provision
as proposed by PPL.
The ALJ had noted that PPL's all-in requirement for residential customers is consistent
with an advanced notice of final rulemaking for gas POR under which the Commission
said that in order to participate in a POR program, the supplier must include all
customers with two specific exceptions: (1) if the LDC's system cannot accommodate
a specific product; or (2) if the supplier wants to offer products that are bundled
with non-basic services.
RESA, which favors elimination of the all-in requirement, noted that the gas regulations
are not final, and that no other Pennsylvania electric distribution company with
a POR program uses an all-in requirement. Chairman James Cawley expressed support
for RESA's position.
On the all-in issue, Commissioner Wayne Gardner expressed support for the position
of the Office of Trail Staff; however it was not immediately clear whether the OTS
position is different, in result, from the ALJ's recommendation, as Trial Staff also
supported the all-in requirement. OTS does justify the all-in requirement on different
grounds than the ALJ, noting that the 30% residential migration and 40% small business
migration shows that the current all-in requirement is not a barrier to competition.
All Commissioners supported the ALJ's position to not extend the revised POR program to large
commercial customers, as sought by RESA.
Email This Story
HOME
Copyright 2010 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please email
or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
