|
|
|
|
|
Consumer Advocate Asks Pa. PUC To "Clarify" That Recent PUC Finding, That Retail Supplier Costs Above Default Service Are Not Proof Of Customer Harm, Is Not Broadly Precedential
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a request for reconsideration of a recent Pennsylvania PUC order requiring that PECO's standard offer customer referral program (SOP) shall continue without the modifications sought by consumer advocates, the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate requested that the PUC "clarify" that the PUC's findings with respect to EGS costs which exceed default service costs are limited to the SOP, and will not serve as broadly applicable precedent in reviewing cost comparisons between default service and retail supplier service
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, in denying a change to the SOP program sought by consumer advocates, under which customers would have been dropped to default service at the end of the SOP term absent an affirmative action, in contrast to the current practice of remaining with their SOP supplier, the PUC found that consumer advocates had not demonstrated harm from the current practice that keeps the customer with their SOP supplier
During the proceeding, consumer advocates cited data showing that residential electric shoppers at PECO paid $800 million more than the price to compare over six years
The PUC faulted this evidence on several grounds
First, the PUC said that, even if such alleged harm were accepted, it would only show harm to all customers generally, and not harm specifically resulting from the current SOP rollover policy
More importantly, as highlighted by ECM, the PUC said that costs in excess of default service are not dispositive evidence of customer harm
Agreeing with RESA, the PUC said that a retail supplier rate in excess of the price to compare, "does not
necessarily prove that a harm is occurring, because customers could be making shopping
decisions based on factors other than price, such as the specific product offered or the
length of the contract."
As previously reported, the PUC did stress that it would examine any future evidence of alleged harm from the SOP program's design on a "de novo" basis (in other words, the PUC would not grant deference to its finding related to the SOP from the case recently decided)
OCA requested that the PUC clarify that any precedential value from the discussion of PTC versus retail supplier rates in the PECO SOP order, "is limited only to SOP related proceedings and cannot be extrapolated or interpreted in future, non-SOP Commission proceedings."
OCA asked the PUC to rebuke any finding that a demonstration of $800 million in excess costs under retail supplier service, versus default service, does not constitute evidence of harm to customers
OCA sought this clarification to the extent that the PUC does not grant reconsideration and adopt on reconsideration the SOP changes supported by OCA, due to the harm alleged by OCA
In separate rehearing requests, both OCA and TURN/CAUSE-PA argued that the PUC wrongly applied evidentiary standards in rejecting their proffered showings of harm to customers from the SOP.
The consumer advocates also generally argued that the PUC erred in elevating "speculation" that customers paying more than the PTC are doing so willingly with such customers' weighing factors such as contract length or specific non-price product factors (green, rewards, etc).
OCA said that no evidence supported the PUC's conclusion on customer decision-making, in contrast to the "facts" that shopping customers paid $800 million more than default service over 6 years
P-2024-3046008
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 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
November 22, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Policy and Research, Retail Energy
• NEW! -- Director, Load Forecasting
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Wholesale Markets Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Origination Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Settlements Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Billing Supervisor
|
|
|
|
|