|
|
|
|
|
Regulator Directs Staff To Propose Changes To Retail Supplier Contracts, Language To Comply With Statute Allowing "Appropriate Limitations" On Retail Contracts
February 27, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a Feb. 27 procedural order (not an interim decision), the Connecticut PURA has directed its Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) to propose changes in retail supplier contracts in light of statutory changes allowing PURA to impose "appropriate limitations" on retail supplier contracts
As previously reported, PURA recently issued a proposed decision which would have provided similar direction to EOE, except such earlier proposed decision was limited to proposing that EOE would be directed to develop language for retail supplier contracts to impose appropriate limitations on contracts with hardship customers only, under Phase 2 of PURA's investigation of appropriate limitations
Notably, the new procedural order is not an interim or final decision that adjudicates the earlier proposed decision. PURA had previously indicated that it would address the proposed decision at its March 12, 2025 meeting
It was unclear if the new procedural order remains focused solely on hardship customers (Phase 2) and is supplanting the prior proposed decision, or is meant to initiate Phase 3 of the proceeding, addressing all retail supplier contracts, not hardship only
The Feb. 27 procedural order does not itself list whether it is addressing Phase 2 or Phase 3. The procedural order references both a statutory provision which address hardship customer shopping, as well as additional statutory language that may be interpreted as allowing appropriate limitations on all retail supplier contracts, not hardship only (as previously reported, PURA has not yet issued an interpretation on this statutory language, as EOE argues that the language allows limits on all supplier contracts, while suppliers argue that the language is limited to hardship customer contracts)
While citing both of these statutory provisions, the procedural order does note that PURA had initially initiated the docket, "to determine the 'appropriate limitations' with which all customer contracts with electric suppliers, entered into on and after a determined date, must comply."
Regarding the direction to EOE, the procedural order states, "On or before April 28, 2025, the Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) shall file a motion (EOE’s Motion) in this docket for review and approval, with recommended language changes to supplier contracts on a prospective basis."
The procedural order's direction does not specify which contracts EOE's proposal is to address (hardship only or all contracts)
The procedural order directs EOE to consult with the Office of Consumer Counsel and working group members prior to filing EOE's proposal
The earlier proposed decision had included the same direction to EOE (including the same April 28 deadline and direction to consult with OCC and the work group), except that the proposed decision's direction was specifically limited to hardship customers (not in the language of the draft ordering paragraph, but in that the proposed decision itself was limited to hardship customers and Phase 2)
The procedural order also explicitly establishes a public comment period for responses to EOE's proposal. The earlier proposed decision had not established a comment period
As noted, it is unclear if the procedural order is intended to supplant the proposed decision, or if the procedural order is separate because it is addressing Phase 3 and all supplier contracts, not only hardship customers
To the extent the procedural order is limited to hardship customers and is intended to replace the previously issued proposed decision, the procedural order only addresses direction to EOE to file proposed language changes for supplier contracts. The procedural order does not address other matters which were proposed to be resolved under the proposed decision -- specifically, the proposed order that, "REC-only suppliers shall not have contract rates for hardship customers that would yield a rate greater than the standard service rate," and the draft conclusion that the decision would not address at this time proposals from consumer interests that the use of the Incidental Residential Account (IRA) designation should be terminated
Docket 18-06-02RE02
Email This StoryCopyright 2025 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
|
|
|
|
|