California explores potential for non-utility default service. In long-going proceeding at the California PUC to implement a formal Provider of Last Resort framework in the state, parties filed comments on whether or how a non-utility could serve in the POLR role. The public advocate argued that if a non-utility served as POLR, it could be fully-regulated like a utility, while the Small Business Utility Advocates argued the entire discussion was mooted by the fact “no IOU is interested in a non-IOU LSE serving as the POLR in its territory.” California Community Choice Association supported the proposed procedural pathway while maintain that the CPUC’s “statutory authority over a non-IOU LSE POLR extends only to ‘POLR-specific services.” Retail supplier Shell argued that the CPUC should clarify that that the law does not prohibit POLRs serving customers segmented by rate class nor does it require the utility to voluntarily accept a non-utility POLR in its territory for one to be implemented by the CPUC.
Connecticut Staff proposes supplier contract language on low-income customers. On June 17, the Office Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) at PURA in Connecticut proposed language to allow a hardship customer to stay with his or her retail electric supplier for the term of his or her contract whiling ensuring the rate charged to the customer never exceeds the Standard Service rate. In addition to providing a proposed paragraph to which a supplier’s contract language would be required to be substantially similar, EOE also laid out the process for low-income customer service by a supplier. EOE said electric utilities should continue providing hardship customer identification information to suppliers. When a customer is identified as a hardship customer and his or her contracted supply rate is greater than Standard Service, or if a Standard Service rate change is below the contracted supply rate, suppliers would submit an EDI transaction to change that customer’s supply rate. EOE recommended PURA delay implementation of this language until Phase 3 of the proceeding is concluded; Phase 3 will consider what limitations, if any, should be placed on contract language for all supplier customers.
Massachusetts proceeding on retail market reform continues. The next meeting of the so-called 19-07 working group at the Massachusetts DPU will meet on July 1, as it considers possible solutions short of mass market customer ban for the state’s retail electricity market. According to the hearing officer managing the work group, discussions at the next meeting on high prices and targeting of vulnerable customers will concern: (1) additional aspects of “the proposals that staff presented during the sub-group meetings”; (2) “a revised proposal related to the initial enrollment of customers through Energy Switch that staff developed in response to the concerns expressed by suppliers during our recent meetings”; and (3) “issues regarding customer education and market oversight as they relate to staff’s proposal.” Staff invites stakeholders to present alternate approaches to those proposed by Staff as part of the discussion.
Data centers and waste-to-energy facilities face challenges in Maryland. Comprehensive energy legislation was signed into law by Gov. Moore in Maryland at the end of May, as the state is facing simmering consumer frustration over rising electricity prices and the effective end of residential customer choice in the state. The new law would encourage nuclear energy procurement, but would also put restrictions on data center co-location onsite at generators and require the MDPSC to pass along certain costs to such customers as well as alter the definition of “Tier 1 renewable source” for purposes of excluding energy derived from waste and refuse from being eligible for inclusion in the renewable energy portfolio standard.
DC Attorney General issues warning about retail suppliers. The Office of Attorney General (OAG) in the District of Columbia issued a consumer alert to D.C. residents on June 12, warning about “third-party energy companies using deceptive and potentially illegal sales tactics to pressure or trick DC consumers into switching energy providers. These third-party energy companies also often charge more for energy than Pepco or Washington Gas.” The alert went on to say that the OAG has been receiving reports which suggest illegal and deceptive sales tactics may be being used by supplier sales agents.
Kentucky utility claims gas choice is money loser for consumers. Columbia Gas filed its annual Choice Program report on June 4, its first since it attempted to kill the retail choice program unsuccessfully. Of note: (1) the utility claims that since the program’s inception more than two decades ago, through 4/30/25, Choice customers have lost over $80 million when compared to the utility gas supply rate; and (2) 10,476 residential customers and 1,743 C&I customers are currently enrolled with a Choice supplier, representing a volumetric participation rate of approximately 0.1635%.
In Brief: The Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, which includes a number of states on the East Coast in ISO-NE, NYISO, and PJM, issued an RFI on June 24. The states are seeking “interregional transmission project concepts that would improve grid reliability, support economic growth, and reduce costs for consumers”…the Alberta Utilities Commission issued a report on June 16, on the costs and benefits of enabling time-of-use electricity rates in the province... the Office of People’s Counsel in Maryland has warned consumers that “higher than normal summer temperatures and rising distribution rates will likely cause high electric bills for Maryland households this summer”, in its new Consumer’s Guide to Summer 2025 Electric Rates. OPC said these factors will cause price increases, and not the rise in PJM capacity market prices which will be felt by consumers later in the year...DOER in Massachusetts issued a self-assessment of the large scale storage and offshore wind procurements in the state, on June 16. DOER acknowledged the deficiencies in the current process, and proposed a new approach “that will include more flexibility and considers a broader clean energy resource portfolio, in line with the Commonwealth’s strategies to meet the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) net-zero mandate in 2050.”
Leave a Reply