revision to implement CAP shopping in its service territory (September 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing). The CAP shopping program set forth therein was proposed to become effective on April 14, 2017, under the Company’s current DSP III plan. December 2016 Order at 39-40. We also noted that on November 18, 2016, the Commission issued a Secretarial Letter at PECO’s DSP II docket (November 2016 Secretarial Letter), which confirmed that interested parties may file written comments at that docket regarding PECO’s September 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing. The November 2016 Secretarial Letter indicated that Comments would be due on or before December 2, 2016, and Reply Comments would be due on or before December 12, 2016. December 2016 Order at 40 (citing November 2016 Secretarial Letter at 2). Following our presentation of the background to the CAP shopping issue, we discussed in detail the positions of the Parties on this issue. We noted that the OCA, and TURN et al. all argued that the Commission has the authority under the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (Competition Act or Choice Act), and in accordance with the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion in CAUSE-PA, to impose restrictions on the ability of CAP customers to shop for electric supply. Thus, these parties supported the adoption of CAUSE-PA’s proposed CAP Standard Offer Program (CAP-SOP), which CAUSE-PA contended would permit PECO’s CAP customers to shop under a program that maintains affordability of electric service for these customers. December 2016 Order at 41-48. The proposed CAP-SOP contained the following criteria: The CAP-SOP would be the only means through which a CAP customer could shop and remain eligible for CAP benefits. Any shopping request from a CAP customer that does not get processed through the SOP would be denied.
competitive generation supply. We pointed out that, as set forth in the May 2016 Secretarial Letter and the November 2016 Secretarial Letter, PECO’s 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing is subject to public comment. Thus, we noted that CAUSE/TURN and all other interested stakeholders will be free to present their positions on PECO’s CAP shopping plan through the submission of comments to the 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing at Docket No. P-2012-2283641. In addition, we explained that we will take official notice of the documents constituting the record in this proceeding when we consider PECO’s 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing at Docket No. P-2012-2283641, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 5.406 relating to public documents, 52 Pa. Code § 5.407 relating to records of other proceedings, and 52 Pa. Code § 5.408 relating to official and judicial notice of fact. We found that this process would address the due process concerns of CAUSE/TURN. December 2016 Order at 62. C. Petitions and Answers Thereto 1. CAUSE/TURN Petition In their Joint Petition, CAUSE/TURN first assert that the December 2016 Order “lacks sufficient clarity and/or issues conflicting guidance regarding its intended process to incorporate the record from DSP IV into DSP II.” CAUSE/TURN contend that our intention to take official notice of the documents constituting the record in this proceeding when we consider PECO’s 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing in the DSP II proceeding is problematic. In this regard, CAUSE/TURN argue as follows: Specifically, to take official notice, the record from both DSP II and DSP IV must be certified with particularity and the evidence weighed and evaluated by a trier of fact. Taking official notice is inadequate in itself because the evidence submitted in DSP IV has not been weighed, and the persuasiveness of the briefs submitted in DSP IV has not been measured. Indeed, there are no findings of fact or
Docket No. P2012-2283641, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 5.81(a); and (3) refer the consolidated proceeding to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings as may be necessary and a decision on the merits of PECO’s 2016 CAP Rule Change Filing, the CAP-SOP proposed in this DSP IV proceeding, and all issues relating to the ability of CAP customers to shop for electric generation supply in PECO’s service territory; THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. That the Joint Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency in Pennsylvania and the Tenant Union Representative Network and the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, filed on December 19, 2016, relative to the Opinion and Order entered herein on December 8, 2016, is granted, in part, consistent with this Opinion and Order. 2. That the Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Office of Consumer Advocate, filed on December 19, 2016 and updated on December 20, 2016, relative to the Opinion and Order entered herein on December 8, 2016, is granted, in part, consistent with this Opinion and Order.