considering their role in the switching process. Ideally, we would like to have regulations in place so that these new metering capabilities can be used to their best advantage soon after their deployment. Current EGS procedures were also examined by OCMO to determine if changes could be made to shorten the switching timeframe. Some supplier practices may adversely affect the switching process timeframes. For example, the practice of batching enrollments before sending them to the EDC instead of sending enrollments to the utility one at a time may unnecessarily delay account transfers. As noted above, the Commission has waived the provision of 52 Pa. Code § 57.173 that requires the EGS to notify the EDC of the customer’s selection “by the end of the next business day following the customer contact” in instances where the customer’s service is not to start until some distant, future date. See October 2012 Interim Guidelines, Docket No. M-2011-2270442. However, under the color of that waiver, EGSs may be holding enrollments for reasons other than future service dates. Additionally, some EGSs hold enrollments and do not submit them to the EDC until the last day of the 3-day right of rescission period provided for in 52 Pa. Code § 54.5(d). OCMO’s exploration of these issues culminated in a November 10, 2011 Tentative Order, which proposed several options to accelerate switching timeframes. Interim Guidelines Regarding Standards For Changing a Customer’s Electricity Generation Supplier, Docket M-2011-2270442 (Order entered Nov. 14, 2011). In the Tentative Order we declared that changing the 3-business day rescission period at 52 Pa. Code § 54.5 is not feasible because it reflects existing Pennsylvania consumer contract law. Id. at 9; see Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 Federal law also requires a 3-business day “cooling off period” for door-to-door transactions. Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations, 16 CFR Part 429. Further, we saw no point in changing the “first feasible billing period” language in 52 Pa. Code § 57.174 unless we first changed
§ 57.171. Definitions. For clarification purposes only, we proposed new definitions in the March 18, 2014 Secretarial Letter for the following terms: Default service provider, Current EGS Product, and Selected EGS Product. Comments In response to our proposed new definitions, NRG recommends that the rules be revised to create two separate processes – one to switch suppliers and one to switch products. NRG believes that a separate process is needed for switch of product because the EDC, while involved in a switch of supplier, is not involved in a switch of product. NRG Comments at 2-3. RESA thinks that the switch in a supplier’s product should first be addressed in a stakeholder process and not in the current proceeding. RESA Comments at 2. FE Solutions likewise objects to including the switching of supplier products because it adds complexity and costs. FE Solutions Comments at 2-4. NEMA also expressed concern that applying the switching regulations to changes in products would be overly burdensome and contrary to the intent of the Commission’s regulations. NEMA Comments at 4. WGES finds the inclusion of “products” in these regulations is confusing. WGES Comments at 2. RESA recommends new definitions of “Customer Account Transfer Notice” for the notice an EGS must provide an EDC and “Customer Notice of Account Transfer” to refer to the notice that the EDC provides to the customer. RESA Comments, Attachment A at 1. FirstEnergy, PPL, OCA and PECO ask that the term “default service provider” be used consistently and correctly. See, e.g., PPL Comments at 8. Resolution In addition to the switching of suppliers, we considered also including the switching of products in these regulations. However, after careful consideration, we
order to handle multiple pending enrollment and rescission requests to determine which switch will be honored and in what order. EDEWG Comments at 3-4. Resolution To achieve our objective of accelerating switching, we will need to extensively revise this section to specify the new timeframes and how those timeframes should be achieved. Since the existing language “first feasible billing period” is vague and permissive, we reject OCA’s suggestion that we retain this phrase, which would simply perpetuate the unacceptable status quo of the current 11 – 40 day switching period. While we acknowledge PJM capacity assignment requirements necessitate a few days, we still believe a switch can be performed within three business days. As smart meter technology is deployed, EDCs can more easily obtain accurate meter readings at any time without sending personnel into the field to read meters. Utilities with automated metering (AMRs) can do likewise. With all the money and effort currently being spent on deploying smart meter technology in the Commonwealth, it is unacceptable not to use the technology and information as available to directly benefit customers. We agree with RESA that EDCs that do not have advanced or AMR metering can use either estimated or customer-provided meter reads for the purpose of switching EGSs. This section will be revised by adding language directing utilities to use either a meter reading obtained by an advanced or AMR meter. When these options are not available, an estimated or customer-provided reading shall be used, subject to revision and correction upon an actual meter read. This will allow these EDCs to avoid costly field visits to implement these regulations since personnel will not have to be dispatched to read the meter. We decline to put in place a reporting requirement like that proposed by NRG, but we could revisit this suggestion in the future if we become aware of problems with the estimated readings. We also decline NRG’s suggestion to “look back”