the purported benefits claimed by the Companies. By retaining the status quo for West Penn, the Industrials explain that these large C&I customers would not have to incur any of the burdens resulting from renegotiation of their EGS contracts. According to the Industrials, by reducing the Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power procurement to zero percent, large C&I shopping customers would only have to allow for a one-time modification to their current EGS contracts. Industrials Exc. at 31-32. The Industrials also submit that preserving the status quo would eliminate the need for customers to devise complex strategies for calculating the costs associated with the Companies’ proposed forty/sixty procurement split, while also minimizing the risk of customers being overcharged by the EDC or EGS due to this complex split. The Industrials aver that because this carve-out would only apply to large C&I shopping customers, the Companies’ goal, of allowing for long-term contracts with EDCs while utilizing the procurement and hedging experiences of EGSs, would still be met through the residential and small commercial customers. Accordingly, the Industrials submit that by utilizing the Industrials’ proposal, the goals of the Companies, the aim of the ALJ and the concerns of the large C&I shopping customers would all be met in a manner that is just, reasonable, in the public interest, and in accordance with PUC precedent. Industrials Exc. at 32-33. In its Exceptions, PSU avers that the Merger Joint Settlement does not mandate that West Penn change the status quo nor is it a substitute for evidentiary support. PSU explains that, presently, West Penn large users, through their EGS, are responsible for procuring one hundred percent of SPAECs to meet the requirements under the AEPS. 73 P.S. §§ 1648.1 et seq. PSU avers that the ALJ erred in accepting that West Penn must change the status quo for procurement of SPAECs so it will procure forty percent of SPAECs and the customer via its EGS sixty percent because of a
misperceptions that shopping poses an unacceptable risk that customer could pay more than the PTC. Id. Positions of the Parties RESA proposed the use of a fixed pre-determined signing bonus amount to be determined by the Commission in consultation with EGSs, the EDC and a market consultant, with the goal of trying to make the ROI Aggregation Program as successful as possible in terms of overall value delivered to customers. RESA further proposed that customers should be required to stay with the selected EGS for at least three months before the bonus is paid. RESA St. 2 at 20. ALJ’s Recommendation The ALJ agreed with the Companies’ concerns and found the Companies’ testimony to be credible that the current market conditions show that a fifty dollar bonus plus a fixed price of at least five percent below the PTC is likely to be merely a “loss leader” and not a sustainable price. She also was persuaded by the Companies’ contention that if customers have an unsatisfying experience in the ROI Aggregation Program because they believe they were enticed to participate by short-term “gimmicks” that they perceive as a form of “bait and switch,” the EDCs’ reputations may be tarnished because of their involvement in the process that selected EGSs to participate in the program. R.D. at 107-108. Therefore, the ALJ recommended that the Commission find that the Companies’ decision to exclude a “bonus” provision from their ROI Aggregation Program is a justifiable departure from the Commission’s guidance regarding bonus offerings. IWPF Order at 6-7; R.D. at 108.
RESA asserted that delays are inherent in the process currently used by the Companies. RESA contrasted its members’ experiences with the Companies’ systems to that of PECO where a secure website called the “PECO Presentment Customer Usage” is available to licensed EGSs. RESA M.B. at 91. RESA recommended that the Companies investigate creating a similar website which could provide electronic access to key customer usage and account data. EGS access would be limited to those EGSs with proper authorization and subject to legally mandated customer privacy protections. Id. RESA argued that with proper implementation, a secure website such as PECO’s enable EGSs to provide customers with a simple shopping experience. Using the customer information obtained from the Companies’ website, EGSs could develop their own secure website which would enable customers to input their own relevant data which would be matched against the information contained on the Companies’ website. At that point, the customer could receive a price offer for service and go forward with an acceptance and an agreement without leaving the EGS’s website. Alternatively, RESA suggests that if the customer is deemed ineligible for an offer from that particular EGS, the customer could be referred to the Commission’s PaPowerSwitch.com website for information about alternative suppliers. RESA M.B. at 92-93. The Companies argued that this issue was not properly raised in this proceeding. Instead, the Companies stated that this was an issue which should be referred to the Commission’s RMI proceeding. Companies’ St. 2-R at 29. ALJ’s Recommendation The ALJ agreed with the Companies and recommended that RESA’s suggestion be referred to a working within the Commission’s RMI proceeding. The