DEFAULT SERVICE IN PENNSYLVANIA. David B. MacGregor, Esquire Anthony D. Kanagy, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C.

Transcription

1 DEFAULT SERVICE IN PENNSYLVANIA David B. MacGregor, Esquire Anthony D. Kanagy, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C.

2 Synopsis: This presentation provides an overview of default electric service in Pennsylvania beginning with default service requirements set forth under the electric restructuring statute, initial and interim period default service plans, default service regulations, rate mitigation efforts and new default service requirements under Act 129 of I. HISTORY A. Electric Restructuring 1. Electric service in Pennsylvania was restructured pursuant to the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act ( Competition Act ), P.L. 802, No. 138, December 3, 1996, codified at 66 Pa. C.S et seq. The Competition Act required electric distribution companies ( EDCs ) to unbundle transmission, distribution and generation rates for retail customers. The Competition Act deregulated electricity generation and provided all customers in Pennsylvania the opportunity to choose their electricity generation supplier ( EGS ). 66 Pa.C.S. 2806(a). 2. The Competition Act also allowed EDCs to recover stranded costs that may not be recoverable in a competitive electric market. 66 Pa.C.S The Competition Act further required that an EDC s generation rates be capped until the EDC had completed its stranded cost recovery. Many of the larger EDCs, including PPL Electric Utilities Corporation ( PPL Electric ), West Penn Power Company d/b/a Allegheny ( Allegheny ), Pennsylvania Electric Company ( Penelec ), Metropolitan Edison Company ( Met-Ed ) and PECO Energy Company ( PECO Energy ) agreed to extended rate caps as part of their electric restructuring settlements. For most of these companies, generation rate caps do not expire until December 31, Other EDCs, most notably Duquesne Light Company ( Duquesne ), and several smaller EDCs had shorter stranded cost recovery periods that expired much sooner, as early as 1999 for Citizens Electric Company of Lewisburg, Inc. ( Citizens ). 3. Following expiration of rate caps, the Competition Act provided that default suppliers acquire electric energy at prevailing market prices to serve default customers and that default suppliers recover fully all reasonable costs. 66 Pa.C.S. 2807(e)(3). 1 There has been a substantial disagreement among parties and within the Commission over what prevailing market prices means as it applies to default service rates. 1 As discussed below, this Section has now been modified by Act

3 4. EDCs have proposed a variety of procurement and rate design methodologies for their default service plans. The Commission has been flexible in its interpretation of Section 2807(e)(3) and has given individual EDCs considerable latitude to adopt a variety of methods for obtaining default supply and setting default service rates, at prevailing market prices. B. Initial Default Service Plans. Duquesne Light Company ( Duquesne ) and UGI Utilities, Inc. were among the first EDCs to file default service programs with the Commission. These initial plans generally provided that the EDCs would continue to provide default supply at fixed rates. 1. Initial Duquesne Default Service Plans. a. As part of restructuring, Duquesne sold its generating facilities, primarily to Orion Power Midwest, Inc. ( Orion ). As part of this sale, Orion was obligated to provide power for Duquesne s default customers until Duquesne s rate caps expired. This is commonly referred to as the Duquesne POLR I Plan. b. The Duquesne POLR II Plan addressed Duquesne s default service requirements after Duquesne s rate caps expired. Under the POLR II Plan, parties agreed to a settlement whereby Duquesne s default service rates would be reduced by 17% on a system-wide basis and would be capped through December 31, Petition of Duquesne Light Company for Approval of Plan for Post-Transition Period Providers of Last Resort Service, Docket No. R , Order entered December 20, UGI POLR I Plan. Under its initial default service plan, UGI agreed to continue capped rates for POLR customers for 12 months following its stranded cost recovery period. Thereafter, UGI could increase default service rates by up to 5% through December See Irwin A. Popowsky, Consumer Advocate v. UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division, Docket No. R C0001, Order entered June 13, C. Interim Period Default Service Plans. After the initial default service plans, subsequent default service plans provided a variety of methods for obtaining default supply. Companies proposed plans based upon their particular experience and expertise, willingness to assume risk and other factors. 1. Pike County POLR II Plan. Under its POLR II Plan, Pike County conducted Requests for Proposals ( RFPs ) to obtain financial swaps for its full service energy and capacity requirements. Under the swap arrangement, Pike acquired default supply through the NYISO market. 2

4 Pike then paid the winning bidder a fixed price for each MWH of default supply, and the winning bidder paid the NYISO hourly prices. Pa. P.U.C. v. Pike County Light & Power Company, Docket No. P , Order entered September 23, The auction conducted under the Pike POLR II Plan resulted in an approximate 70% increase in Pike s POLR rates. The Commission approved the results of this auction by Secretarial Letter issued October 20, 2005, and in an Order entered December 21, 2005 permitted the Company s new tariffs to go into effect. Subsequently, in response to the significant price increase, the Commission entered an order approving an opt-out aggregation plan for the Pike County service area whereby suppliers could bid to provide default supply to Pike s customers. Petition of Direct Energy Services, LLC for Emergency Order Approving a Retail Aggregation Bidding Program for Customers of Pike County Light & power Company, Docket No. P , Order entered April 20, Pike issued an RFP pursuant to the aggregation order, and Direct Energy was selected as the winning bidder to provide default service to Pike s customers. Under the aggregation plan, average residential customer bills decreased by 8.2%, or approximately $10 per month. 2. Duquesne POLR III and POLR IV Plans. In 2004, the Commission approved Duquesne s POLR III plan under which Duquesne would offer residential and small commercial and industrial ( C&I ) customers fixed rates for 2005 through Petition of Duquesne Light Company for Approval of Plan for Post-Transition Period Provider of Last Resort Service, Docket No. P , Order entered August 23, Duquesne relied on an affiliate to purchase default supplies for Duquesne s customers. The Commission found that Duquesne s proposed default service rates were consistent with prevailing market prices based upon testimony regarding recent supply auctions. The Commission approved a settlement of Duquesne s POLR IV proceeding by Order entered June 22, Under the POLR IV Plan for , Duquesne provides fixed rate default service to residential and small C&I customers with peak demands less than 25 kw. For medium C&I customers, Duquesne currently provides default service at rates that change on six-month intervals based upon changes in a market index. Duquesne recently filed a Petition to revise the market index adjustment and parties to that proceeding reached a settlement whereby Duquesne will procure default supplies for these customers pursuant to an RFP process. The Commission has not approved this settlement as of the date that these materials were prepared. For large C&I customers, Duquesne offers day-ahead hourly default service. 3

5 3. Penn Power POLR I Plan. Pennsylvania Power Company ( Penn Power ) POLR I Plan was for the period January 1, 2007 through May 31, Under its POLR I Plan, Pennsylvania Power Company ( Penn Power ) acquired default supplies through an RFP process for each rate class. Customers were offered fixed price default service, with an hourly rate option for large C&I customers. In its filing, Penn Power requested permission to recover its default service costs through a reconciliation mechanism. However, the Commission denied Penn Power s reconciliation mechanism based upon competitive concerns and the Commission s position that if Penn Power was allowed to earn interest on under-collections, it would recover more than full recovery of reasonable costs. Penn Power appealed this decision to the Commonwealth Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court remanded the case so that the Commission could provide for a cost recovery mechanism which complied with the statutory directive that mandates full recovery of costs. Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 932 A.2d 300 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). The Commission subsequently allowed Penn Power to reconcile its costs for its POLR I Plan pursuant to a settlement approved at Docket No. P Petition of Pennsylvania Power Company For Approval of Interim Default Service Supply Plan, Docket No. P , Order entered January 2, Citizens and Wellsboro Joint Default Service Plan. On June 1, 2007, Citizens and Wellsboro Electric Company ( Wellsboro ) filed a Joint Default Service Plan for the period of January 1, 2008 through May 31, Under the Joint Plan, the Companies proposed two separate procurement methodologies: (1) a Scheduled Procurement Plan whereby the Companies would procure default supplies through a strict procurement schedule, and (2) a Stratified Procurement Plan whereby the Companies would have greater discretion with regard to the timing and size of procurements. The Stratified Procurement Plan is commonly referred to as a managed portfolio approach. By Order entered October 3, 2007, the Commission approved the Companies Stratified Procurement Plan. In addition, the Commission approved the Companies reconcilable cost recovery mechanism. After Commission approval of the Citizens/Wellsboro plan, Wellsboro incurred an unexpectedly high level of congestion costs in the first quarter of If the Company had recovered all of these costs at once pursuant to the terms of its reconcilable cost-recovery mechanism (the GSSR ), the rate would have increased from cents per kwh to 17.9 cents per kwh. The Commission subsequently approved a plan for Wellsboro to recover these costs over a 12 month period. 4

6 5. PPL Electric Competitive Bridge Plan ( CBP ). On August 2, 2006, PPL Electric filed its CBP to serve as a one-year bridge between the expiration of its rate caps on December 31, 2009 and a fully competitive, statewide market beginning January 1, 2011 when rate caps for other major EDCs expire. By Order entered May 17, 2007, the Commission approved PPL Electric s CBP with certain modifications. Under the CBP, PPL Electric is acquiring supply for residential and small C&I customers for 2010 through an RFP process of six separate solicitations over three years. In order to recover its costs, PPL Electric will implement a quarterly reconciliation mechanism. For large C&I customers, PPL Electric will conduct a single solicitation in October 2009 for fixed price for these customers. If a large C&I default service customer does not choose the fixed price service, that customer will receive real-time hourly service for D. Default Service Regulations and Policy Statement. 1. On December 16, 2004, the Commission issued a Proposed Rulemaking Order seeking comments from parties with regard to the Commission s proposed default service regulations. Parties subsequently filed comments and reply comments. On July 27, 2005, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission ( IRRC ) issued its comments with regard to the proposed default service regulations. One of IRRC s primary comments addressed whether the rulemaking was necessary at this time given that retail and wholesale energy markets would continue to evolve prior to the expiration of the last EDCs rate caps in On November 18, 2005, the Commission entered an Order reopening the comment period for the proposed default service regulations in response to IRRC s comments and as part of the implementation of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004 ( AEPS Act ), 73 P.S Pursuant to this Order, the parties submitted additional comments. 3. On February 9, 2007, the Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Final Rulemaking Order. Upon issuing this Order, the Commission also issued a Proposed Policy Statement regarding default service. 4. On May 10, 2007, the Commission issued its Final Rulemaking Order and Final Policy Statement regarding default service. 5. The default service regulations became effective on September 15, The default service regulations set forth detailed requirements for default service plans. 5

7 a. The regulations require default service providers ( DSPs ) to acquire default supply at prevailing market prices. b. The plan should identify the means of satisfying the AEPS Act requirements. c. The regulations further require that electric generation supply be acquired by competitive bid solicitations, spot market purchases or a combination of both. 52 Pa. Code (b)(4). d. Competitive bid processes are subject to monitoring by the Commission. 52 Pa. Code (c)(3). e. The regulations allow DSPs to use automatic adjustment clauses for recovery of non-alternative energy default service costs. 52 Pa. Code (f). 6. The default service Policy Statement also became effective on September 15, The Policy Statement provides additional guidance to EDCs regarding energy procurement, bid solicitation processes, default service cost elements, rate design, rate change mitigation, rate and bill ready billing, purchase of receivables ( POR ) programs, customer referral program and supplier tariff uniformity. E. AEPS Act. 1. The AEPS Act became effective on February 28, Under the AEPS Act, EDCs and EGSs are required to sell a certain percentage of electricity that is generated from alternative energy sources to retail customers. The AEPS Act creates two categories of alternative energy based upon the source of generation. These categories are referred to as Tier I and Tier II sources. There are separate requirements for both the Tier I and Tier II categories, and a portion of the Tier I requirements must be met from solar energy sources. Compliance with the AEPS Act is measured through alternative energy credits ( AECs ) which represent one megawatt hour of qualified generation. As noted above, the Commission requires EDCs to submit AEPS Act compliance plans with the EDCs default service plans. 2. The AEPS Act was amended in 2007 through Act 35. The amendments primarily clarify certain provisions of the AEPS Act, including clarifying: (1) requirements for Force Majeure; (2) annual solar energy requirements; and (3) initial ownership of AECs. F. Rate Mitigation Efforts. Long term capped rates have created a disparity between market energy prices and capped rates. As a result, the Commission proposed policies to mitigate electricity prices follow the expiration of rate caps. 6

8 1. On May 17, 2007, the Commission entered an Order regarding steps EDCs should take to mitigate price increases for customers following the expiration of generation rate caps. Policies to Mitigate Potential Electricity Price Increases, Docket No. M In the Order the Commission adopted a plan whereby: a. Each EDC was required to file a consumer education plan for its service territory by December 31, 2007; b. The Commission s Office of Communications and Staff, along with interested stakeholders, would develop and implement a statewide education campaign funded by EDC assessments; and c. The Commission would use its authority under the Public Utility Code to assess EDCs for the costs of a statewide campaign, and seek approval of these costs as part of its budget request. d. Under each mitigation plan, EDCs are required to communicate certain Energy Education Standards to customers and focus efforts to reach more vulnerable portions of the EDC s customer base. 2. Pre-Payment Programs. In addition to steps recommended in the Commission s Mitigation Order, certain EDCs have taken additional steps to mitigate rate increases for customers after rate caps expire by implementing programs whereby customers can pre-pay for electric service now and have payments credited later when rates are higher. a. PPL Electric Rate Stabilization Plan ( RSP ). On November 30, 2007, PPL Electric filed its RSP Plan whereby certain residential, small C&I and lighting customers could choose to pay an RSP charge prior to expiration of PPL Electric s rate cap. Customer s RSP payments, including interest, would be paid back to customers in the form of an RSP credit beginning January 2010, when PPL Electric s rate caps expire. The Commission approved PPL Electric s RSP, with certain modifications from the filed plan, on August 7, Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Rate Stabilization Plan, Docket No. P The RSP will mitigate rate impacts for customers over an approximate three-year period with most customers receiving a series of annual single digit percentage increases in 2009, 2010 and

9 b. The Commission also recently approved pre-payment programs for Penelec, Met-Ed and PECO Energy. See, Joint Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company for Approval of a Voluntary Prepayment Plan, Docket No. P , Order entered February 26, 2009; Petition of PECO Energy Company for Approval of Its Market Rate Transition Phase-In Program, Docket No. P Deferred Payment Programs. In addition to the pre-payment programs discussed above, certain EDCs have sought Commission approval of deferral programs whereby customers can defer portions of rate increases incurred immediately after rate caps expire for later payment. a. On October 25, 2007, Allegheny filed a plan to provide default service to customers beginning January 1, As part of this default service plan, Allegheny requested Commission approval of a Rate Mitigation Plan ( RMP ) whereby customers would have the option of deferring increases in generation rates if the increase was more than 25% on a total bill basis. The deferred balance, plus carrying charges, would be recovered from customers over a one-year to three-year period depending upon the magnitude of the increase. By Order entered July 25, 2008, the Commission approved Allegheny s RMP. b. Several other EDCs have filed RMP s with the Commission including PPL Electric and PECO Energy. See e.g., Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Rate Mitigation Plan, Docket No. P ; Petition of PECO Energy Company for Expedited Approval of Its Default Service Program and Rate Mitigation Plan, Docket No. P The Commission has not approved the RMPs for these EDCs as of the date these materials were prepared. G. Other Issues. Both the parties and the Commission have used default service proceedings to address a variety of other proposals and issues which may be directly or only indirectly related to core default service issues. These other issues include POR programs, market referral programs, unbundling of default service costs, customer assistance programs, energy conservation and demand side management issues, and time of use rates. 8

10 II. ACT 129 A. Default Service Requirements of Act 129. On October 15, 2008, House Bill 2200 was signed into law as Act 129 of 2008 with an effective date of November 14, Act 129 has several goals including reducing energy consumption and demand. Act 129 also revises the default service requirements contained in Chapter 28 of the Public Utility Code. 1. Under Act 129 electric power shall be procured through competitive procurement processes and shall include one or more of the following: a. Auctions. b. RFPs. c. Bilateral agreements. 2. In addition, the electric power that is procured shall include a prudent mix of: a. Spot market purchases. b. Short-term contracts. c. Long-term purchase contracts of more than 4 and not more than 20 years. Long term contracts may not constitute more than 25% of projected load absent a Commission determination that good cause exists for a higher percentage to achieve least cost procurement. 3. The prudent mix of contracts shall be designed to ensure: a. Adequate and reliable service. b. The least cost to customers over time. c. Compliance with the procurement methodologies described above, i.e., through auctions, RFPs or bilateral agreements. 4. When evaluating a default service plan, the Commission must consider the DSP s obligation to provide adequate and reliable service to customers and that the DSP has obtained a prudent mix of contracts to obtain least cost on a long-term, short-term and spot market basis. The Commission is required to make specific findings that include: a. The DSP s plan includes prudent steps necessary to negotiate favorable generation supply contracts; 9

11 b. The DSP s plan includes prudent steps necessary to obtain least cost generation contracts on a long-term, short-term and spot market basis; and c. Neither the DSP nor its affiliated interest has withheld generation supply from the market in a manner that violates federal law. 5. DSPs have a right to recover default service costs pursuant to a reconcilable automatic adjustment clause. 6. Residential and small C&I rates cannot change more frequently than quarterly. 7. Default service plans approved by the Commission prior to the effective date of Act 129 shall remain in effect through the approved term. However, the DSP may propose amendments to an approved plan. B. Default Service Plans Under Act PPL Electric POLR II Plan. On August 20, 2008, PPL Electric filed its POLR II Plan at Docket No. P In its plan, PPL Electric proposed to acquire 90% of residential and small C&I default supply through a series of fixed-price full requirements load-following contracts and the remaining 10% through the spot markets. After Act 129 was passed, the Company amended its POLR II Plan to include the purchase of longer-term fixed price, block power supplies. On March 11, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Petition for Settlement which addressed the procurement issues for residential, small C&I and large C&I customers. 2 Under the settlement, PPL Electric agreed to acquire default supplies for residential customers through a mix of block procurements, with one to ten year terms, load following contracts and spot purchases. For small C&I customers, PPL Electric agreed to acquire 90% of supply through load following contracts and 10% through spot purchases. Following a transition period, the load following contracts for small C&I customers will be one to two-year terms. For large C&I customers, PPL Electric will provide hourly default service. The Commission has not ruled on this Settlement as of the date these materials were prepared. 2. PECO Energy POLR I Plan. On September 10, 2008, PECO Energy filed its default service plan with the Commission to provide default service to customers after PECO Energy s rate caps expire on 2 The settlement reserved two issues for litigation concerning default service for Amtrak and whether to include certain default provisions in the Supply Master Agreements. 10

12 December 31, In its original filing, PECO Energy proposed to acquire default supplies for residential, small commercial and medium commercial customers through full requirements contracts, with 5-15% of the energy in the contracts priced in accordance with the PJM day-ahead market. The contract terms ranged from months. For large C&I customers, PECO Energy proposed to offer hourly dayahead prices along with a one-year fixed price optional service. On November 14, 2008, PECO Energy revised its default service plan to be consistent with Act 129. On March 10, 2009, the parties filed a settlement of all issues in the proceeding. Under the settlement, PECO Energy agreed to acquire default supplies for residential customers through a mix of block purchases, spot purchases and load following contract. The block purchases have term lengths of one to five years. For small commercial customers, PECO Energy will acquire supply through load following contracts. Approximately 70% of this load will be served through one-year contracts, 20% through two-year contracts and 10% through the day-ahead spot market. For the medium commercial class, approximately 85% of the load will be served through fullrequirements contracts with a term of one-year and 15% of the load through full requirements contracts with prices based on the day-ahead spot market. Under the settlement, large C&I customers will have to option to take day-ahead hourly service or a one-year fixed price optional service. On March 23, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Marlene R. Chestnut issued a Recommended Decision which recommended that the settlement be approved without modification. The Commission has not ruled on this settlement as of the date that these materials were prepared. 3. Allegheny Request to Accelerate Its Procurement Schedule. On July 25, 2008, the Commission approved Allegheny s plan to acquire and provide default service to customers beginning January 1, On February 6, 2009, Allegheny filed a petition with the Commission requesting authority to advance the procurement schedule for residential customers to take advantage of lower market prices. The Office of Small Business Advocate ( OSBA ) and Reliant Energy, Inc. ( Reliant ) opposed the Allegheny petition on the basis that the Petition was inconsistent with the approved default service plan. Reliant also argued that under Act 129, Allegheny could only amend its default service plan if it demonstrated that the amendment was consistent with Act

13 On March 20, 2009, the Commission entered an Order granting Allegheny s petition to advance its procurement schedule for residential customers. In the order, the Commission found that Allegheny s default plan did not prohibit advancement of the prescheduled procurements. In addition, the Commission noted that in its July 25 order, it specifically stated that the procurement dates may be adjusted due to unforeseen market circumstances. With regard to Act 129, the Commission held that Act 129 did not apply to changing the procurement schedule because the Commission had granted Allegheny the right to change the procurement dates prior to the effective date of Act 129. Therefore, changing the procurement dates was not an amendment to the plan. 4. Met-Ed and Penelec POLR Plan. On February 20, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a plan to provide default service to customers beginning January 1, 2011 through May 31, Under the plan, Met-Ed and Penelec propose to acquire default supply for customers through a mix of long-term, short-term and spot supply. For residential customers, Met-Ed and Penelec propose to acquire full requirements contracts with 5% of the contracts priced at the real-time hourly PJM price. The contracts will be for a mix of one-year, two-year and four-year terms. For commercial customers, Met-Ed and Penelec propose to acquire 100% of requirements through fixed price contracts with no spot price component. For the industrial class, Met-Ed and Penelec propose to offer an hourly price service based on the PJM real-time hourly price. With regard to procurement methodology, the companies propose to utilize a descending clock auction. As an alternative, the companies propose an RFP process if the auction process is denied. At the time these materials were prepared, this proceeding was in the early stages of litigation. 12

14 III. ISSUE LIST The following represents a list of potential issues associated with proving default service under Act 129. Revisions to Commission s default service regulations. What is meant by least cost over time? What is a prudent mix of spot, long-term and short-term contracts? How does the Commission take into account any benefits of price stability? Is the prudent mix standard a different standard for each customer class? Amendments to existing plans what are the criteria that must be met under Act 129? Bilateral contracts Does meeting the standard for bilateral contracts make the contract a competitive procurement? Time of use rates and real-time price plans. 13

15 IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DEFAULT SERVICE CASES Allegheny Power (West Penn Power Company) Petition of the West Penn Power Company d/b/a Allegheny Power for Approval of its retail Electric Default Service Program and Competitive Procurement Plan for Service at the Conclusion of the Restructuring Transition Period, Docket No. P (Order entered July 25, 2008). Petition of West Penn Power Company d/b/a Allegheny Power for Acceleration of its Competitive Procurement Plan and Request for Expedited Consideration, Docket No. P (Order entered March 20, 2009). Citizens Electric of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania Petition of Citizens Electric Company of Lewisburg, Inc. to Modify Electric Restructuring Settlement and Proposed Provider of Last Resort Supply Offering, Docket No. R (Order entered June 13, 2002). Citizens Electric Company Generation Supply Rate Effective March 1, 2004, Docket No. R (Final Secretarial Letter entered March 5, 2004). Petition for a Joint Default Service Plan for Citizens Electric Company of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and Wellsboro Electric Company for the Period of January 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010, Docket Nos. P , P (Order entered October 3, 2007). Duquesne Light Company Re Duquesne Light Company, Docket No. A F0023 (Order entered April 13, 2000). Petition of Duquesne Light Company for Approval of Plan for Post-Transition Period Provider of Last Resort Service, Docket No. R (Order entered December 20, 2000). Petition of Duquesne Light Company for Approval of Plan for Post-Transition Period Provider of Last Resort Service, Docket No. P (Order entered August 23, 2004). Petition of Duquesne Light Company for Approval of Default Service Plan for The Period January 1, 2008 Through December 31, 2010, Docket No. P (Order entered June 22, 2007). 14

16 Petition of Duquesne Light Company For Special Permission to File A Tariff Supplement To Become Effective on Less Than Sixty Days Notice, Docket No. P (Order not yet entered). Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) Joint Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company for Approval of their Default Service Programs, Docket No. P (Order not yet entered). Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn Power) Petition of Pennsylvania Power Company for Approval of Interim POLR Supply Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered April 28, 2006). Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 932 A.2d 300 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Petition of Pennsylvania Power Company for Approval of Interim Default Service Supply Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered January 2, 2008). Petition of Pennsylvania Power Company For Approval of Interim Default Service Supply Plan: Supply Procurement for Residential Customers, P (Order entered March 13, 2008). PECO Energy Company Petition of PECO Energy Company for Expedited Approval of Its Default Service Program and Rate Mitigation Plan, Docket No. P (Order not yet entered). Pike County Light & Power Company Petition of Pike County Light & Power Company for Exception to Rate Cap Limitations Pursuant to 66 Pa. C.S. 2804(4)(iii)(D), and for Expedited Proceedings Pursuant to 66 Pa. C.S. 2804(4)(iv), Docket No. P (Order entered August 9, 2002). Pa. P.U.C. v. Pike County Light & Power Company, Docket No. P (Order entered September 23, 2005). Petition of Direct Energy Services, LLC for Emergency Order Approving a Retail Aggregation Bidding Program for Customers of Pike County Light & Power Company, Docket No. P (Order entered April 20, 2006). 15

17 Petition of Pike County Light & Power Company For Expedited Approval of its Default Service Implementation Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered August 16, 2007) Re: Petition of Pike County Light and Power Company for Expedited Approval Of Its Default Service Implementation Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered March 23, 2009). PPL Electric Utilities Corporation Re: Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Competitive Bridge Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered May 17, 2007). Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Rate Stabilization Plan, Docket No. P (Order entered August 7, 2008). Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Default Service Program and Procurement Plan for the Period January 1, 2011 Through May 31, 2013, Docket No. P (Order not yet entered). Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Rate Mitigation Plan, Docket No. P (Order not yet entered). UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division, Docket No. R (Order entered March 28, 2002). Irwin A. Popowsky, Consumer Advocate v. UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division, Docket No. R C0001 (Order entered June 13, 2002). Pa. P.U.C. v. UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division, Docket No. R (Order entered April 17, 2004). Petition of UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division for Approval to Implement Default Service Tariff Provisions on One Day s Advance Notice, Docket No. P (Ordered entered June 23, 2006). Petition of UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division For Expedited Approval of a Default Service Procurement, Implementation and Contingency Plan, P (Order entered July 17, 2008). Petition of UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division For Approval of Default Service Rate and AEPS Plans Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code and 73 P.S , and of a Potential Affiliated Interest Agreement between UGI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division and Affiliated Entities, Docket No. P (Order entered January 22, 2009). 16

18 Wellsboro Electric Company Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Wellsboro Electric Company, Docket No. R (Order entered December 19, 2002). Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Wellsboro Electric Company, Docket No. R (Order entered December 19, 2002). Petition for a Joint Default Service Plan for Citizens Electric Company of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and Wellsboro Electric Company for the Period of January 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010, Docket Nos. P , P (Order entered October 3, 2007). 17