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 PSU avers that the ALJ erred in accepting that et seq. 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
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
1188154.docx