is no consistency in the definition of commercial” across EDCs, and it would be “small inappropriate to include a segment of customers that may reflect a wide variation in electric load. However, in the the OSBA asserts that the Commission FE DSP Order, turned 180 degrees on this issue, on the basis that over half of the customers with loads under 25 kW were not shopping. new basis for its decision was something that had “This already been noted and considered, but dismissed by the Commission in the [IWPF OSBA R.Exc. at 15. The OSBA submits that the Commission changed its Order].” rationale for including/excluding small commercial customers, without any explanation, reasoning or analysis to support its change in position. The OSBA notes that the Commission’s rationale in the was not even mentioned in the IWPF Order FE DSP the [FE should not be considered when determining Order. DSP Order] “Therefore, whether small business customers should be eligible to participate in PECO’s ROI Auction.” at 16. Id. In its Reply Exceptions, the OCA submits that shopping customers should be eligible for the Opt-In Program, consistent with the ALJ’s Recommended Decision. The OCA argues that PECO’s proposal to market the program to non-shopping customers, but to accept shopping customers who enroll in the program, is consistent with the Commission’s and OCA R.Exc. at 15-16. In response IWPF Order FE DSP Order. to RESA’s argument that the ALJ ignored record evidence regarding the impacts to EGSs and possible cancellation fees to customers, the OCA submits that RESA failed to provide substantial record evidence to justify a departure from the Commission’s prior ruling on this issue. The OCA submits that barring customers from participating in a Commission-sponsored program would raise the issue of legal, or at least perceived, discrimination, and could damage the public’s perception of such programs. Accordingly, the OCA submits that the ALJ’s recommendation on this issue is in accordance with the law and the evidence of record, and should be upheld. at 17. Id. iv. Disposition
is no consistency in the definition of “small commercial” across EDCs, and it would be inappropriate to include a segment of customers that may reflect a wide variation in electric load. However, in the FE DSP Order, the OSBA asserts that the Commission turned 180 degrees on this issue, on the basis that over half of the customers with loads under 25 kW were not shopping. “This new basis for its decision was something that had already been noted and considered, but dismissed by the Commission in the [IWPF Order].” OSBA R.Exc. at 15. The OSBA submits that the Commission changed its rationale for including/excluding small commercial customers, without any explanation, reasoning or analysis to support its change in position. The OSBA notes that the Commission’s rationale in the IWPF Order was not even mentioned in the FE DSP Order. “Therefore, the [FE DSP Order] should not be considered when determining whether small business customers should be eligible to participate in PECO’s ROI Auction.” Id. at 16. In its Reply Exceptions, the OCA submits that shopping customers should be eligible for the Opt-In Program, consistent with the ALJ’s Recommended Decision. The OCA argues that PECO’s proposal to market the program to non-shopping customers, but to accept shopping customers who enroll in the program, is consistent with the Commission’s IWPF Order and FE DSP Order. OCA R.Exc. at 15-16. In response to RESA’s argument that the ALJ ignored record evidence regarding the impacts to EGSs and possible cancellation fees to customers, the OCA submits that RESA failed to provide substantial record evidence to justify a departure from the Commission’s prior ruling on this issue. The OCA submits that barring customers from participating in a Commission-sponsored program would raise the issue of legal, or at least perceived, discrimination, and could damage the public’s perception of such programs. Accordingly, the OCA submits that the ALJ’s recommendation on this issue is in accordance with the law and the evidence of record, and should be upheld. Id. at 17. iv. Disposition
1194942.docx