08/09: The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission finalized measures designed to remove barriers to a competitive retail electric market in the Pennsylvania Power and Light service territory. Some of these measures include access to customer information databases for electric generation suppliers, data access through standardized transactions, different billing options, customer awareness and education programs, and commitments to a process for development of a uniform supplier tariff.
Source: Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/

05/09: Senator Lisa M. Boscola filed a formal class-action complaint against the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for failing to disclose Pennsylvania Power and Light’s (PPL) estimated rate increases after the electricity markets were deregulated in Pennsylvania. The PUC issues reports of electric rate changes in which it provides estimates on electric prices affected by the rate changes. In this case, the PUC stated that it could not provide electricity price estimates because PPL had already purchased its fuel and price estimates are performed prior to the purchase of any fuel.
Source: State Senator Lisa M. Boscola
http://www.senatorboscola.com/

04/09: The Consumer Affairs Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved a measure to stagger the impact of rate hikes over three years as rate caps across the state expire. The measure would limit electric utility rate hikes to a maximum of 20 percent each year for residential customers and small businesses. Rate caps are set to expire in 2010 for Pennsylvania Power and Light and in 2011 for PECO, Allegheny Energy and First Energy.
Source: The Pennsylvania House of Representatives
http://www.house.state.pa.us/

01/09: The Public Utilities Commission of Pennsylvania held a hearing to acquire feedback from the public on Pennsylvania Power and Light’s (PPL) proposed default service program and energy procurement plan. The plan would be enacted once rate caps expire at the end of 2009, allowing the electric utility to base its rates on free market competition. Under the proposition, rates in the PPL service area could increase by 36 percent for the average residential consumer beginning in January 2010.
Source: The Public Utilities Commission of Pennsylvania
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/

08/08: The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission approved a rate stabilization plan for PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, which is designed to allow customers to prepay in anticipation of large price increases for supply service that will occur when PPL’s generation rate caps expire on Dec. 31, 2009. In its filing, PPL projected a 34.5 percent increase for the average residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month. Because of its projected increase, PPL had sought approval to phase in the estimated 2010 rate increase. As part of the plan, PPL customers can choose to make additional payments and receive corresponding credits on their electric bills through Dec. 31, 2011. The plan is available to residential, small commercial, small industrial and certain street lighting customers.
Source: Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/

10/06: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) certified that the process used to determine the provider of last resort (POLR) prices for Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn Power) customers was transparent and non-discriminatory, and reflected market-based prices. The Commission voted 4-0 that the competitive bidding process produced electric generation prices for Penn Power that reflected prevailing market prices. The competitive bidding process was conducted by an independent group on behalf of Penn Power. The market-based prices meant that the average residential heating customer would see about a 20 percent increase in their total bill; the average residential non-heating consumer would see about a 33 percent increase in their total bill. The Commission verified that the new prices accurately reflected the results of the auction and checked the company’s calculations to ensure the new retail electricity prices accurately reflected the electricity costs resulting from the auction.
Source: Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/press_releases/press_releases.aspx?ShowPR=1639

08/04: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved a plan for Duquesne Light (DQE) residential, small commercial, and industrial customers who chose to receive their generation service from the company. Under the new plan, these customers were scheduled to receive a set rate through 2007. Furthermore, generation rates would increase by 11.5 percent in 2005 for small customers, which included residential, small commercial, and industrial accounts. However, customers were scheduled to pay total rates that were 15 percent lower than the ones in effect in 1996, when DQE’s rates were among the highest in the state and significantly above the national average. Under the new rates, an average residential customer using 500 kilowatthours of electricity per month would see his overall bill, including generation, transmission and distribution, increase by approximately $3.65, from $50.89 to $54.54.
Source: Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/press_releases/press_releases.aspx?ShowPR=1214

09/02: The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future released its Electric Competition: The Story Behind the Headlines, A 50-state Report. The report found that rates for most restructured states were lower or similar to what they were before restructuring.

08/02: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission issued an emergency order to stop New Power "from sending out additional make-up bills that were not consistent with our rules and regulation." All New Power customers that have already paid these bills were scheduled to be refunded.

07/02: The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate posted its Electric Shopping Statistics for July 1, 2002. Competitive suppliers served 305,422 customers representing a load of 2,142 megawatts. This report "included 34,399 residential customers assigned to Green Mountain's Competitive Discount Service (CDS)." Also, "174,279 CDS customers formerly served by New Power and not reported here, are now served by PECO but continue to receive the discounted CDS price." In the Consumer Advocate's last report (April 2002), 534,381 customers were being served by competitive suppliers.

06/02: According to a press release, Allegheny Energy Supply, a subsidiary of Allegheny Energy, Inc., sold "approximately 105,000 residential and commercial accounts in the Duquesne Light service territory in southwestern Pennsylvania" to Dominion Retail, Inc., a subsidiary of Dominion. Dominion Retail was scheduled to replace Allegheny Energy Supply as the retail electric service provider, but customers "would continue to receive one bill from their local utility."

04/02: PECO Energy was scheduled to take over The New Power Company's 180,000 customers, which it left behind when it exited Pennsylvania’s retail market in February 2001. Rates would remain discounted until February 1, 2004, and the switch would take approximately 30 days, starting on April 25. According to a PUC press release, "PECO's restructuring agreement requires PECO to have 50 percent of its residential and commercial customers served by alternative suppliers by January 2003."

03/02: The Duquesne Light Company became the first Pennsylvania utility to eliminate its competitive transition charge (CTC), reducing customers’ bills by about 16 percent. The CTC enabled the utility to recover costs associated with restructuring. When Duquesne sold its generation plants in April 2000, the profits helped the utility to eliminate the CTC.

09/01: The Department of Revenue released the second of three required reports that were aimed at recommendations to maintain tax neutrality in Pennsylvania during the transition period to a competitive electricity industry. The report analyzed the dynamic effects of electricity generation competition on Pennsylvania's economy and tax revenues. Even though the report generally found restructuring to have currently achieved positive benefits for Pennsylvania's economy, it stated that "continued realization of lower electricity prices resulting in additional savings for consumers is essential for long-term benefits from electric competition."

08/01: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved a settlement with GPU, Inc. and First Energy Corp (a merger between the two utilities was pending at the time) that preserved customer rate caps, encouraged customer participation in choosing alternative generation suppliers, increased support for renewable energy and conservation programs, and enabled GPU to defer its wholesale power losses through 2005. Distribution rate caps were extended for 3 years to 2005. Total generation rates, including shopping credits and competitive transition charges, continued at the same levels through 2010 as established by GPU's restructuring settlement. Shopping credits were scheduled to rise with a corresponding decrease in the competitive transition charge, which would enable customers more opportunity to find alternative suppliers for generation. The settlement also committed $15 million to renewable and sustainable energy development. And finally, through the establishment of a deferral mechanism that allowed GPU to carry its wholesale power losses in a deferred account through 2010, the settlement addresses GPU's financial concerns and enabled it to continue meeting its obligations to purchase wholesale power for its customers.

01/01: As required under PECO's restructuring plan, 300,000 residential customers that had not chosen a competitive supplier were randomly chosen and switched to The New Power Company, which was chosen by PECO to provide "Competitive Discount Service" from March 2001 through January 2004. Customers could have opted out of the program or chosen another electricity supplier without penalty.

01/01: The PUC deferred the decision on GPU's rate increase request for recovery of wholesale power costs until May, when it was scheduled to be heard with GPU's merger request (with First Energy). GPU claimed projected losses in 2001 could exceed $145 million due to the rising costs of purchasing wholesale power. GPU voluntarily divested its generation assets, has not entered into long-term contracts for power, and bought power on the wholesale market at increasing prices to serve its customer load.

12/00: DQE completed the first phase in its restructuring by selling its generation plants for $1.7 billion, extending its provider of last resort arrangement through 2004 thereby resulting in a 21-percent decrease in rates for its residential customers in 2002, and assuring complete recovery of stranded costs in 15 months.

12/00: GPU asked the PUC to defer the losses from its rising costs of wholesale power purchases, due to rising fuel costs, to provide its default customers with power. A number of customers returned to GPU this summer following a rise in market prices. GPU was unable to procure through a 1999 auction, a supplier for 20 percent of its "provider of last resort" load. PECO, which initially also could not procure default power through an auction, was able to negotiate privately with New Power Company to supply part of its default load. NPC was scheduled to offer discounted power to about 299,000 residential PECO customers until 2004. Customers could have opted out and could have remained with PECO.

08/00: A Pennsylvania Department of Revenue report to Governor Ridge and the General Assembly projected that electric competition would create more than 36,000 new jobs in the state by 2004. The report stated that the success of electric competition would lead to new jobs because related savings gave customers more money to spend, creating a multiplier effect in the state economy, reducing business costs, and allowing employers more money to invest.

07/00: The PUC approved a change in default service rates. Consumers were "gaming" the system by returning to the incumbent utility for the summer when prices typically rose, making default service rates more attractive. Under the approved change, utilities could charge market-based rates for default service, and customers could return to competitive suppliers after 60 to 90 days, rather than 12 months. GPU Energy's consumers could have returned to competitive service whenever they chose.

01/00: As of January 1, 2000, all consumers in Pennsylvania had retail access to competitive electricity suppliers. The Office of Consumer Advocate reported just over 507,000 consumers had switched to competitive suppliers at the time.

09/99: Duquesne Light Co., a subsidiary of DQE Inc., proposed selling 7 power plants to Orion Power Holdings bringing the total investment in Northeastern power plants by Orion to $2.7 billion, and its portfolio of plants to 5,200 MW. Duquesne would use proceeds from the sale toward its allowed $1.9 billion in stranded cost recovery. DQE expected stranded cost recovery to end by 2001, rather than 2005, and Duquesne customers were scheduled to see a 25-percent reduction in their bills.

09/99: About 450,000 customers in the state had switched suppliers, a majority of them in the Philadelphia area, PECO's service territory, at this point in time. PECO had some of the highest prices in the State prior to deregulation.

08/99: Rates for PP&L customers were scheduled to drop by about 1 percent. The approximated rate reduction was the result of PP&L's securitization of a portion of its competition-related transition costs.

05/99: The PUC finalized rules for full consumer choice in the retail electricity market. By September 1999, utilities were scheduled to mail information packages to all consumers that had not chosen a competitive supplier. The packages would contain information about consumer choice, the "price to compare," and a list of competitive suppliers serving their rate class and location.

01/99: Retail access was made available to two-thirds of the State's customers.

01/99: The 8-percent rate reduction in PECO's restructuring plan took effect for the 1.5 million residential customers in PECO's service territory.

11/98: The PUC and Allegheny reached a compromise agreement. Allegheny would implement a 2.5-percent rate reduction in 1999, and would follow the schedule consistent with the rest of the State (two-thirds by January 1999 and all consumers by January 2000). $670 million could be recovered in stranded costs over 10 years. The PUC set the "price to compare" at 3.16 cents per kWh.

11/98: GPU sold 23 plants to Sithe Energies for $1.72 billion. GPU planned to focus on transmission, distribution, and diversifying into natural gas, water, and telecommunications. A large part of the money from the sale of the plants was scheduled to go to paying GPU’s stranded costs.

10/98: It was proposed that as of January 2, 1999, all Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) residential customers would be able to switch to an alternative electric supplier. Also, the PUC and PP&L reached an agreement on capacity prices; PP&L agreed to sell installed capacity at $19.72/kW-year through 1999.

10/98: GPU announced an agreement with AmerGen Energy (jointly owned by PECO and British Energy) to buy Three Mile Island Unit 1 Generating Facility. If completed, this would be the first sale of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. Approvals must be sought form various Federal and State agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10/98: Duquesne Light Co struck an agreement with FirstEnergy Corp. to swap its interest in the Beaver Valley nuclear plant for three plants owned by FirstEnergy.

09/98: Duquesne Light filed a divestiture plan with the PUC, hoping to open an auction in early 1999 to sell 3,035 MW of coal and nuclear capacity. Approval was hoped for by December 1998.

09/98: About 1.8 million customers registered to choose their electric generation supplier at this point in time. The customers had received a "How to Shop" guide and a list of competitive suppliers. Two thirds of the state's consumers were eligible to begin receiving power from their supplier of choice in January 1999. All residential customers were scheduled to receive an 8- percent rate reduction with competitive suppliers scheduled to provide customers about 14 percent savings. Also, four "Green-e" products (a product with the Green-e logo was certified to be produced with 50 percent or 100 percent generation from renewables) were being offered to Pennsylvania customers.

09/98: Penelec customers would receive a 3-percent rate reduction and the "price to compare" was 4.404 cents per kWh. All Penelec customers were scheduled to be able to participate in the retail choice program on January 1, 1999. Stranded cost recovery was set at $332.16 million over 11 years.

09/98: Met-Ed customers could have received a 2.5-percent rate reduction regardless if they participated in the retail choice program. The "price to compare" or shopping credit was 4.35 cents per kWh. All Met-Ed customers were scheduled to be able to participate in the retail choice program on January 1, 1999. Stranded cost recovery was set at $658.14 million over 12 years.

08/98: PP&L's restructuring plan was given final approval by the PUC. In the plan, PP&L was scheduled to provide a 4-percent rate reduction in 1999 for all customers, and a shopping credit of 3.81 cents per kWh. Customers would be allowed to participate in retail competition in thirds, beginning with two-thirds on January 2, 1999 and all by January 2000. The amount of recoverable stranded costs allowed at the time was $2.97 billion over 11 years.

08/98: The Electric Choice Program enrolled 1.75 million customers and 70 electric service providers as of August 1, 1998. In September, consumers would receive information on shopping for an electric service provider and the "shopping phase" was scheduled to begin. Retail access was set to begin on January 1, 1999.

07/98: The PUC approved Wellsboro Electric Company's restructuring plan, allowing a 3.9 cents per kWh shopping credit. Wellsboro did not claim any stranded cost recovery. Two-thirds of Wellsboro's customers were scheduled to have retail access by January 2, 1999 and all customers by January 2, 2000. Open enrollment began on July 1, 1998, for the State's retail choice program.

07/98: Pennsylvania consumers began signing up to participate in the first phase-in of competition, two-thirds of consumers. In the first week, over 1.1 million consumers signed up for the Electric Choice Program.

07/98: All Pike County customers were scheduled to be able to choose their electric supplier on May 1, 1999. A shopping credit or "price to compare" rate was set at 3.4 cents per kWh. The PUC had not determined the amount of stranded costs Pike County could recover, but it could recover the costs until December 31, 2005.

06/98: The PUC approved restructuring plans for UGI Utilities, allowing a shopping credit of 3.67 cents per kWh until 2000 and 4.3 cents per kWh in 2001. Also, the Commission approved $32.5 million in stranded cost recovery. All UGI customers were scheduled to be able to choose their electric supplier on January 1, 1999.

06/98: The PUC began its consumer education program. An Electric Supplier Selection Form would be mailed to all consumers in the state to begin enrollment in the first part of the phase-in of competition, set to begin with two-thirds of consumers in January 1999. Sign-up for retail choice began July 1, 1998. The final third of consumers were scheduled to begin retail choice in January 2000. Most consumers were expected to realize savings of over 10 percent of what they paid at the time.

06/98: The PUC approved Penn Power's restructuring plan with a shopping credit of 3.73 cents per kWh and stranded cost recovery of $234 million over 7 years. Customers were scheduled to be fazed in starting with two-thirds by January 2, 1999 and the final third by January 2, 2000. Open enrollment was scheduled to begin on July 1, 1998.

05/98: The PUC approved Duquesne Light's restructuring plan. Stranded cost recovery was set at $1.331 billion over 7 years beginning January 1999. Consumers were expected to save about 12 percent. Retail competition was scheduled to be phased-in beginning January 1999 and be complete by January 2000.

05/98: The PUC gave final approval to PECO's restructuring plan in a compromise agreement. Under the plan, PECO customers were scheduled to receive an 8 percent rate reduction next year, 6 percent in 2000, with 20 percent savings expected for those willing to shop for power. PECO would be allowed to recover $5.26 billion in stranded costs over a period of 12 years. Two-thirds of customers were scheduled to be phased in to retail competition by January 1999 and all customers by January 2000.

03/98: Pilot programs were fully subscribed with more than 72,000 participants, making it the largest pilot program nationally.

02/98: Pilot programs completed lotteries to select final pilot participants. The first portion of the State's customers were actively participating in retail access pilot programs since November 1997.

12/97: House Bill 1509 allowed stranded cost recovery through a competitive transition charge; however, the detailed decisions and amount of recoverable costs were left to the PUC. The legislation expected utilities to use reasonable mitigation measures, and securitization was allowed but not required.

08/97: As required by House Bill 1509, PUC approved statewide pilot programs for 5 percent of each utility's load, beginning 11/97.

12/96: House Bill 1509, the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, was enacted. The law proposed a schedule whereby consumers could begin choosing among competitive generation suppliers, beginning with one third of the State's consumers, by January 1999, two thirds by January 2000, and all consumers by January 2001. Utilities were required to submit restructuring plans by September 1997.