GEN 00001 (revised 03/19/2019) Published On: 10/18/2012
Question: Is the Legal Representative (designated in Section 1.4 of the Part 1 Application) responsible only for the receipt and forwarding of legal process? Are there any other duties that must be performed? Is the Legal Representative responsible in any way for the Applicant’s activities? Can a corporation be designated as the Legal Representative, as opposed to an individual?
Answer: The responsibility of the Legal Representative from the perspective of the FEPA Companies is to accept service of process on behalf of the Applicant. This designation is required so that the Companies may appropriately direct any legal communications. Designation as an Applicant's Legal Representative is not intended to create a responsibility in any individual for the Applicant's activities where that responsibility would not otherwise exist. An individual — rather than a corporation — must be designated.
GEN 00003 (revised 03/19/2019) Published On: 11/01/2012
Question: Does MW/tranche multiplied by # of tranches represent the total MW (estimated) to be procured?
Answer: A tranche represents a fixed percentage of a company’s class load. Forecasted company peak loads are used to set the number of tranches, and the resulting tranche size percentages. The MW/tranche size is an estimate. The number of tranches will stay constant during the delivery period regardless of the actual peak or hourly load data. Suppliers are responsible for serving the actual load, which reflects various factors including but not limited to time of year and day, weather, and customer shopping migration.
GEN 00004 (revised 03/19/2019) Published On: 11/07/2012
Question: If applying the load cap to the total number of tranches to be procured in a given auction across all products results in a fraction, will the load cap be rounded down to the nearest integer?
Answer: If application of the load cap would result in fractional tranches, then rounding down to the nearest integer tranche is used. Note that the load cap is applied in each auction. For example, if there are 72 tranches being procured in the Residential/Commercial (Fixed-Price or FP) auction, a load cap of 75% means no bidder will be allowed to bid on more than 54 tranches in that auction. If there are 37 tranches being procured in the Industrial (Hourly-Priced or HP) auction, applying a 75% load cap results in 27.75 tranches, and rounding down to the nearest integer tranche means no bidder will be allowed to bid on more than 27 tranches in that auction.
GEN 00006 (revised 03/19/2019) Published On: 11/07/2012
Question: Is it anticipated that the auction will start and close on the same day?
Answer: There is no set time-frame for how long any particular auction will take. Generally, however, most FEPA auctions are concluded in a single day.
GEN 00007 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 11/14/2012
Question: For the Part 1 Application, are hardcopies required for all of the supporting documents (i.e., PJM and financial documents)?
Answer: Hardcopies of Part 1 and Part 2 Application documents are not required, electronic versions are sufficient. Hardcopies are required for Letters of Credit only.
GEN 00008 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 11/14/2012
Question: We do not have a legal counsel that resides in Pennsylvania, and all legal documents are handled by our headquarters in another state. Will this be acceptable?
Answer: No. All bidders are required to provide the name of a legal contact that has an address within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
GEN 00009 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 11/15/2012
Question: In FAQ GEN 00001, it is stated that for the Legal Representative, "An individual — rather than a corporation — must be designated." We utilize a large Service of Process agent and they have told us that they cannot name a specific individual, and that naming an individual applies only to individuals who act as the registered agent. This would not apply to a service company which acts as a corporate registered agent. In addition, service of process is valid only if received by mail, certified mail, FedEx, or process server. We do not accept process via fax or email. To clarify that, the State statutes and administrative rules mandate how service can be accepted.
Answer: All bidders are required to provide the name of an individual to be designated as their legal contact. Please also see GEN 00008.
GEN 00010 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 11/20/2012
Question: What are the consequences of any one or all of the EDCs being downgraded below investment grade or not being rated by any rating agency?
Answer: The Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) does not address the possibility of a downgrade of an EDC. Each supplier should make its own determinations of the likelihood and effect, if any, of such an occurrence.
GEN 00012 Published On: 12/07/2012
Question: Regarding Section 1.6 of the Part 1 Application, what documents count as documentation that our company has PJM E-Accounts set up and that we are a registered PJM LSE?
Answer: As proof of having a PJM E-Account, we accept screenshots of your logged-in E-Account or a Customer Account Manager Designation Form. Proof of being a registered Load Serving Entity (LSE) in PJM can be a fully executed PJM Application for Membership, a copy of the Operating Agreement of PJM showing your company name listed in the PJM Member List in that Agreement, or a screenshot from the PJM Website listing its members and showing the name of your company.
GEN 00013 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 12/07/2012
Question: Please explain the differing renewable requirements for West Penn Power versus the three other EDCs. Please explain in detail how the AECs for West Penn Power are allocated.
Answer: The obligations of Default Service Suppliers to provide Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) vary among the Companies. Each supplier to Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn Power must provide non-solar Tier I and Tier II AECs to meet the requirements of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS) for the load it serves, but those Companies will satisfy all Tier I solar AEPS requirements associated with their Default Service load using solar AECs obtained through separate procurements. Each supplier to West Penn Power will be required to provide all Tier I (including solar) and Tier II AECs associated with AEPS requirements for the default service load served by the supplier, less a specified number of Tier I solar AECs and Tier I non-solar AECs obtained by West Penn Power under separate long-term contracts. West Penn Power will allocate a defined number of Tier I solar and Tier I non-solar AECs for each tranche of load served that will be applied to reduce each supplier’s AEPS obligations. The obligation provisions resulted from the Commission Order at Dockets No. P-2013-2391368, P-2013-2391372, P-2013-2391375, P-2013-2391378.
GEN 00016 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 12/13/2012
Question: Please list the items that are excluded from the Default Service Suppliers’ full requirements obligation.
Answer: The full requirements obligations of Default Service Suppliers exclude the following items:
A list of PJM billing line items, and the responsible party for each under the Default Service Supply Master Agreement, can be found in Appendix D of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA).
GEN 00017 Published On: 12/13/2012
Question: In the Part 2 Application, the indicative offer includes the number of tranches and does not include indicative offer prices, is that correct?
Answer: Yes, that is correct. Applicants do not specify prices in their indicative offers -- at the time indicative offers need to be provided by applicants, the prices already will have been specified as the minimum and maximum possible starting prices in the auction. For each product, the indicative offer comprises two numbers: the first number is the maximum number of tranches the applicant is willing and able to bid on and serve at the minimum starting price for the product, and the second number is the maximum number of tranches the applicant is willing and able to bid on and serve at the maximum starting price for the product.
GEN 00018 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 12/13/2012
Question: Will the pre-bid security be returned to the bidder in the event the bidder does not participate in the auction or is not awarded any tranches?
Answer: The pre-bid security will be returned to the bidder as explained in the Bidding Rules.
GEN 00019 Published On: 12/13/2012
Question: How frequently are the FAQs updated?
Answer: Some questions can be answered and posted as FAQs within 24 hours. Other questions require more time to answer. Questions are answered and FAQs are posted in as timely a manner as possible.
GEN 00021 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 12/14/2012
Question: According to the Bidding Rules, the Residential load Default Service supplier will be paid a fixed price for 95% of the residential load and 5% of the residential load will be priced at Real Time LMP plus a $20/MWh adder. The Commercial load Default Service supplier will be paid 100% fixed price, and the Industrial load Default Service supplier will be paid the sum of 100% of the fixed price and 100% of the Real Time LMP plus a $4/MWh adder. To confirm this, are the following calculations correct?
Example: Assume auction price is $100/MWh for all customer classes, volume is 10 MW at a certain date/hour for all customer classes, and RT LMP for that date/hour is $50/MWh for all customer classes.
Residential DS supplier will be paid 0.95*100*10 + 0.05*(50+20)*10= $985
Commercial DS supplier will be paid 100*10=$1000
Industrial DS supplier will be paid 100*10 + (50+4)*10 = $1540.
Answer: That example is correct.
GEN 00022 (revised 09/22/2016) Published On: 01/03/2013
Question: This inquiry is regarding smart meter installation/implementation. Did all the FirstEnergy utilities complete smart meter installation for all customers? If so, are you using smart meter information (no more profile) to allocate customer capacity/transmission peak? If not, what is the current status, and when do you expect to use smart meter information to allocate customer capacity/transmission peak?
Answer: No, the PA utilities have not completed smart meter installation for their customers. Deployment of smart meters will continue through mid-2019 for 98.5% of all customers per the Commission- approved smart meter deployment plan. The remaining 1.5% of the meters that may require alternative communication solutions or involve difficult-to-access locations are expected to be installed by December 31, 2022, pursuant to the Joint Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and West Penn Power Company For Approval of their Smart Meter Deployment Plan, Docket Nos., M-2013-2341993, M-2013-234199, M-2013-2341990, and M-2013-2341994 (Order entered June 25, 2014).
GEN 00025 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 01/08/2013
Question: If a successful Part 1 Application and Part 2 Application were submitted and approved for a prior auction under one of FirstEnergy’s Pennsylvania Default Service Programs (DSP), does a Part 1 Application need to be submitted for subsequent auctions under any DSP?
Answer: During the process leading up to an auction, we will inform Qualified Bidders from the most recent auction(s) whether a new Part 1 Application will be required for the upcoming auction. As a general rule, prospective bidders will need to complete one new Part 1 Application per calendar year, unless the prospective bidder needs or wants to make changes to their Part 1 Application. The Qualified Bidder still needs to complete a separate Part 2 Application for each auction. In any case, a prospective bidder is obligated to inform the Independent Evaluator of any change in its status related to the information the prospective bidder previously provided in its Part 1 Application or its Part 2 Application. A new Part 1 Application is required of all prospective bidders for the first auction in a DSP series of auctions.
GEN 00027 Published On: 01/10/2013
Question: Do all customers in a given group (for example Met-Ed Residential Default Service customers) pay the same rate? If not, please provide the rate translation mechanism from all the auction clearing prices (inclusive of the floating LMP-based portion) to what different types of customers within a group would pay.
Answer: All customers within the Residential Class and the Commercial Class of each Company pay the same rate. The Industrial Class customers on hourly rates pay the same rate for kWh's consumed in the same hour.
GEN 00034 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 02/05/2013
Question: Can a winning bidder publicly disclose the number of tranches they won in an auction?
Answer: The Bidding Rules, Section 11.3.4, Limitations on Disclosures by Bidders, states: "Bidders are not allowed to disclose they are participating in the Fixed-Price Auction or the Hourly-Priced Auction, and winning bidders are not allowed to disclose that they have won any tranches in the Fixed-Price Auction or the Hourly-Priced Auction until the Commission publicly reports the results of the auction. Such limitation on public disclosure by bidders is waived if disclosure is required by law."
GEN 00035 Published On: 11/26/2013
Question: Regarding section 1.4 of the Part 1 Application for Default Service products for Met-Ed, et al: does the applicant's legal representative in PA have to be an attorney or will the corporation's agent for service of process suffice?
Answer: An agent for service of process will suffice. See also FAQ GEN 00001 and FAQ GEN 00009.
GEN 00036 Published On: 12/11/2013
Question: The Independent Evaluator and the Pennsylvania PUC publish the winning auction prices of prior auctions. Are the names of the winning suppliers made public?
Answer: The names of winning bidders are not made public. As noted in FAQ GEN 00034, a winning supplier is free to disclose that they have won tranches in an auction but only after the Commission has publicly reported the results of the auction.
GEN 00040 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 01/10/2014
Question: What is the exact tranche size per EDC per customer class? For example, if for a particular Default Service auction there were 12 tranches of Met-Ed Residential load that totaled 43%. Would the calculation be 0.43/12 so that each tranche = 3.583% or would this 43% be a rounded number reflecting a total number of 28 tranches, so that the actual tranche size was 1/28, or 3.5714%? Please clarify.
Answer: The 12 tranches would represent approximately 43% rounded. The actual size of each tranche would be 1/28, or 3.5714% (using four decimal places of precision here).
GEN 00042 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 07/28/2014
Question: Have the documents changed at all for the upcoming Auction other than as referenced per the date noted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/SupplierDocuments.aspx?
Answer: The documents on that Web page have been updated as of the date shown under "Updated On". The Part 1 Application and Part 2 Application on that Web page are updated as necessary to reflect the products that are being offered in the upcoming auction.
GEN 00048 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 10/03/2014
Question: Is a Letter of Intent to Provide a Guaranty required for participation in DSP-V Default Service Auctions?
Answer: For the DSP-V Default Service Auctions there is no Additional Pre-Bid Security required, and therefore no need for a Letter of Intent to Provide a Guaranty.
GEN 00050 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 10/23/2014
Question: Would you please make available a Word document version of the Form of Guaranty?
Answer: Rather than a Word version, a PDF version of the Form of Guaranty is available on the "Supplier Documents" page of the Information Website. This version contains form fields that can be filled in electronically.
GEN 00052 Published On: 10/30/2014
Question: Could you provide the methodology for how the total APS zone capacity obligation is allocated between Allegheny Maryland (Potomac Edison) and West Penn Power?
Answer: Each state jurisdiction within the APS Zone is metered at the state line crossings. This includes MonPower WVA, Potomac Edison WVA, Potomac Edison Maryland, ODEC VA, and West Penn Power PA. The state jurisdiction loads at the time of the PJM five summer peaks are determined from the metered loads which sum to the APS Zone load at the time of the five PJM peaks. A load ratio share is then determined based on each state jurisdiction average 5 CP compared to the total APS Zone average 5 CP. This load ratio share is then applied to the PJM assigned capacity obligation for the APS Zone to determine each state's capacity obligation.
GEN 00055 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 01/08/2015
Question: Appendix D of the Default Service Supplier Master Agreement distinguishes "Generation Deactivation and RMR Generating Unit Declarations" (billing line item 1930) before PaPUC Approval of the Company's Default Service Program as the responsibility of the DS Supplier (winning bidder) and after PaPUC Approval of the Company's Default Service Program as the responsibility of the EDC. Would you provide the date of the approval of the Company's Default Service program, as well as indicate where on PJM's Website information regarding the dates of Generation Deactivation and RMR Generating Unit Declarations can be found?
Answer: Current generation deactivation for reliability must run generating units can be found on the PJM Website at http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gen-deactivation-rmr.aspx.
GEN 00056 Published On: 01/08/2015
Question: For West Penn Power: (1) What is the on-going rate for the PJM charge of "Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service"? (2) Which transmission owner is providing transmission service to West Penn Power?
Answer: (1) There is no "Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service" charge for West Penn Power under Schedule 1A of the PJM OATT. APS (West Penn, Monongohela Power, and Potomac Edison) waived these charges as part of their agreement to join PJM in 2002. (2) West Penn Power Company d/b/a Allegheny Power is the transmission owner providing service to West Penn Power.
GEN 00061 (revised 12/03/2015) Published On: 07/21/2015
Question: Is there a definitive schedule set already for future auctions?
Answer: The Calendar page of the Information Website provides the latest information on upcoming auctions.
GEN 00063 (revised 12/03/2015) Published On: 11/10/2015
Question: How much notice must a customer who is currently taking Default Service give before they can switch to a retail provider for each rate schedule?
Answer: All Pennsylvania customers may select a supplier at any time whether currently taking Default Service or already shopping. No notification is required for any customer rate type. A supplier switch is made effective within three days after the utility receives notification from a customer's selected supplier.
GEN 00069 Published On: 09/14/2016
Question: If there are changes to the NITs rates after the auction has cleared, will suppliers be made whole for any changes?
Answer: No. As per the Supplier Master Agreement definition of Default Service Supply, or "DS Supply", on page 5, the suppliers are responsible for transmission services including NITS. Any changes to the NITS rates are the responsibility of the Default Service Supplier.
GEN 00075 (revised 10/18/2016) Published On: 10/18/2016
Question: My counterparty Risk group is assessing credit and was wondering if you would be able to provide Met-Ed’s most recent YE audited financials, as well as their most recent quarterly financials?
Answer: The financials are available at www.firstenergycorp.com. Once at the Website, they are available under Investors / Fixed Income Investors / Financial Information (non-SEC registrants).
GEN 00076 (revised 10/18/2016) Published On: 10/18/2016
Question: Please provide any available details of capital expenditures for transmission projects that are expected to go into service in the next three years that are relevant to Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company.
Answer: Transmission projects in the PJM queue can be found on the PJM’s Website: http://www.pjm.com/planning/rtep-upgrades-status/construct-status.aspx.
GEN 00077 (revised 10/18/2016) Published On: 10/18/2016
Question: Please provide a listing of the of the transmission projects that are expected to go into service in the next three years that are relevant to Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company.
Answer: Transmission projects in the PJM queue can be found on the PJM’s Website: http://www.pjm.com/planning/rtep-upgrades-status/construct-status.aspx
GEN 00081 Published On: 11/03/2016
Question: Is there a deadline to submit comments on the pre-bid letter of credit?
Answer: Any proposed changes to Credit Documents must be submitted by the Part 1 Application deadline. For more information, refer to Appendix C of the Part 1 Application.
GEN 00084 Published On: 11/30/2016
Question: Can you provide the tranche sizes for West Penn Power for Residential and Commercial and Penn Power Residential and Commercial for 1 tranche? What is the percentage of Default Service load for just 1 tranche for each of those products?
Answer: The approximate MW-per-tranche sizes and the values for the percentage of Default Service load are posted on the News page of the Information Website at www.fepaauction.com/News.aspx.
GEN 00087 Published On: 12/06/2016
Question: Is there a tranche fee for FirstEnergy tranches? If not, how does the consulting companies conducting the auctions get paid for their services?
Answer: There is no tranche fee paid by bidders in the auctions. The Auction Manager is paid by submitting invoices to FirstEnergy for its services.
GEN 00088 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 12/06/2016
Question: Can you give us all historical dates when Commercial customers were moved into Industrial depending on their demand level for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power? For example, on June 1, 2015, West Penn Power Commercial was redefined to exclude interval customers with demands of 400-500 kW. What are all the historical dates when Commercial was redefined?
Answer: Met-Ed / Penelec January 1, 2011 to current: HPS created to include GS-Large, GP, and LP Penn Power January 1, 2007: Hourly Pricing (HPS) becomes effective, including GP and GT June 1, 2008 to current: Special Rule GSDS added to HPS West Penn Power January 1, 2011: HPS created to include Rate Schedules 30-large, 40, 41, 44, 46, 86, and PSU May 3, 2015 to current: HPS changed to include RS 35, 40, 44, 46, and PSU
GEN 00090 Published On: 01/10/2017
Question: Does West Penn Power and Penn Power have Tier I, Tier I Solar, and Tier II alternative energy portfolio standard obligations? Are the percentages the same for West Penn Power and Penn Power?
Answer: Please see the response to FAQ GEN 00013, as well as Appendix E of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA).
GEN 00091 Published On: 01/13/2017
Question: Do winning bidders have to pay Pennsylvania Gross Receipt tax?
Answer: Bidders should consult their tax advisors regarding the applicability of the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts tax.
GEN 00092 Published On: 01/18/2017
Answer: The Companies are not aware of any municipal aggregation activities in any of the First Energy Zones in Pennsylvania.
GEN 00096 Published On: 05/04/2017
Question: If an Applicant’s intent is to provide a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Pre-Bid Security, and the Applicant (1) does not provide financial statements of its own, (2) provides financial statements for its Parent company, but (3) does not rely on the Parent company for a guarantee, will the Applicant be considered a Qualified Bidder?
Answer: If the Applicant is relying on the financial standing of a Parent company, and the Parent company is not listed as a Guarantor in the Part 1 Application, the Applicant will not be declared a Qualified Bidder for the auction. If the Applicant is relying on the financial standing of a Parent company, and the Parent company is used as a Guarantor in the Part 1 Application, the Applicant may be declared a Qualified Bidder for the auction. However, the Guarantor must agree to guarantee the Winning Bidder’s financial obligations under the Supplier Master Agreement if the Applicant becomes a Winning Bidder in the auction. More information is provided in the Supplier Master Agreement posted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/SupplierDocuments.aspx.
GEN 00097 Published On: 08/22/2017
Question: I am interested in finding the load auction calendars for FirstEnergy Pennsylvania.
Answer: The timeline for the next DSP-V Default Service Program auction is posted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Calendar.aspx. Under the "Here" link on the same Web page, you can also find the schedule for all auctions in FirstEnergy's Pennsylvania Default Service Program DSP-V.
GEN 00101 Published On: 10/25/2017
Question: Will the NITS rate for Penn Power in the ATSI transmission system be increasing as of 1/1/2018? If yes, by how much? What are the expected rates?
Answer: The updated NITS rates are posted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/NITSRateInformation.aspx.
GEN 00107 (revised 01/08/2018) Published On: 01/08/2018
Question: If each tranche is a % of customer class, what is the relevance of the 50MW tranche size (or 49.33MW or 49.79MW etc)?
Answer: A tranche represents a fixed percentage of a company’s class load. This percentage can be calculated from the information provided under the 'Here' link on www.fepaauction.com/Calendar.aspx or from the relevant news items on www.fepaauction.com/News.aspx. The MW-per-tranche measure is only an estimate of what the actual MW tranche size will turn out to be during the delivery period. For example, for Penn Power Commercial products in the January 2018 auction, one tranche represents 14.3% of the load and the tranche size is estimated to be 45.84 MW/tranche.
GEN 00108 Published On: 01/17/2018
Question: Based on FAQ GEN 00107, if I apply 14.3% to the historical non-shopped Commercial Penn Power load from Mar 1, 2017-May 2017, shouldn't this provide an estimate of the MW/tranche? This logic results in a tranche size of 6MW though. Am I not applying the 14.3% to the correct load parameter?
Answer: MW/tranche is calculated using the Peak Load Contribution (PLC) Daily Zonal Scaling Factor (DZSF) times the Shopped and Non-Shopped Capacity Peak Load Share (PLS) by Class and dividing that number by the relevant number of tranches. For example, using the data from the Load and Other Data section for Met-Ed Residential on 1/1/18:
PLC DZSF = 0.99192 (Daily Zonal Scaling Factor spreadsheet)
Residential Capacity PLS = 844,325 (non-shopped) + 419,337 (shopped) = 1,263,662 KW = 1,263.662 MW (Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate spreadsheet)
Met-Ed Residential Tranches = 24
MW/Tranche = 0.99192 * 1,263.662 / 24 = 52.2 MW/Tranche
GEN 00109 Published On: 01/23/2018
Question: Once established as a load serving entity (LSE) in PJM, are there any Pennsylvania PUC regulatory approvals required to provide Default Service Supply in these auctions?
Answer: Pennsylvania PUC regulatory approvals are not required to participate in the auctions. Default Service suppliers must meet the requirements as stated in the Companies’ Bidding Rules, the Part I and Part II Applications, and the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA). After each auction, the Pennsylvania PUC reviews and approves the auction results.
GEN 00110 Published On: 01/24/2018
Question: When is AEPS compliance required by? Is there a window after delivery so that actual volumes are known?
Answer: In PA, Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) compliance is due September 1. The compliance reporting year runs June 1 through May 31. Actual volumes typically are available by mid to late July.
GEN 00115 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 06/21/2018
Question: The 2018 Met-Ed/Penelec (Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC) NITS rate of $26,069.39/MW-year was calculated using an assumption that the Federal income tax rate was 35%. Given that the Federal income tax rate was lowered to 21% starting on January 1, 2018, will Met-Ed/Penelec revise its NITS rate prior to January 1, 2019 in order to lower its revenue requirement or will Met-Ed/Penelec revise its NITS rate effective January 1, 2019 and reflect the over-collection of revenues as a credit in the true up calculation?
Answer: MAIT will follow guidance provided by FERC regarding treatment of the tax reform change in the Federal income tax rate with respect to transmission formula rates in which the Federal income tax rate is an input in the overall formula that is used to establish the NITS rate. With respect to calendar 2018, MAIT will revise the Federal income tax rate to 21% for its 2018 Actual Transmission Revenue Requirement and related true-up. The true-up for calendar 2018 will be included as an adjustment to the 2020 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement and thus returned to customers over calendar 2020. With respect to calendar 2019, MAIT will revise the Federal income rate to 21% for its 2019 Projected Transmission Revenue Requirement for rates effective January 1, 2019.
GEN 00116 Published On: 09/26/2018
Question: What are the differences between the DSP-IV and DSP-V Default Service Programs?
Answer: Changes from DSP-IV to DSP-V are limited to appendices of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) and are outlined as follows:Appendix C - DS Supply Specifications:- Default service customer groups have been updated to reflect new commercial class rate schedules accompanying the move to hourly pricingAppendix D – Responsibilities for PJM Billing Line Items as Defined in Applicable PJM Agreement or Manual:- Clarifications were added to confirm that the Companies will be responsible for the following PJM Billing Statement Line Items1115 – Transmission Enhancement Settlement2115 – Transmission Enhancement Settlement- The following new PJM billing statement line items were assigned to Default Service Suppliers2211 – Day Ahead Transmission Credit (Formerly BLI2210)2215 – Balancing Transmission Congestion Credit 2415 – Balancing Transmission Congestion Load Reconciliation CreditAppendix E – Default Service Suppliers Obligation for AEPS Compliance:- Clarified to specify that the Companies are responsible for changes in law to the AEPS requirementsAppendix F – Letter of Credit Documentation:- Removal of Annex 3: Availability Certificate- Removal of Annex 5: Notice of Extension
GEN 00117 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 10/17/2018
Question: Can you describe how a customer is assigned to the PTC or HP class? Is there a demand-based allocation, does a customer select the class, or is there another process?
Answer: Currently those on the GS Medium rate schedule take Default Service via the Price to Compare (PTC) Default Service Rate Rider, but have the option to take Default Service through the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider. Effective June 1, 2019, the same criteria will apply except that GS Medium customers (Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power) and Rate 30 customers (West Penn) who have registered demand of 100 kW or greater for 12 consecutive months ending March 31 will be required to take Default Service through the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider.
GEN 00118 Published On: 10/17/2018
Question: Did the tranche sizes change between DSP-IV and DSP-V? For example, it looks like Met-Ed Residential for DSP-V is 4%, while in DSP-IV it was 4.167%
Answer: Tranche sizes are intended to approximate 50 MW per tranche for fixed-price products and 100 MW per tranche for hourly-priced products. The number of tranches needs to be an integer and that number is allocated across the scheduled auctions (and therefore the number of tranches for a product for a given delivery period may vary slightly from auction to auction). For example, given the PLC load estimated for DSP-IV, it was determined that 24 tranches in total would be procured across auctions for Met-Ed Residential that include the delivery period of June 2017 through May 2018. Thus, each tranche represents 1/24, or 4.167%, of the estimated load during that delivery period. For DSP-V, given the PLC load estimated for DSP-V, it was determined that 25 tranches in total would be procured across auctions for Met-Ed Residential that include the delivery period of June 2019 through May 2020. Thus, each tranche represents 1/25, or 4.00%, of the estimated load for that delivery period.
GEN 00119 (revised 04/12/2019) Published On: 10/24/2018
Question: For West Penn Power, what portion of the 1,000 Solar and 75,000 Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) will be allocated to Default Service Suppliers for this procurement?
Answer: FAQ GEN 00013 explains the allocation of AECs for West Penn Power.
GEN 00120 Published On: 10/24/2018
Question: Please provide the number of currently deployed smart meters in the Companies' territories.
Answer: The table below shows the number of smart meters deployed as of February 1, 2019.
GEN 00122 Published On: 01/14/2019
Question: In the answer to question GEN 00117 the term "registered demand" is used. How is registered demand of a customer defined and determined?
Answer: Registered demand is the measured demand (metered kW) for the billing month. Demand is measured over 15-minute intervals. More information on demand determination can found in the Companies’ tariffs.
GEN 00123 Published On: 01/16/2019
Question: The APS transmission rates posted are lower than what was known in the previous auctions. What changed? Can you send reference documents to understand the changes.
Answer: On March 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Stated Rate Order to Show Cause to public utilities that use a stated transmission rate under an open access transmission tariff to address the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. On November 15, 2018, in FERC docket number ER18-1595-000, the FERC approved the APS rate change (with effective rates retroactive to March 21, 2018) associated with the reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. For more information, please see the filing and additional information posted on the FERC Website pertaining to Docket No. ER18-1595-000.
GEN 00124 (revised 04/16/2019) Published On: 04/16/2019
Question: Can you provide a table detailing how 1,000 Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) and 75,000 Tier I AECs per year are allocated to Default Service Suppliers by customer class?
Answer: See the table below showing the allocation of Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) to Default Service Suppliers under DSP-V.
GEN 00125 Published On: 04/17/2019
Question: Can you please provide an update to question GEN 00119? For West Penn Power, what portion of the 1,000 Solar and 75,000 Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) will be allocated to Default Service Suppliers for this procurement? In the past you have provided a table with the allocation per tranche. Can you please provide this table again?
Answer: Please see FAQ GEN 00124 which has the allocation table for DSP-V.
GEN 00126 Published On: 04/25/2019
Question: FAQs DAT 00125 and SMA 00037 both have been revised in the past month, but they disagree. Can you please consolidate them or provide an explanation? In SMA 00037, the table “Percentage of Commercial Load served by Non-Shopping Accounts on the GSM and GP30 rate tariffs with billing demands > 100kW for 12 Consecutive Months” was not updated. Compared to updates prior to the January auction, migrating PLC from the commercial class in FAQ DAT 00125 shows lower percentages. Can you please update and extend (or confirm as is) the monthly load table of SMA 00037 for the migrating customers?
Answer: FAQ DAT 00125 and FAQ SMA 00037 have been updated now.
GEN 00127 Published On: 04/26/2019
Question: FAQs SMA 00037 and DAT 00125 have inconsistent NSPL changes (percentage rows) for the migrating commercial class. Would you please update these tables and reconcile them?
Answer: The NSPL percentage changes have been corrected in FAQ SMA 00037.
GEN 00128 (revised 09/25/2019) Published On: 05/10/2019
Question: Could you please provide a clarification on the difference between the legal opinion required in Section 1.8 (f)(i) of the Part 1 Application and the legal opinion required after “an Applicant becomes a Default Service Supplier”? Do you require an executed copy of the legal opinion with the Part 1 Application or is it just a draft copy for review by the utilities?
Answer: The same legal opinion must be submitted as part of the Part 1 Application and if the applicant is chosen as a Default Service Supplier. The legal opinion should be signed by counsel when submitted as part of the Part 1 Application.
GEN 00132 Published On: 06/06/2019
Question: For any awards in the June 2019 auction, what is the deadline for transferring AECs associated with any award? If we were to follow the state requirements, the EDCs have until September 1, 2020 in order to retire the AECs. Is there a separate deadline for Default Service Suppliers?
Answer: As noted in the reply to FAQ SMA 00030, the FEPA companies will send each Default Service Supplier notification of its AEC obligation along with the due date for the AEC transfer. The due date typically is the first week of August to allow time for the retirement of the AECs by September 1.
GEN 00133 Published On: 09/23/2019
Question: (1) Could you please confirm that a legal opinion and officer certificate that were accepted in the June 2019 procurement does not need to be resubmitted in the Part 1 Application for the October 2019 auction? (2) If the legal opinion and officer certificate were executed in the June 2019 auction, do you require a re-submission of the executed copies of the legal opinion and officer certificate as part of the Part 2 Application and/or at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement and Guaranty?
Answer: New executed copies of the legal opinion and officer certificate must be re-submitted for each auction. The legal opinion and officer certificate must be executed and submitted twice by the supplier: (1) with the Part 1 Application, and (2) at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement should the supplier become a Default Service Supplier.
GEN 00134 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: As of now, the effective NITS rate for Allegheny Power Zone is $14,364 per megawatt per year. Do you know if they will have another filing on the horizon to change their effective NITS rate?
Answer: There are no changes to the NITS rate for Allegheny Power Zone. The rate is still $14,364 per megawatt per year.
GEN 00135 Published On: 01/17/2020
Question: Can FEPA please confirm the AEPS compliance percentages that will be required of the suppliers is as shown in Appendix E of the DSP-V SMA? The language in Appendix E changed in DSP-V vs DSP-IV. Also, the reporting year 2020 solar AEPS percentage shown in DSP-V Appendix E does not match the solar percentage shown on the PA AEPS Website (https://www.pennaeps.com/electricity-suppliers/).
Answer: The Tier I Solar percentage for compliance year 6/1/2019 to 5/31/2020 is 0.4433%. Appendix E of the SMA lists it as 0.44%. This is the result of rounding to two decimal places.
GEN 00136 Published On: 01/20/2020
Question: Will suppliers be responsible for the Tier I Non-Solar Adjustment under Act 129?
Answer: Yes. Suppliers are responsible for the Tier I Non-Solar Adjustment.
GEN 00137 Published On: 01/21/2020
Question: Please clarify whether the volume of Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) and Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) provided for West Penn Power 24-month Residential product will be half of the allocation of the 24-month number or whether the volume will go to zero completely as Planning Year compliance for Reporting Year 2020/2021 happens after June 1, 2021.
Answer: The long-term contracts West Penn Power has for Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) and Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) will expire on May 31, 2021. West Penn Power will not have any SPAECs or AECs to allocate to suppliers beginning in Reporting Year 2021/2022.
GEN 00138 Published On: 01/23/2020
Question: In Section 16.13 of the FSA, there are a number of Federal Regulations that the supplier must conform to in the event that said Regulations become applicable. Can you please tell us if those regulations are currently applicable? If they are not, can you tell us under what circumstances would those regulations become applicable under this agreement?
Answer: This provision is applicable only to governmental bidders.
GEN 00139 Published On: 01/24/2020
Question: Does Allegheny Power Zone have a plan to change their NITS rate, or have a FERC filing to change their NITS rate?
Answer: No.
GEN 00140 (revised 10/19/2020) Published On: 02/25/2020
Question: (1) Since Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power directly meet the solar AEC requirements for their loads, is a supplier's Tier 1 Non-Solar obligation equal to the Tier 1 obligation less the Tier 1 Solar obligation listed in Appendix E of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA)? As an example, for the Compliance Period June 1, 2019 - May 31, 2020, is a supplier's obligation for Tier 1 Non-Solar AECs equal to 7.06%? (2) Can you confirm that a supplier is not responsible for the Tier 1 Quarterly Adjustment and that the utilities meet that requirement? Per the last paragraph of Appendix E, the utilities would meet the Tier 1 Quarterly Adjustment as the utilities are responsible for any changes in the AEPS compliance requirements from the values listed in the table in Appendix E. "If Alternative Energy Portfolio requirements change by law or any other reason, the Companies shall be responsible for any incremental AEPS compliance requirement in order to comply with DS Supplier’s obligations under DS Supply."
Answer: In West Penn Power, the suppliers are responsible for all Tier I requirements, which includes Tier I Solar, Tier I Non-Solar, and Tier I Adjustments. In Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power, the suppliers are responsible for the Tier I requirements, except for the Tier I Solar. The PA AEPS requirements for 6/1/19 - 5/31/20 are as follows: Tier I Solar is 0.4433%, Tier I Non-Solar is 7.0567%, and the Tier I Adjustment will be determined by the PA AEPS administrator.
GEN 00141 Published On: 04/16/2020
Question: I have a question related to the West Penn Power AECs Allocation Table in FAQ GEN 00124. In viewing FAQ GEN 00124, I wanted to confirm the allocation for the SPAECs and Tier I AECs for the 24-month terms. Does the table represent the allocations per year or does the table represent that total number of SPAECs and AECs allocated to the term as a whole? If it is the latter, can you outline when they are issued to us? Do we get all of them during the first year or are half issued in the first energy year and the other half in the second?
Answer: The allocations in the table in FAQ GEN 00124 are per year. After June 1, 2021, there will be no AECs allocated -- see FAQ GEN 00137.
GEN 00142 Published On: 04/27/2020
Question: With the FERC order on rehearing and clarification on the MOPR ruling that addresses the PJM Reliability Pricing Model, the Commission seems to have confirmed the opinion that state-run default service auctions are to be considered state subsidies for suppliers with generation bidding into the PJM capacity auction thereby making suppliers that receive default service auction awards subject to the MOPR rule. Does FEPA plan on taking any steps to ensure suppliers with generation that could be subject to MOPR are aware of the potential implications of bidding in the upcoming RFP?
Answer: Information is available in the public domain regarding the most recent rulings on the Minimum Offer Price Rule (“MOPR”). The Company has not yet developed additional communications to make suppliers aware of this information.
GEN 00143 Published On: 06/18/2020
Question: We are serving load for Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power starting June 1, 2020. Can you please let us know at your earliest convenience how we can access (1) the settled load and (2) the invoices from FirstEnergy.
Answer: To serve load effective June 1, 2020, an LSE is required to have a PJM contract/InSchedule created and confirmed between the LSE and the FirstEnergy operating company. Once this has been completed, all energy, capacity, and transmission data are uploaded to PJM, and the LSE will have the ability to access the data via PJM Tools pages. Invoices, as part of the Default Service process, will be sent to the appropriate parties at each LSE.
GEN 00144 Published On: 09/02/2020
Question: Given the circumstances, will you waive the notary public requirement in the Part 1 Application temporarily?
Answer: All bidders are required to submit notarized Part 1 Applications; however, the applications may be e-notarized.
GEN 00145 Published On: 09/04/2020
Question: In case FEPA's Capacity Proxy Price proposal to the PA Commission does not receive Commission approval, or Commission approval is delayed to a date after the auction, does FEPA plan to truncate the 24 month contracts to 12 month contracts for the upcoming auction?
Answer: The Companies have no plans at this time to truncate their 24-month products to 12-months. If anything changes, we will update bidders as quickly as possible.
GEN 00146 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: We have 2 questions: (1) Please explain the reason for the auction delay. (2) Since the auction is being delayed by 3 weeks, can bidders request collateral be returned? If collateral can be returned, what date does it need to be posted by for the November 16 auction? If collateral cannot be returned, what remedy do bidders have to request a return of their collateral, and not participate in the November 16 auction? Thanks.
Answer: On October 29, 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, West Penn Power Company, in conjunction with affiliates Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, filed for a change in its Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) rate at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at Docket No. ER21-253. The auction was moved to provide time for bidders to review this new rate information. The Companies are authorized to hold the fall auction at any date between October 20 and November 20 of each year. No changes to the auction products or structure have occurred. Bidders’ pre-bid collateral remains in place. Bidder collateral will not be returned unless the bidder chooses to withdraw from auction participation.
GEN 00147 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: Please provide an update on the reason for the delay in the auction -- now scheduled for November 16. Do you expect all terms and products to remain the same or are changes being considered? Will our recently posted Pre-Bid collateral remain sufficient?
GEN 00148 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: Is there an explanation or reason why the First Energy Pennsylvania Load Auction has been moved to November 16th? Should bidders assume that the products and structure will remain the same as originally planned?
Answer: On October 29, 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, West Penn Power Company, in conjunction with affiliates Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, filed for a change in its Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) rate at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at Docket No. ER21-253. The auction was moved to provide time for bidders to review this new rate information. The Companies are authorized to hold the fall auction at any date between October 20 and November 20 of each year. No changes to the auction products or structure have occurred.
GEN 00149 Published On: 11/12/2020
Question: Is the reimbursement or payment to Suppliers to account for the difference between the Capacity Proxy Price and actual Capacity Rate for PY 2022/2023 rate subject to FERC or PAPUC approval?
Answer: On October 8, 2020, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved the Joint Petition of Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and West Penn Power Company for Approval to Modify their Supplier Master Agreement (Docket Numbers: P-2020-3021424, P-2020-3021425, P-2020-3021426 and P-2020-3021427) to establish a Capacity Proxy Price for the 2022/2023 energy year. FERC approval is not required.
GEN 00150 Published On: 01/05/2021
Question: Due to COVID restrictions in our jurisdiction, we are unable to provide notarized signatures for the Part 1 Application. Can we make alternative arrangements?
Answer: We are still seeking notarization of documents. Any bidders who cannot complete notarization due to COVID-19 restrictions imposed in their respective jurisdictions, can contact the Independent Evaluator (CRA) to determine whether alternate arrangements can be made.
GEN 00151 Published On: 01/11/2021
Question: For the upcoming January auctions, do the Fixed Price (FP) auction and the (HP) Hourly Price auction take place simultaneously, using the same bidding portal / Website? Does the HP auction operate the same way as the FP auction?
Answer: Yes, the FP auction and HP auction are separate auctions but take place simultaneously, using the same bidding Website. The same bidding rules apply to the two auctions.
GEN 00152 Published On: 02/23/2021
Question: In the Q3 2020 Investor FactBook, FirstEnergy projected regulated transmission investment of $410, $405, $435-560 and $420-545 for 2020-2023 in ATSI, $375, $395, $430-555 and $415-540 in 2020-2023 for MAIT, and $135, $180, $130 and $120 for 2020-2023 in APS (WPP, MP, PE). Is there any more recent public guidance on expected capital expenditures? If not, can you please provide updated expected capital expenditure figures per year?
Answer: The Q3 2020 Investor FactBook provides the current projected capital expenditures for our regulated transmission segment. We do plan to update our projections in the Q4 2020 Investor FactBook which we are planning to publish in February.
GEN 00153 Published On: 06/21/2021
Question: Do suppliers need PaPUC licensing in each product class in order to bid on that respective product class in the DSP auction? For instance, if a supplier holds an active PaPUC license to supply electricity to industrial customers, would they be able to participate in the residential DSP auction?
Answer: Please see response to FAQ GEN 00109.
GEN 00154 Published On: 12/10/2021
Question: Do you offer 3rd party pricing for the Default Service auctions? If so, could you provide me a quote?
Answer: The broker quotes are publicly available, and FirstEnergy receives broker quotes published on the CME site: https://www.cmegroup.com/tools-information/?redirect=/tools">https://www.cmegroup.com/tools-information/?redirect=/tools.
GEN 00155 Published On: 01/20/2022
Question: Are there any municipal aggregations in planning or expected in the FirstEnergy Pennsylvania utility territories during the delivery period for the tranches offered in the upcoming auction (June 2022 – May 2023)?
Answer: The FirstEnergy Pennsylania utilities are not aware of any planned or expected municipal aggregations in their respective territories for the delivery period (June 2022 – May 2023) for the tranches offered in the upcoming auction.
GEN 00156 Published On: 11/07/2022
Question: Have the Capacity Proxy Price rates in $/MW-Day for PY 2024/2025 been published?
Answer: FirstEnergy filed a petition with the PA PUC to move the 24-month residential and commercial products to an auction in January 2023. The PA PUC approved the petition on October 27, 2022. This will allow time for PJM to conduct its Base Residual Auction in December 2022 for the 2024/2025 planning year. There will be no need for Capacity Proxy Price rates for PY 2024/2025 so none will be published. See the relevant News item here: https://www.fepaauction.com/News.aspx.
GEN 00157 Published On: 01/19/2023
Question: Are there any municipal aggregations in planning or expected in the FirstEnergy Pennsylvania utility territories during the delivery period (June 2023 – May 2024) for the tranches offered in the upcoming auction?
Answer: The Companies are not aware of any planned municipal aggregations in their service territories.
GEN 00158 Published On: 04/18/2023
Question: Will Appendix H be used in any way for the April 10th auction now that the PJM PY 2024/2025 BRA results have been released?
Answer: The Capacity Proxy Price will not be used in the Companies' April 10, 2023 DSP-VI auction.
GEN 00159 Published On: 10/11/2023
Question: When are 2024 final NITS for the 3 FEPA transmission zones (MAIT, ATSI, South FE) expected to be posted to the auction website?
Answer: The 2024 NSPL data will be effective 1/1/2024 and will be posted at that time.
GEN 00160 Published On: 11/01/2023
Question: Are residential load suppliers guaranteed at least 32% of required SPAECs to satisfy obligations to the FE-PA utilities regardless of solar output? We understand that the allocation may be larger than 32% given sufficient solar project output.
Answer: Yes. Starting June 1, 2024, Residential Default Service providers are guaranteed at least 32% of the SPAECs to satisfy their solar obligations. If the solar project produces SPAECs greater than 32%, then the additional SPAECs will be allocated out to the Residential Default Service providers.
GEN 00161 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: We received the prior response that the UFE data had been updated but when we check the website we only see data through 4/2023. Will this data be updated before the auction and if so what is the expected timeline? We traditionally have more recent data, and this is delaying our analysis.
Answer: The PA UFE report is the combined report for all four PA operating companies. This is the report to be used and it is up to date.
GEN 00162 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: What is the purpose of Appendix I? It does not appear to be referenced in the SMA. Is this solely providing a form in the event of an assignment?
Answer: Yes. This is a standard assignment form in the event of an assignment.
GEN 00163 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: As we approach auction date, when can we expect the UFE and derating data to get updated, currently it only is updated up to April 2023.
Answer: The FEPA UFE report has been combined into a single PA report (PA UFE) which is updated . The same has also been completed for the Deration Factor report (PA Deration Factor).
RUL 00001 Published On: 11/02/2012
Question: Do all winning tranches for a product get paid the same price?
Answer: Yes, all winning tranches for a product procured in the same auction are paid the same price.
RUL 00002 Published On: 11/02/2012
Question: Must all products in the auction clear simultaneously?
Answer: Products in the auction do not close product by product. The auction will continue, and bids can be placed on any products, as long as at least one product is over-subscribed. The Bidding Rules provide the complete set of conditions that determine when the auction concludes.
RUL 00004 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 12/14/2012
Question: If we bid on certain products and do not bid on certain other products, would we still be able to follow the auction for these other products. i.e., would we know the clearing prices of the products we did not bid on?
Answer: During the auction, while you have eligibility to bid in the auction, you will see the status of all products in the auction including any products that you do not bid on. At the close of the auction, the winning bidders for any product in the auction will see the closing prices for all the products in that auction. Bidders who do not win any tranches in the auction will not be able to see the closing prices for any product.
RUL 00005 Published On: 01/10/2013
Question: Is the price decrement formula going to be available to the bidders?
Answer: The price decrement formula is not going to be available to the bidders.
RUL 00006 Published On: 01/11/2013
Question: Referenced in 5.4 of the Bidding Rules, when will the reporting ranges be made available to bidders? Also, will the pre-determined level that determines when total supply will be reported simply as below that level be made available prior to the auction?
Answer: The ranges that will be used to report total supply bid after each round in the auction will be provided to Registered Bidders no later than one day before the start of the auction. This information also will include the level below which total supply bid is reported simply as being below a pre-determined number of tranches.
RUL 00008 Published On: 10/29/2014
Question: In the Default Service clock auctions, if no products receive a price decrement after a round, does this mean that the auction is over?
Answer: Not necessarily. Pursuant to the Bidding Rules, the presence of free eligibility can keep the auction open even if no product receives a price decrement.
RUL 00009 Published On: 02/10/2016
Question: What determines the reduction in price from one round to another?
Answer: Formulas based on a number of factors and pre-specified guidelines are used to determine the price decrements. Generally, the price decrement for a product will be larger for the earlier rounds in the auction and when the excess supply for the product is greater. As noted in the Bidding Rules, the Independent Evaluator reserves the right to override the price decrement guidelines.
RUL 00010 Published On: 02/08/2017
Question: When multiple tranches are rolled back to multiple bidders, how do you determine the tranche numbers allocated to different bidders?
Answer: As explained in the Bidding Rules, a random number is assigned to each tranche that is bid. For selecting tranches to roll back, reduced tranches that reflect reduced eligibility for bidders are given priority over reduced tranches that reflect switches to another product. Within each of those two groups of reduced tranches – reduced-eligibility tranches and switched tranches – the random numbers are used to select tranches to roll back. In effect, the rolled back tranches will be proportional based on the number of tranches by which each bidder reduced its bid on the product, but with the condition that reduced-eligibility tranches first are given priority over switched tranches.
RUL 00011 Published On: 02/07/2018
Question: In the Part 2 Application, is it possible to indicate only 1 tranche in 1 zone and still be able to move within zones during the actual auction (for a max 1 tranche) or would an applicant need to submit 1 tranche per EDC in order to do this?
Answer: In the Part 2 Application, you can indicate that you wish to bid on only 1 tranche across all products in the auction by entering 1 for your Indicative Offer at the Maximum Starting Prices. In this case, your initial eligibility for the auction will be 1 tranche and you will be able to switch your 1 tranche among EDCs and products in response to changes in announced prices (subject to any bidding restrictions). The Bidding Rules posted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/SupplierDocuments.aspx provide more details.
RUL 00012 Published On: 01/11/2021
Question: We are asked in the Part 2 Application to indicate interest for both the Fixed Price auction and the Hourly Priced auction in order to set our Initial Eligibility – will initial eligibility be aggregated between the two auctions, or will we have a separate eligibility cap for each auction?
Answer: There is a separate eligibility cap for each auction. Thus, if a bidder indicates 7 tranches for the Fixed Price (FP) auction and 5 tranches for the Hourly Priced (HP) auction, their eligibility will be 7 tranches for the FP auction and 5 tranches for the HP auction, respectively. The two eligibilities are not added together.
DAT 00007 (revised 10/01/2018) Published On: 12/21/2012
Question: Can you explain the jump in migration in the Penelec Commercial Customer Class in January 2011 (migration went from 10% to 35% in that one month)? Was there a PUC mandate, or expiring contracts, or some other factor that induced customers to switch during that time period?
Answer: Generation Rate Caps ended on 12/31/2010, and rates associated with the Default Service that started 1/1/2011 reflected market-based pricing. Commercial customer shopping increased during this time period.
DAT 00009 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 12/27/2012
Question: The historical load data are unadjusted for Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) and deration. Therefore, to determine the amount that a Default Service supplier must deliver and gets paid for (which are equal) in the historical data, you first add the load ratio portion of UFE to each class, and then scale that number by the deration factor. This represents a Default Service supplier's obligation and volume that will be paid on. Is this correct?
Answer: Effective June 1, 2015, in accordance with the PA PUC orders in P2013-2391368, P2013-2391372, P2013-2391375 and P2013-2391378, the PA utilities will be responsible for total UFE and no longer allocate UFE to LSE loads. A Default Service supplier should no longer add the load ratio portion of UFE to each class’ historical load data to determine its amount of load delivered. Simply apply the deration factor to the historical hourly class loads (which include T&D losses and exclude UFE) to determine energy volumes for delivery and payment.
DAT 00010 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 12/27/2012
Question: Could you confirm if the following statements regarding final settlement load are correct: "(1) Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) load needs to be allocated to historical load for each customer class before the load can be correctly de-rated. (2) The adjusted load with UFE needs to de-rated."
Answer: See FAQ DATA 00009.
DAT 00012 Published On: 01/08/2013
Question: We have adjusted the Peak Load Contribution (PLC) data provided for each Company on the Auction Information Website with the Daily Zonal Scaling Factors also provided. When we compare our adjusted PLCs to those published by PJM for each Company they do not reconcile. If 100% of the customers are on Default Service, these two numbers should be very close. Why does this occur and how can we reconcile these numbers?
Answer: The load data posted on the PJM Website include wholesale load, which is not included in the Default Service load used in this procurement.
DAT 00013 Published On: 01/10/2013
Question: In the Shopping Statistics data file, the implied number of total (shopping plus non-shopping) customers for the Commercial customers and Industrial customers increases substantially, from ~95,563 and ~129 respectively as of April 1, 2012, to ~114,986 and ~624 respectively as of July 1, 2012, using the provided %'s and number of customers served by an AS. Is this in fact correct, and if so, could you perhaps explain why this is occurring?
Answer: The July 1, 2012 statistics for West Penn Power Commercial and Industrial customers reflect the integration of West Penn Power with its sister FirstEnergy PA utilities following the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger. The statistics now are reported from the same FirstEnergy systems and on the same basis as Met-Ed, Penn Power, and Penelec. The Commercial statistics represent the combination of Types 20 and 30 and now include street light counts, which are reflected in increased total counts. The Industrial statistics include Type 40, including Schedule 30 Large (greater than 500 kW), which is reflected in the increased in customer counts.
DAT 00014 Published On: 01/11/2013
Question: In the load data files provided for each zone, does the load make up the entire zone or are there additional loads within each load not included in the load data?
Answer: The load data files make up the entire retail load in each zone. The load attributable to the wholesale munis and coops served within each zone are not included.
DAT 00015 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 01/11/2013
Question: In the provided hourly load data files, the data are broken up between residential, small commercial, and large commercial. The descriptions do not directly correlate with the data definitions provided in the "Data_Description_Document.pdf". Can you provide what rate schedules make up the small commercial data as well as the large commercial data, or explicitly state what customer class the data series correlate with in the data description document?
Answer: The small commercial and large commercial nomenclature appears only in the Penn Power hourly load profile data file. The small commercial data align with Penn Power Commercial in Section II B of the Data Description document, and large commercial data align with the Penn Power Industrial in the Data Description document. This has been revised to alleviate any further confusion.
DAT 00018 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 02/05/2013
Question: When do the Companies plan to update the Hourly Load Data, Hourly UFE Data, and Historical Daily Capacity and Transmission Obligations?
Answer: The Historical Daily Capacity and Transmission Obligations are updated the last business day of each month. The Hourly Load Data and Hourly UFE Data are updated the first week of each calendar month.
DAT 00021 (revised 07/08/2014) Published On: 02/15/2013
Question: Can you please provide the expected Daily Zonal Scaling Factors for the upcoming Planning Year for each zone?
Answer: The forecasted Daily Zonal Scaling Factors will not be posted as the factor is calculated based upon the Capacity Peak Load Contributions which the Companies do not forecast.
DAT 00023 (revised 02/10/2016) Published On: 06/25/2013
Question: How often are the Daily Zonal Scaling Factors updated on the FEPA Auction Information Website?
Answer: The Daily Zonal Scaling Factors are updated on the first business day of each month on the FEPA Auction Information Website.
DAT 00024 Published On: 07/15/2013
Question: It is my understanding that the PLCs that FirstEnergy submits to PJM have already been scaled by the Daily Zonal Scaling Factors provided in the Data Room (i.e., the "Load and Other Data" page under Documents on the FEPA Auction Information Website). Therefore, PJM’s Zonal Scaling Factors as posted in PJM’s eRPM eSuite are equal to one. However, when I take the 5/31/2013 PENELEC Commercial Capacity PLS value posted on the FEPA Auction Load and Other Data page (http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx) of 275.093 MW and multiply that value by the 5/31/2013 PENELEC Daily Zonal Scaling Factor of 89.781%, I get a value of 247.708 MW. Using our share of the PENELEC commercial load on 5/31/2013, the computed PLC is not equal to the value posted in eRPM for 5/31/2013. Is there another daily factor that is applied to the PLC outside of the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor prior to uploading the values to PJM?
Answer: The PLCs submitted to PJM already have been scaled by the Daily Zonal Scaling Factors as provided on the "Load and Other Data" page. Please note that the raw PLC values when scaled may not match those posted to PJM eRPM because they are created on a monthly basis after the fact. The data on the "Load and Other Data" page are not intended, nor should they be used, to verify or validate the values posted to PJM.
DAT 00025 Published On: 07/29/2013
Question: How are the daily zonal scaling factors that are provided on the "Load and Other Data page" under Documents on the Information Website calculated?
Answer: The DZSF (Daily Zonal Scaling Factor) is calculated by dividing the retail zonal load by the sum of the LSEs PLC values on a daily basis.
DAT 00026 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 12/11/2013
Question: The Met-Ed file containing Daily Zonal Scaling Factors for Network Transmission Service Peak Loads ("NSPLs") begins with data from 12/1/2012. Are there historical data available prior to this date? Also, can you explain the significant difference between the factor on 12/31/2012 and on 1/1/2013?
Answer: We added the NSPL daily zonal scaling factors to the load data postings starting December 2012. We are unable to create these data historically. The significant difference in NSPL Daily Zonal Scaling factors between December 31 and January 1 is due to newly assigned NSPL tickets , as well as a new PJM zonal NSPL target, that are effective each January 1.
DAT 00027 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 12/27/2013
Question: Within the Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) data file, the UFE Factor starts to be published 06/01/2011. Please explain how those factors are calculated.
Answer: Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) represents the hourly Mega-Watt ("MW") variance between the Companies’ total retail hourly energy (system load) and the sum of (i) the estimated hourly customer loads (both interval metered and profiled) and (ii) associated electrical losses. The hourly UFE values are in Eastern Prevailing Time (EPT). See section E of the Data Description Document, https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/upp/files/pa/load-data/Data_Description_Document.pdf. Also see FAQ DATA 00009.
DAT 00031 Published On: 01/11/2014
Question: Can the Company share any background information as to the reason for the substantial increase in Reactive Services in the Penelec Zone in 2013 and whether that is expected to continue in the future?
Answer: Explanation of changes in Reactive Services charges should be obtained from PJM.
DAT 00032 Published On: 01/11/2014
Question: Does the non-shopped residential data provided on the Website as "Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate" include the Default Service peak load contribution (PLC) associated with load served by the 48-month round-the-clock fixed 50-MW energy-only block procured in January 2010?
Answer: Yes, the posted Capacity and Transmission data include the fixed block Default Service.
DAT 00033 Published On: 01/11/2014
Question: Does the non-shopped residential data provided on the Website as "Hourly Load by Class" include the Default Service load served by the 48-month round-the-clock fixed 50-MW energy-only block procured in January 2010?
Answer: Yes, the posted Hourly Load by Class data include the fixed block Default Service.
DAT 00036 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 01/11/2014
Question: For each EDC how many Default Service customers have enrolled in the Standard Offer Referral Program since its inception?
Answer: This information is posted at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx under Shopping Statistics.
DAT 00043 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 12/11/2014
Question: We looked at the historical load data on the "Load and Other Data" page under documents on the Information Website. For Penelec and Met-Ed, sometimes hourly load is significantly higher than for the previous hour and following hour. For example, in the Penelec hourly load data file, on 12/22/2013, hour 10, both shopped and non-shopped residential load is almost 3 times higher than the load in hour 9. The same load jump also is found for 9/5/2014-Hr12 and for some days in Sept 2010. The issue also exists in the Met-Ed load data (9/11/2013-Hr10). Is this a data error?
Answer: Residential loads, more so than commercial and industrial loads, are weather-sensitive and respond to temperature fluctuations. 9/5/2014 was one of PJM's five critical peak days in both Penelec and Met-Ed as energy demands were at their highest. Temperatures were above normal this day, especially compared to other days during the summer, and residential loads responded in kind. The data have been reviewed and are accurate. Additionally, extreme weather conditions on 12/22/13 also would explain the residential load jump at hour 10. When weather conditions are extreme, the customer class load diversity decreases significantly as many residential customers turn on their A/C or heat simultaneously, depending on the season.
DAT 00048 Published On: 03/25/2015
Question: In reference to FAQ DAT 00009, can you confirm that the energy volumes that Default Service Suppliers are required to deliver and on which they will be paid effective June 1, 2015, are equal to the provided Hourly Load by Class data multiplied by [1 - (Hourly Deration Factor)]?
Answer: Yes, that is correct as described.
DAT 00054 Published On: 06/19/2015
Question: The loss factors are provided by schedules, and without class information that gives us the make-up of each class, we cannot develop a properly weighted loss factor. Can you provide us with either the load data applicable by schedule or the applicable weighted loss factors for the different classes?
Answer: The load data posted on the Information Website are by class type with losses. The purpose of the data specifically is to provide potential Default Service Suppliers with the information needed to competitively bid to serve non-shopped load available for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn. These are the data posted to PJM used for billing Default Service Providers and also used to create the EDC invoice to pay Suppliers for purchased power. While we agree the class type load data do not provide the granularity needed to determine a weighted loss factor, we do not agree that there is a need to determine a weighted loss factor for each class type in order for Default Service Suppliers to competitively price this product since the aggregated load by class with losses is provided.
DAT 00055 (revised 07/24/2015) Published On: 07/24/2015
Question: Where can I find the actual electrical load numbers (in megawatt-hours) for the previous auctions and future auctions?
Answer: All actual MWh information used for previous auctions and to be used for future auctions can be found here: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/upp/pa/load_data.html. Under Hourly Load you will find the MWh data for each operating company by class type.
DAT 00056 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 09/22/2015
Question: Where can information related to demand response add-back during the high 5 peak hours for the PJM Region be found?
Answer: Information on PJM add-backs (also referred to as Load Drop Estimates) can be found in the PJM's Website Manual 19, Load Forecasting and Analysis, in Section 4 and Attachment A: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m19.ashx.
DAT 00057 (revised 12/03/2015) Published On: 09/29/2015
Question: For West Penn Power load data, I noticed an increase in both shopping and non-shopping commercial load starting around 6/1/2015 (what looks like around 30 MW for non-shopping and 50 MW for shopping). Is there a reason for this, or is this an error in the data?
Answer: We verified the accuracy of the data. When compared to June 2014 average loads, there was very little change in the commercial class year-over-year; less than a 1% decrease in commercial non-shopping load and about a 2% increase in commercial shopping load. Seasonal changes may influence increased load patterns from month to month; May is generally considered a shoulder month with moderate swings in temperature and load usage versus June which is a warmer weather month with higher consumption.
DAT 00059 Published On: 10/09/2015
Question: For Penn Power small commercial/industrial (SCI) Default Service, PLC dropped about 10MW (~10%) in June 2015. What is the reason behind the drop in PLC during June 2015?
Answer: The posted peak load contribution (PLC) values are unscaled values. Penn Power's actual load contribution to the 2014/2015 five coincident peak periods (5 CPs) was above target and the zone's actual load contributions to the 2015/2016 5 CPs were below target due to mild summer weather. If the daily zonal scaling factor is applied to the posted PLC values for May 31 and June 1 (0.98 and 1.02, respectively), you will find that the scaled PLC values are in line.
DAT 00062 (revised 11/30/2015) Published On: 11/30/2015
Question: In order for a Default Service Supplier to estimate their capacity obligation, do they need to scale the hourly load data found on the "Load and Other Data" page under Documents on the Information Website by the reconciliation factors for the applicable delivery year? Or have the hourly load data on the "Load and Other Data" page already been scaled by these factors?
Answer: The reconciliation factors referred to are applied to a customer's metered load with losses to determine a customer's peak load contribution (PLC) value. Applying these factors to the hourly data posted on the "Load and Other Data" page would estimate a PLC value not capacity obligation. To determine capacity obligation, apply PJM's UCAP conversion factor and the daily zonal scaling factor to the class type PLC values. Both the daily zonal scaling factor and the class type PLC values can be found on the "Load and Other Data" page at https://www.firstenergycorp.com/upp/pa/load_data.html. The PJM's UCAP conversion factor is the ratio of the respective zone's Final Zonal UCAP to the Base Zone WN Summer Peak. These values can be found in PJM"s eRPM. The UCAP conversion factor typically is around 15%.
DAT 00066 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 02/10/2016
Question: What is the size of the total load in the auction?
Answer: For the upcoming auctions, the tranche targets and approximate tranche sizes will be announced on the Information Website. Additionally, load data can be found on the Information Website at http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx.
DAT 00070 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 04/21/2016
Question: Are transmission loss factors the same as the average duration factors for the zones? If so, over what period are they the average? If not, what is the source of the loss factor? Can they be found in published tariffs?
Answer: These transmission loss factors are from company loss studies. These loss factors are provided in the PJM OATT Attachments M-1 and M-2. They also can be found in the Company retail tariffs. They do not reflect the PJM company zone deration factors, however the hourly deration factors are posted to this portal monthly.
DAT 00075 Published On: 09/26/2016
Question: Can FEPA please provide some background on how the capacity file takes into account the customer redefinition? Based on the “WPP_Cap_Trans” file customers in question appear to be included in the Commercial class, please confirm that is the case.
Answer: Starting 6/1/2015, interval metered customers with demands between 400-500 kW and qualifying loads are reported in the industrial class as a result of new rate design; previously, they were classified as commercial. As such, PLC and NSPL values associated with these customers are reflected in the industrial class starting 6/1/2015.
DAT 00078 Published On: 12/01/2016
Question: For the Penn Power Cap_Trans_PLS, are the units KW or MW?
Answer: The units are kW.
DAT 00080 Published On: 01/17/2017
Question: Can you please explain why in the Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate (PP_Cap_Trans_PLS) file, PennPwr Non-Shopped NSPL increased 6 times from 12/31/2016 to 1/1/2017?
Answer: The large increase in the Penn Power Industrial customer class NSPL is due to a 15 MW Industrial customer that became active last year and was assigned a default Transmission PLC value less than 1 MW at that time. The 2017 Transmission PLC calculation used this customer's actual load data, increasing its Transmission PLC from less than 1 MW in 2016 to 14.6 MW effective Jan 1, 2017. A similar change occurred with the Capacity PLC value assigned to this customer effective June 1, 2017.
DAT 00084 Published On: 03/27/2017
Question: From May 3, 2015, West Penn Power Commercial was redefined to exclude interval customers with demands of 400-500kW. Is the West Penn Power load data prior to this date provided adjusted accordingly to the new class definition?
Answer: No, historical Commercial data prior to May 1, 2015 are not recast according to the new class definition, but instead represent Commercial load respective to the class definition effective during that time.
DAT 00093 Published On: 10/16/2017
Question: We noticed a significant change in the shape of the load for the shopping and default service Penn Power commercial load starting in mid-February 2017. Do you have any explanation for this change?
Answer: All Penn Power consumption customers became smart meter enabled in February 2017, and FirstEnergy started to report their actual interval data as of February 20, changing the load shape from profiled to actual.
DAT 00094 Published On: 10/25/2017
Question: In general across the four zones, we noticed that the residential load coincident peaks for 2017 were on the high end based on the historical data posted to the Website. Can you confirm whether or not all consumption customers in all FEPA zones experienced a change to smart meters this year, similar to the shift in Penn Power zone?
Answer: The conversion of consumption meters to smart meters is ongoing for Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn Power. As smart meters are installed and the meter testing is completed, the hourly data from smart meters have been incorporated into the Residential historical hourly data starting in March 2017. The percentage of Residential customers with smart meters for these three operating companies will continue to increase through 2019.
DAT 00100 Published On: 10/30/2017
Question: Will Default Service Suppliers be allocated any UFE to smooth the transition from profiled to smart-metered load?
Answer: There are no current plans to allocate any UFE to the Pennsylvania Default Service loads.
DAT 00102 Published On: 12/08/2017
Question: After June 1, 2017, PJM started reporting scaling factors other than 1 for Met-Ed and Penelec. Before June 1, all scaling factors reported for both Met-Ed and Penelec were 1. Because of the change in scaling factors since June 1, we would like to know if Met-Ed and Penelec have changed how they treat or report the capacity tags provided in the data files on the FEPA Information Website.
Answer: We have not changed how we treat or report capacity tags in the data files found on the FEPA Information Website. The unscaled tags continue to be provided as well as the respective scaling factors.
DAT 00106 Published On: 01/09/2018
Question: I understand that the hourly load profile of a tranche is an estimate based on historical loads. Will the companies or PJM provide their own forecasts closer to delivery to be scheduled using InSchedule? Who does this scheduling - the companies or the Default Service provider?
Answer: Please see section 7.3 (Energy Scheduling) of the Supplier Master Agreement. The Companies are not obligated to provide any day ahead scheduling services. Also, the Companies do not provide forecasts.
DAT 00123 Published On: 01/11/2019
Question: Similar to the Penn Power load data, can FE provide hourly load for ME, PN, and WP small commercial customers that will be migrating to the large commercial class?
Answer: Unlike Penn Power, Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn Power have not been fully converted to AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) and we are unable to provide hourly load respective to the customers that will migrate among the classes at this time.
DAT 00124 Published On: 01/15/2019
Question: Can you please provide the NSPL tags for all the zones with the class breakouts for the new transmission year 2019?
Answer: The 2019 NSPL data for 1/1/2019 by class have been posted to this Information Website along with the daily zonal scaling factor for 1/1/2019 for each zone.
DAT 00125 (revised 04/23/2019) Published On: 01/16/2019
Question: Can we please ask the four utilities to provide an update on the "Percentage of Commercial Load served by Non-Shopping Accounts on the GSM and GP30 rate tariffs with billing demands > 100kW for 12 Consecutive Months" through December 2018 (Penn Power was not provided back then)? Also, we would like an update to the January 2018 proxy provided with a January 2019 proxy "12 consecutive months for the 12-month period ending January 2018 as a proxy for the population of customers that will migrate from the Commercial to Industrial customer class in June 2019". Lastly, please post an update (if any) to the "Percentage of PLS ICAP kW Aggregates of Non-Shopping Commercial Accounts on GSM and GP30 rate tariffs metered over 100 kW".
Answer: Historical commercial load has been posted for Penn Power by hour respective to the customers migrating from the commercial to the industrial class on June 1, 2019; please note the additional column labeled "Commercial Migration". Unlike Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn Power, Penn Power is fully converted to advanced metering, and as such, it has been possible to provide the hourly breakout. Accounts Metered over 100 kW 12 Consecutive Months 02/2017 - 01/2018 The following data use the number of customers currently served on rate tariffs GSM in Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power, and GP30 in West Penn with billing demands greater than 100 kW for 12 consecutive months for the 12-month period ending January 2018 as a proxy for the population of customers that will migrate from the Commercial to Industrial customer class in June 2019.
DAT 00126 (revised 04/16/2019) Published On: 01/16/2019
Question: Can you please provide PLC data for PJM Planning Year 2019/2020 for each utility, by customer class?
Answer: Please refer to DAT 00125 for information regarding the number of customers currently served on rate tariffs GSM in Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power, and GP30 in West Penn Power with billing demands greater than 100 kW for 12 consecutive months for the 12-month period ending January 2018. These data will be used as a proxy for the population of customers that will migrate from the Commercial to Industrial customer class in June 2019. The tables below depict the 2019 PLC values and Daily Zonal Scaling Factors that will become effective on June 1, 2019 for the current customer classes for each PA utility. The stated values do not take into account customer migration taking place between April 1, 2019 and June 1, 2019. 2019 Unscaled PLC kW - Snapshot of 6/1/2019
DAT 00129 Published On: 01/21/2019
Question: FAQ GEN 00060 refers to Rider H and the transmission loss component. It implies that the transmission loss component should be added to Rider H. Using West Penn Power as an example, FAQ GEN 00060 gives the transmission loss component as 0.02184. When I look at the West Penn Power Supplier Tariff, I can see 2.184% as the on-peak line losses for Transmission Voltage under the Company Line Loss Factor Rider. The off-peak line losses are 1.938%. Rider H in the West Penn Power Electric Tariff states that the Loss Factor for the Commercial Customer Class is 1.0899 and for the Residential Customer Class is 1.0910. Can you please provide me with the correct calculation I need to do in order to get the correct load at the retail meter? It is my understanding that all residential load should be at a Secondary voltage, and there are different percentages for this. For example the West Penn Power Supplier Tariff states 9.434% and 8.537% for on-peak and and off-peak. What should I do about this?
Answer: A customer's service voltage level determines transmission and distribution loss factors. Please refer to the following link for additional information: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/supplierservices/files/eligibility/EligibilityListFileLayoutWPP.pdf.
DAT 00130 Published On: 04/23/2019
Question: Can you confirm DAT 00125 – Penelec NSPL, Non-Shopping Commercial data in the third table?
Answer: There was a typo in the table for FAQ DAT 00125. The Penelec Non-Shopping Commercial aggregate NSPL should be 229,556 not 29,556. The table has been corrected.
DAT 00131 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 04/30/2019
Question: (1) In the PLC data posted in FAQ DAT 00126, have the 100 kW+ customers been migrated to the Industrial class? (2) To confirm, the historical commercial load in West Penn, Met-Ed, and Penelec still includes customers that average over 100 kW, correct?
Answer: Yes, the historical commercial loads in West Penn, Met-Ed, and Penelec reflect customers with billing demands greater than 100 kW for twelve consecutive months ending January 2018 as a proxy for commercial customers expected to migrate from the commercial to industrial class starting June 1, 2018. FAQ DAT 00126 initially was published in October 2018. Since October 2018, there has been a change in shopping status for these commercial customers expected to migrate in June. The PLC data were revised in April 2019 to reflect this change from non-shopping to shopping.
DAT 00132 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 04/30/2019
Question: Monthly migrating commercial class loads are updated in FAQ SMA 00037 for Met-Ed, Penelec, and WestPenn. Hourly loads of Penn Power (that show the migrating class) are still from January. Can you please either update the migrating load table in SMA 00037 with Penn Power, or provide refreshed hourly loads of Penn Power for the migrating class?
Answer: Penn Power hourly loads have been updated through 3/31/2019 to reflect the expected commercial migration starting 6/1/2019.
DAT 00133 Published On: 05/02/2019
Question: In Hourly Load by Class for Penelec listed on the Information Site, the Excel file has a strange character in one of the cells. In the spreadsheet, go to the "Penelec old <2011" tab, and check row 691 column R (data for 2008/06/29 TOTAL PN COMPANY). The value shows up as "???/1652179". Would you be able to amend this for future revisions?
Answer: This has been corrected.
DAT 00134 Published On: 05/10/2019
Question: Regarding the Penn Power historical Commercial load, which tab and column within the load file reflects the migrated load? From what date forward are the migrated load available?
Answer: Historical loads representing the expected commercial migration starting 6/1/2019 are available from 9/1/2017 through 3/31/2019. In the file "Penn Power Hourly Load by Class", please refer to the columns "Commercial (1)" and "Commercial Migration (2)" -- and the notes associated with those columns -- in the tabs "PP Load 010118-Current" and "PP Load 060111-123117".
DAT 00135 Published On: 05/21/2019
Question: For Penn Power, there is a considerable level (600-800 kW) change starting Sept. 2018 in migrating commercial load (customers with demands greater than 100 kW for 12 consecutive months that will transition to the Industrial class on June 1, 2019) compared to 2018 and 2017. Is there any explanation for this change?
Answer: There was an error in the hourly data posted for August 2018. The primary data were not updated to reflect secondary data despite the label. Also, the non-shop commercial hourly loads were overstated for all hours of August 31. The necessary corrections have been made now, and as a result the change has been normalized to look in line with previous periods.
DAT 00136 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 05/21/2019
Question: For Met-Ed, West Penn, and Penelec, do the data for the Non-Shopped Commercial customers in the Hourly Load by Class files represent (1) all non-shopping Commercial customers, or (2) non-shopping Commercial customers that have not voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider? If the answer is option 2, then what period of historical data is impacted by the customers that have voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider? Are the historical Capacity PLS and Transmission PLS values also reduced for customers that have voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider?
Answer: For Met-Ed, West Penn, and Penelec, the hourly data for the non-shopped commercial load represent all non-shopping commercial customers in the Hourly Load by Class files for the posted time periods.
DAT 00137 Published On: 05/21/2019
Question: Based on the response to FAQ GEN 00120, as of February 1, 2019, all four utilities have deployed smart meters to more than 90% of their customers. For Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn, do the historical hourly data reported in the Hourly Load by Class reflect interval usage collected from these smart meters or is the usage for customers with smart meters still based on utility temperature based profiles scaled to monthly customer meter reads? We note that when Penn Power’s customers became smart meter enabled in February 2017, and the utility switched from profile to actual load, the shape of the load changed meaningfully. We do not see a similar change in the load data for Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn.
Answer: When interval data from a smart meter have been bill certified, it is reported in the Hourly Load by Class files as of that bill certification date forward. The utility weather informed profile is no longer used to report hourly load for that account. Please note there are time lags between deploying/installing smart meters and bill certifying their interval output. In order to determine meaningful load shape changes, most if not all smart meters would need to be bill certified and reported in the Hourly Load by Class files for twelve months. All customers in Penn Power were bill certified in February 2017 enabling that load change comparison. In contrast, customers in Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn have been bill certified using a phased-in approach over the past couple of years.
DAT 00138 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 06/10/2019
Question: I understand that the hourly volumes cannot be provided for the Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn Power commercial customers that are migrating to industrial. Would it be possible to provide historical monthly or annual volumes for the customers that are migrating over?
Answer: Please refer to FAQ SMA00037 for historical monthly volumes for customers migrating between the commercial and industrial classes in Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn Power.
DAT 00139 Published On: 06/20/2019
Question: After checking both Capacity and NSPL Tags for June, we don’t see the expected effects of the commercial customers supposed to be moved to the LCI class. Can you please tell us the reason? Is the reclassification supposed to happen later in the month?
Answer: Data have been re-posted to reflect the reclassification. Data that were originally posted for June reflected estimates that did not include the reclassification.
DAT 00140 Published On: 06/20/2019
Question: In FAQ response DAT 00125, it was stated that there would be about 5%-10% of non-shopping Commercial customers (based on PLC/NSPL) metered over 100kW. We would expect these customers to be required to take Default Service through the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider starting June 1, 2019. However, when comparing the historical utility NSPL values between May 31, 2019 and June 1, 2019, we noticed that the change in NSPL values was less than 1%. Does this mean that the customers have yet to be moved to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider, and that the NSPL values have yet to reflect this change, or have these customers already moved to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider as of a prior date?
Answer: Please re-check the data posted to the Website. Estimates were posted for June prior to the migration which did not reflect the change since it had not occurred yet. Actual data now are posted for the first few days in June which reflect the commercial-to-industrial migration.
DAT 00141 Published On: 06/20/2019
Question: Could you provide Penn Power PLC daily zonal scaling factors for a few days in June 2019?
Answer: These are available on the Website through 6/6/2019.
DAT 00142 Published On: 06/20/2019
Question: In the posted data files for load, NSPL, and PLC, are the migrating commercial to industrial customers in the commercial class for dates prior to 6/1/19 and industrial class for dates 6/1/19 and after?
Answer: Yes, that is correct.
DAT 00143 Published On: 06/21/2019
Question: In the Penn Power hourly load data, we noticed that the Non-Shopped Commercial load between the tabs “PP Load 090118 – Current” and “PPLoad010118-052219_W_Migration” are different for the months of November 2018, and February – March 2019. For the Shopped Commercial load, the difference exists only in March 2019. Which tab contains the correct hourly volumes?
Answer: Refreshed data have been posted to the Website. The numbers should tie between the two tabs for all months.
DAT 00144 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 06/25/2019
Question: Can you please update the tables in FAQ SMA 00037 for 2018 Fall and after? The NSPL change between May 31 and June 1, and also load level change in Penelec, West Penn , Met-Ed, and Penn Power, don't reflect the expected migration for June due to the load redefinition.
Answer: Please re-check the data posted to the Website for NSPL from June 1, 2019 through June 6, 2019 as the data demonstrate a load shift in the Non-Shopping MW between the Commercial and Industrial classes. June 1, 2019 forward values posted to the Website before the actual date reflected estimates that did not include the migration.
DAT 00145 Published On: 10/10/2019
Question: In the "WPP_Hrly_Data" file, the settlement type for June 2019 is "P". While for July 2019, it is "S". Can you please confirm that is correct?
Answer: Please recheck the WPP_Hrly_Data file, the Settlement type for June is "S". There may have been a delay in updating the June data.
DAT 00146 Published On: 10/14/2019
Question: Reconciled load data are provided for three of the Utilities (Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power) through June 2019. Can the data be updated through July 2019? Also, can West Penn Power post reconciled data for both June 2019 and July 2019?
Answer: Reconciled hourly load data are posted for Met-Ed, Penn Power, and West Penn Power through July 2019. Reconciled hourly load data for Penelec will be posted for July 2019 by close of business on October 14, 2019. Hourly load data are posted by the fifth business day of the month for the previous calendar month as well as the last reconciled period. Our Data Description Document will be updated to indicate this frequency.
DAT 00147 Published On: 10/16/2019
Question: In the Met-Ed and Penelec load data, what's the reason that the Commercial Shopped load dropped in June 2019? Even if I add up the shopped and non shopped commercial data, there is still a drop in June 2019 in Penelec data.
Answer: Customers with billing demands greater than 100kW for twelve consecutive months migrated from the Commercial to the Industrial customer class starting June 1, 2019.
DAT 00148 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: Since the commercial data from 6/1/19 - current is indicative of the commercial customer migration, can you please provide the Penn Power settled load data for April 2019-May 2019? The data currently listed on PPLoad010118-052219_W_Migration show "P" in the settlement field for those two months. Looking at the PP Load 090118 - Current tab, the Commercial [1] is no longer present and the data up until 6/1/19 appear to revert back to the pre-migration Commercial load so there is this two month gap where the final settled Commercial Migration load is unknown.
Answer: The PPLoad10118-052219_W_Migration tab has been updated to reflect hourly secondary data for April and May 2019.
DAT 00149 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: Can the utilities provide shopping statistics on a daily basis? If not possible, at least a monthly number for the time period: April 1, 2019 to October 1, 2019. The current files (Shopping_Stats.xls for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) only provide data at the quarterly level.
Answer: The information requested cannot currently be produced on a daily or monthly basis. We will look into the feasibility to provide it on a more frequent basis than quarterly.
DAT 00150 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: Would you please clarify that the shopped commercial load data of Penn Power include the load above the 100kW power (the migrating class) before 6/1/2019?
Answer: Yes, it does. Only the non-shopping commercial load was broken out to indicate commercial migration starting June 1, 2019.
DAT 00151 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: Would you please provide secondary settlements of the commercial migration load for Penn Power from 4/1/2019 to 5/31/2019?
Answer: April and May 2019 have been updated to reflect hourly secondary settlements for commercial migration in the PP_Hourly_Load file.
DAT 00152 Published On: 10/24/2019
Question: With increased supplier uncertainty given the recent rate reclassifications across all utilities, will there be any backcasted load information provided?
Answer: Please see FAQ SMA 00044.
DAT 00153 Published On: 10/25/2019
Question: Looks like the data posted on SMA 00044 are off from the baseline provided in SMA 00037, from August 2018 to September 2018 WPP Percentage of “Commercial Load served by non-shopping accounts with billing demands greater than 100 KW” went from 11.8% to 22.6% (91% change). Met-Ed changed by a factor of 120%. Penelec also changed 12%. Can we please confirm that SMA 00044 values are incorrect? And if so, ask for a timely correction.
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044. As identified in the customer count chart, SMA 00037 used the non-shopping customer population identified from February 2017 through January 2018 that met the criteria for migration in order to provide a back-cast of percentage of commercial load movement from September 2017 through August 2018. SMA 00044 used the non-shopping customer population that actually migrated in June 2019 to provide a back-cast of percentage of commercial load movement from September 2018 through May 2019. Using West Penn Power as an example, the non-shopping customer count used to respond to SMA 00044 was significantly higher than the non-shopping customer count used to respond to SMA 00037 (322 versus 182). Additional customers qualifying for migration and shopping status changes adjusted the customer counts between the time a response was originally composed and revised for SMA 00037 versus provided for SMA 00044.
DAT 00154 Published On: 10/25/2019
Question: Can FirstEnergy describe what the driver is in the difference in load percentages in the responses to SMA 00044 and SMA 00037? Additionally, since there were differences in the load percentages, why were the ICAP and NSPL percentages not affected also?
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044 driving the change in non-shopping commercial load back-cast percentages. SMA 00044 requested a back-cast for September 2018-May 2019 which is what the response provided.
DAT 00155 Published On: 10/25/2019
Question: (1) Are the NITS rates ($/MW/Year) published for 2020 based on 2019 NSPL values or 2020 NSPL values? If you used 2020 NSPL values, can you please provide those values to us? (2) Can you provide us with a snapshot of 2020 NSPL values for Residential and Commercial Shopping and Non-Shopping load?
Answer: 2020 NSPL values will not be calculated and made available until the middle/end of December 2019. A snapshot can be provided closer to that time.
DAT 00156 Published On: 10/25/2019
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044 driving the change in non-shopping commercial load back-cast percentages. SMA 00044 requested a back-cast for migrating non-shopping commercial load percentages from September 2018-May 2019 which is what the response provided.
DAT 00157 Published On: 10/25/2019
Question: Can FirstEnergy provide NSPL tags for 2020? If not, can FirstEnergy provide guidance on how NSPL tags are assigned to customers within each zone?
Answer: NSPL tags for 2020 will not be available until the end of December 2019. Please refer to FirstEnergy's Capacity Manual for details on how NSPL tags are assigned/calculated by customer in FE zones.
DAT 00158 Published On: 10/28/2019
Question: We noticed that total number of customer accounts for Met-Ed has increased from April 2019 to July 2019, mostly by 836 customer counts increase in the non-shopping group. However, FAQ SMA 00044 suggests that there should be 998 accounts to migrate from commercial to industrial class. Similar in Penelec and West Penn Power, number of accounts in Penelec has increased in non-shopping group by 1359 and the total accounts has increased by 151 between April19 and Jul19. Suggested by FAQ SMA 00044, there should be 1270 accounts migrating from commercial to industrial class. On the other hand, the total number of accounts in industrial group in all three utilities has increased between Jul19 to Oct19, and not in June 2019. Is it due to migration from the commercial to the industrial group? And if so, is there any delay for these migration as it was expected on June 2019. Can you please explain the difference between the migrating accounts posted in the Shopping_Stats file compared to the data reported in FAQ SMA 0044? And if there is any inconsistency or the delay between reporting account numbers and the actual migration? Did all commercial to industrial migration happen on June 1, 2019? If so, can you please confirm if PLC, NSPL, Hourly load and counts are adjusted correspondingly for the migration starting on June 1, 2019?
Answer:
DAT 00159 Published On: 11/13/2019
Question: Follow up questions to FAQ DAT 00157 - Referring to: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/supplierservices/files/supplier-registration/PJMCapacityManualPN.pdf. (1) Is the Zone’s Restricted Peak and Hour designated in the “PJM Network Transmission Service Peak Loads” such as this document: https://pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/settlements/network-service-peak-loads-2020.ashx?la=en? (2) Will the peak hour designated by PJM in question 1 determine if the zone is winter or summer peaking? (3) Can the PJM published zonal load on dataminer (https://dataminer2.pjm.com/feed/hrl_load_metered) be used to determine the 5 highest season peak hours for the zone (winter or summer as determined in questions 1 and 2)? (4) Can the class load data published on the FEPA Auction Information site (https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx) be used to determine CUST_NSPL by averaging the class level load data for the five hours determined in question 3?
Answer: The transmission peak published by PJM determines the transmission season (winter or summer) for the FE zones. Both PJM's dataminer and the class load published on the FEPA Auction Information site can be used as proxies for determining average CUST_NSPL; however, customer move-in/move-outs after the peak may limit the accuracy as well as weather normalization factors. Please use the suggested method for prior years to analyze possible deltas.
DAT 00160 Published On: 11/13/2019
Question: The shopped commercial capacity PLS data beginning 6/1/2019 in the WPP_Cap_Trans file show a significant drop and then recovery on 6/10/2019. Data for 6/10/2019 forward seem to hold steady similar to the other PLS values. Is the period of 6/1/2019-6/10/2019 accurate in the file? If not, will updated data be posted?
Answer: There was an error in the data posting and it will be resolved by the afternoon, 11/13/19.
DAT 00161 Published On: 11/13/2019
Question: We noticed that the initial settlement load data from PJM for September and October 2019 do not tie out with the preliminary hourly load data posted on the FEPA DSP Auction Information Website. We compared the published hourly load which is at Eastern Standard Time and, based on the Data Description document, “include both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses and do not include UFE” with the PJM initial load settlement at load with losses level. Our source for the PJM settlement volumes was the “Load InSchedule With and Without Losses” from the MSRS Report Catalog, and we used the “Load with Losses” values. For the data from the FEPA utilities, we used the load data from the files posted under “Hourly Load by Class” and converted them to Eastern Prevailing Time (EPT) to line them up with the PJM data. We noted that the Data Description document described the hourly load data as including “both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses and do not include UFE”. We did not adjust the FEPA load data for UFE as per FAQ DAT 00009, which states that “PA utilities will be responsible for total UFE and no longer allocate UFE to LSE loads.” As an example, for hour ending 9 EPT on September 1, 2019, the Penelec commercial load in the non-shopping segment, based on the data posted on the FEPA Website, was 78.2 MW, whereas the PJM load with losses showed a value of 75.18 MW for the same hour. The published value on the FEPA Auction Information Website is consistently different from the PJM load across the months of September and October 2019.
Answer: UFE is included in the primary settlement at PJM and is removed from the LSEs during the secondary settlement in which it is then assumed by the PA utilities. Both September and October have only primary settlement data available since the secondary 60-day settlement has not occurred yet.
DAT 00162 Published On: 01/24/2020
Question: Can you please advise when load data will be updated for the January auction? Currently the last update was 11/30/2019.
Answer: Data are posted through 1/1/2020.
DAT 00163 Published On: 01/24/2020
Question: Regarding the Capacity PLS numbers provided in the "PP_Cap_Trans" file, there is a significant volumetric shift from Dec 31, 2019 to Jan 1, 2020 in the Commercial and Industrial classes. The eligible Commercial Capacity moves from 218,546 kW to 267,459 kW while the eligible Industrial Capacity moves from 240,142 kW to 191,118 kW. The variances are practically offsetting, which would indicate a load re-classification. Since load re-classifications historically occur in June, can you indicate why this shift is occurring in January and if it is indeed correct?
Answer: There was a formula error in the Jan 1, 2020 data posted. This data have been corrected and the corrected file is now posted.
DAT 00164 Published On: 02/25/2020
Question: We compared the settlement UCAP data we received from PJM for Commercial Penelec, against the historical PLC provided on the FEPA auction Information Website. We converted the PJM daily UCAP to the PLC level by adjusting for the Final Forecast Pool Requirement (FRR) and Final Zonal RPM Scaling Factor (ZSF) and daily zonal factor for PLC. We noticed there is a consistent 1.4% difference between the PLC calculated from PJM settlement and PLC from the FEPA auction Information Website. We have tested the methodology for Met-Ed and the difference between PLC calculated from settlement data and PLC from the FEPA Information Website is ignorable. The sources of our data are as follows: UCAP from PJM : MSRS report “Locational Reliability Charge Summary“ FRR and ZSF : 2019/2020 3rd Incremental Auction Results from PJM https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx Daily Zonal Scaling Factor and Historical PLC: “Daily Zonal Scaling Factor” and “Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate” reports https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx) We have attached the PLC calculation as a reference for your observation. Can you please explain the difference between settlement PLC and historical non-shopping Commercial Penelec PLC data?
Answer: The capacity and transmission data are rounded to the proper format as required for PJM submission to the Capacity Exchange. The data posted to the FEPA Default Service Program (DSP) auction Information Website are the raw un-rounded data.
DAT 00165 Published On: 02/25/2020
Question: While reviewing the hourly average load by month for Penelec, we’ve noticed some shifts in the profile shape for 2018 and 2019 compared to the other posted history. For example, in May the nightly ramp down occurs around Hour Beginning 20, but in 2018/2019 that ramp down starts an hour earlier. That data were separated onto its own tab recently and the overlap on the “Penelec New 2018” and “Penelec old <2018” tabs are not consistent with each other. Did the “New” data come from a different source? We understand there will likely be some change in the profile based on the recent tariff reclassification, but some uniformity in terms of the daily ramp up/ramp down would be expected.
Answer: The source data for the new and old tabs have not changed. The only variable data within the load profile shape is weather.
DAT 00166 Published On: 03/10/2020
Question: As a follow up to FAQ DAT 00161, we compared the settlement load data we received from PJM, adjusted for the 60-day revisions, for Commercial load in West Penn Power and Penelec, against the hourly load data provided on the FEPA auction Information Website. We converted all of the PJM settlement data to the equivalent of the Load With Losses level so as to line it up with FEPA hourly load data. Per the data description file, “All hourly energy values include both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses.” Based on the response to FAQ DAT 00161, we did not adjust the FEPA hourly load data for the UFE factors posted on the FEPA Information Website. The sources of our data are as follows: (a) Initial settlement data from PJM: MSRS report “Load InSchedule With and Without Losses”, (b) 60 day revisions: MSRS report “Energy & Inadvertent Load Recon Charge Summary”, (c) FE PA Data: Non-Shopped Commercial hourly load data (https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx). As detailed in the attached file for West Penn Power Commercial case, we continue to see that the RFP data do not tie out with the PJM settlement volumes. As an illustration of the difference in volumes, we provide a table comparing the values for September 2019. Could you please provide an explanation as to the difference in the values?
Answer: Upon reviewing the attachment in association with this FAQ, there appears to be a discrepancy within the date-time format of the data reflected that is causing the variance in question.
DAT 00167 Published On: 04/08/2020
Question: Regarding the answer provided for FAQs DAT 00166 and DAT 000161, we aligned the PJM settlement data with West Penn Power load data posted on the FEPA auction Information Website based on the answer provided in FAQ DAT 00166. There is still a 3-4% difference between the West Penn Power load data (which includes both distribution and transmission system losses based on the data description file) and the PJM settlement load (load with losses). While it may be coincidental, we noticed this difference is close to the deration factor posted on the FEPA auction Information Website. Has West Penn Power taken its load data, which should be at the same level as the PJM data with losses and inadvertently scaled it up by the deration factor twice? This would seem to double count the adjustment due to the deration factor. We updated the previously attached file (adjusted for date-time difference) and included it to further illustrate our point. The file is sent by email to FEPAAuction@crai.com.
Answer: Upon further review of the data posted to the FEPA auction Information Website, a stray rate category was found that is not being allocated into the Default Service load groupings. The data associated with this rate category are the delta found within the comparison of the posted data to the PJM settlement data. The load data used for PJM settlement are accurate and complete as this discrepancy is only within the power procurement reports posted. We will review our system processes that compile the data for the power procurement reporting to ensure all rate categories are included. The Data Description document also will be updated to reflect these changes.
DAT 00168 Published On: 04/09/2020
Question: Do you have an idea of when FEPA will be able to update the load data on the DSP auction Information Site with the latest set of reconciled info from PJM (January 2020 final settles, etc.)?
Answer: The updated hourly load reports are expected to be posted by the end of day today (April 9, 2020).
DAT 00169 Published On: 04/14/2020
Question: Can the utilities provide a PLC forecast for Planning Year 2020/2021 for both shopped and non-shopped across Residential and Small Commercial customer classes (this is the PY2020/2021 update to the unscaled PLC data provided in FAQ DAT00126)?
Answer: Documents have been updated to include a 06.01.20 PLC Forecast tab and have been posted.
DAT 00170 Published On: 04/14/2020
Question: I saw the data updates, but it looks like Met-Ed hourly load data are not updated, and the Deration Factor and UFE files are not available on FirstEnergy's Website (I get a “page not found” error on the last two). Can you please make sure this is corrected?
Answer: The Met-Ed Load Data reports will be posted before end of day today (4/14/2020).
DAT 00171 Published On: 04/16/2020
Question: (1) In Penelec load data sheet new 2018, why are the data settled for Jan 2020 but preliminary for Dec 2019? There are also two extra columns starting from Dec 2019, what are they? (2) In Met-Ed load data sheet 2019+, are the Jan 2020 data also in kW? Why are they significantly smaller than all other months? Thanks.
Answer: For question #1, the Penelec hourly load data for December 2019 have been corrected and posted. Regarding question #2, there was a previous issue with the Met-Ed hourly data report which was resolved and reposted.
DAT 00172 Published On: 04/16/2020
Question: It looks like the Deration and UFE files are ok now, but the Hourly load data have incorrect RES data (both shopped and non-shopped). Can someone from the utility please take a look at the Jan20 values? https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/upp/files/pa/load-data/meted/ME_Hrly_Data.xls
Answer: The correct data for January 2020 have been confirmed and uploaded.
DAT 00173 Published On: 04/16/2020
Question: Do the utilities have an estimate for plan year 2020-21 capacity PLC scaling factors (such as those provided in FAQ DAT 00126)?
Answer: FEPA will not be providing an estimate for the 2020/2021 PLC scaling factors.
DAT 00174 Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: Can FEPA provide projected PLC tags for PY2020/2021?
Answer: The 6/1/2020 PLC forecasts for the PJM Planning Year 2020/20201 are posted within the individual PA operating company Capacity and Transmission Load Data pages.
DAT 00175 Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: Can the utilities update FAQ DAT 00126 and provide PLC estimates for PJM Planning Year 2020/2021, by customer class?
Answer: The 6/1/2020 PLC forecasts for the PJM Planning Year 2020/2021 are posted within the individual PA operating company Capacity and Transmission Load Data pages.
DAT 00176 Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: Could you please: (1) Confirm that the NSPLs posted in the data room for Jan 1, 2020 are correct, and (2) Provide NSPL and PLC data from Jan 1, 2020 through Jan 20, 2020?
DAT 00177 Published On: 04/27/2020
Question: Thank you for providing the PY 20/21 PLCs. Could you also provide the corresponding Daily Zonal Scaling Factor for those numbers? Also, could you please clarify what day the data are as of, so we know how to interpret the migration levels in the data?
Answer: The posted 2020/21 PLC forecast data for June 1 are as of April 10, 2020. As stated in FAQ DAT 00173, FEPA will not be providing an estimate for the 2020/21 PLC scaling factors.
DAT 00178 Published On: 05/11/2020
Question: Based on the answer to FAQ GEN 00108, I have two follow-up questions (my first question has two parts). We will very much appreciate the answers to them today as we need the clarifications for the upcoming auction on April 27. (1)(a): In the example that has been used in the answer to FAQ GEN 00108, the 52.2 MW/Tranche includes both the non-shopped and shopped accounts. So, if a Default Service Supplier was serving one tranche of such load (i.e., 52.2 MW/Tranche), would the capacity MW value obligation for the Supplier be = 52.2 x {[844,325 (non-shopped)]/[844,325 (non-shopped) + 419,337 (shopped)]} = 34.87 MW/Tranche. (1)(b): In the upcoming auction (i.e., auction on April 27, 2020), the MW/Tranche for Penelec’s Commercial (Fixed Price) is 49.64 MW. The 06.01.20 Forecast of Commercial Capacity PLS is 183,302 (non-shopped) and 315,303 (shopped). So, if a Default Service Supplier serves one tranche of such load (i.e., 49.64 MW/Tranche), would the forecast capacity MW value obligation for the Supplier be = 49.64 x {[183,302 (non-shopped)]/[183,302 (non-shopped) + 315,303 (shopped)]} = 18.25 MW/Tranche. (2): For the upcoming auction (i.e., auction on April 27, 2020), the 06.01.20 forecast of Penelec’s Commercial Capacity PLS is 183,302 (non-shopped) and 315,303 (shopped) i.e., 183,302 + 315,303 = 498,605 is the Total forecast Penelec Commercial Capacity PLS. The Total Tranches for Penelec Commercial is 14 (I calculated 14 because 1 tranche is 7.14% of Total Tranches, and 1/0.0714 = 14). Lately, the DZSF of Penelec has been ~0.99. So to calculate MW/Tranche, I did (0.99) x (498,605/14), which yields 35,614.64 kW/Tranche (or 35.614 MW/Tranche). However, the published MW/Tranche is 49.64 MW. Why is my calculation of 35.614 MW so different from the published 49.64 MW?
Answer: "MW/Tranche" is approximate only and based on historical data. The values (as reflected on the News page of the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website) are provided for reference purposes only and may be updated prior to the auction as explained in the Bidding Rules. The Companies -- Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power -- do not represent that each tranche will have the loads shown or any particular MW value, and it is noted that the actual nominal MW quantity during the Delivery Period will depend upon many factors. The data used in the calculation for 2020/2021 6/1 PLC are forecast data only and may not align to the MW/Tranche data posted.
DAT 00179 Published On: 06/18/2020
Question: Will the FEPA companies be posting revised hourly load data (including March 2020 reconciliations and initial settles through May 2020) this week on the Information Website?
Answer: The FEPA Load Data reports will be updated and posted by the end of day today.
DAT 00180 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 06/18/2020
Question: In the upcoming auction (i.e., auction on June 29, 2020), the MW/Tranche for Met-Ed Commercial (Fixed Price) is 49.35 MW. The latest 06.01.20 Forecast of Met-Ed Commercial Capacity PLS is 165,458 (non-shopped) and 326,444 (shopped). So, if a Default Service Supplier serves one tranche of such load (i.e., 49.35 MW/Tranche of Met-Ed Commercial load), would the forecast capacity MW value obligation for the Supplier be: 49.35 x {[165,458 (non-shopped)]/[165,458 (non-shopped) + 326,444 (shopped)]} = 16.59 MW?
Answer: Based on the spreadsheet on the FEPA Auction Information Website (ME_Cap_Trans.xls, Met-Ed 06.01.20 Forecast Cap worksheet), the current Tranche Size is 37.26 MW/Tranche. The calculation uses the Met-Ed Shopped and Non-Shopped Commercial data: (491,902 kW) / (1,000 kW/MW) * (0.98462 DZSF) = (484.336 MW) / (13 tranches) = 37.26 MW/tranche. The tranche size was established for the DSP-V filing and will change over time as load changes. The DZSF is from May 31, 2020.
DAT 00181 Published On: 06/18/2020
Question: The Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate file for Penn Power has 06.01.20 forecast Commercial Capacity PLS as 63,200 (non-shopped) and 138,064 (shopped), i.e., the Total Penn Power Commercial Capacity PLS = 63,200 + 138,064 = 201,264. The Total Tranches for Penn Power Commercial is 6 (I calculated 6 because 2 Tranche is 33.33% of Total Tranches, and 2/0.3333 = 6). Lately, the DZSF of Penn Power has been ~0.982. So to calculate MW/Tranche I do (0.982) x (201,264/6), which yields 32,940.20 kW/Tranche (or 32.94 MW/tranche). However, the published Penn Power Commercial MW/Tranche for the June 29, 2020 auction is 49.46 MW. Why is my calculation of 32.94 MW/Tranche so different from the published 49.46 MW/Tranche?
Answer: The 49.46 MW/tranche was established at the beginning of DSP-V as the approximate size of a tranche. The MW/tranche size will change over time as load changes.
DAT 00182 Published On: 09/18/2020
Question: I am looking into the historical data and it is not clear on how to treat UFE. DAT 00009 states not to apply UFE to historical data, however, the Data Series Overview on page 4 states the following: "The companies allocate Unaccounted-for-Energy ("UFE") each month to all Load Serving Entities in each Company zone (i.e., to EGSs and Default Service Load Serving Entities) for each customer Class Based on load-ratio share. The hourly energy values posted to the auction Information Website do not include UFE. Hourly UFE values are provided separately as described in section E of this document."
Answer: The FAQ DAT 00009 response is correct as the process went into effect June 1, 2015. However the Data Description document was not updated to reflect the new information. We will update the document and re-post it as soon as possible.
DAT 00183 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 09/21/2020
Question: Regarding the announcement of tranche targets and tranche sizes, can you please clarify what you mean by “MW/Tranche"? For example, the first row for Met-Ed: what does 55.73 mean? Is it the total of MW over the 12 month period? Or is it 55.73 mw each month for 12 months? Also, since its 4 tranches for this solicitation at 16%, does it mean that 1 tranche equals 4%.
Answer: “MW/Tranche” is the estimate of both the energy obligation and capacity obligation per tranche of the Default Service Supplier at any point in time. It is calculated using the Peak Load Contribution (PLC) Daily Zonal Scaling Factor (DZSF) times the Shopped and Non-Shopped Capacity Peak Load Share (PLS) by Class, and dividing that number by the relevant number of tranches. The estimated MW/Tranche values provided on the Information Site are for reference purposes only and may be updated prior to the auction as explained in the Bidding Rules. The Companies — Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power — do not represent that each tranche will have the loads shown on the Information Site or any particular MW value — the actual MW quantity during the Delivery Period will depend upon many factors. A tranche represents a fixed percentage of a company’s class load, which would be 4% in the example mentioned above. Forecasted company peak loads are used to set the number of tranches, and the resulting tranche size percentages. The number of tranches will stay constant during the delivery period regardless of the actual peak or hourly load. Suppliers are responsible for serving the actual load, which will depend on various factors including but not limited to time of year and day, weather, and customer shopping migration.
DAT 00184 Published On: 10/12/2020
Question: Your data description file states that the PLC history has not been adjusted by the daily zonal scaling factor. Can you confirm this is true for the NSPL data as well?
Answer: The posted PLC and NSPL data are not adjusted by the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor.
DAT 00185 Published On: 10/13/2020
Question: For the Met-Ed transmission peak load allocation data, I see you're missing data for 31Aug2019. Can you confirm that this is just a missing daily data point and not that the days in the data are shifted (i.e., Sep1 is actually Aug31, etc.)?
Answer: The Met-Ed transmission data for August 31, 2019 is missing and an updated report will be posted by the end of business today.
DAT 00186 Published On: 10/29/2020
Question: We noticed that hourly load shape has significantly changed since May 2019. We are wondering if you can provide us an explanation regarding this load shape. Has there been a change in residential profile? and if so, can you provide us with the old profile and the date that new profile has been in effect? For illustration purposes, a spreadsheet is attached with plots of average monthly load from 2014 for months of June, July, August and September using WPP_Hrly-Data.xlsx.
Answer: The residential load for 2020 has increased due to COVID-19 impacts. Residential loads are weather sensitive and respond to weather fluctuations, more so than for Commercial or Industrial loads. The Residential load profile has not changed as the only variable within the load profile is weather data.
DAT 00187 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: This question pertains to FAQ DAT 00129. In response to a question about the correct loss factor to use to arrive at load at retail meter, you replied with a link to a document that shows the on-peak/off-peak loss factors that are found in the EGS tariff for WPP. You said that that link has all relevant information. Those loss factors are the loss factors found in the EGS tariff which we understand is NOT the loss factor that applies to us for Default Service. It is our understanding that the applicable loss factor is found in Rider H, which is just the plain 1.0899 for commercial class. Can you confirm whether we should be reading the loss factors from the EGS tariff or Rider H in the electric service tariff?
Answer: The on-peak/off-peak loss factors reflected within the EGS tariff for West Penn Power are the combination of transmission and distribution losses which are applied to all retail and Default Service EGS load for submission to PJM as explained within the EGS tariff.
DAT 00188 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: Can the FEPA utilities provide a current snapshot view of what the NSPL tags will look like on Jan 1, 2021 for the various loads given information available today? PJM has posted preliminary system data at: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/settlements/network-service-peak-loads-2021.ashx?la=en
Answer: The FEPA Companies will not be posting forecast capacity (PLC) or transmission (NSPL) data.
DAT 00189 Published On: 01/25/2021
Question: It seems the most recent load data were updated in December. Will there be another load update prior to the auction on January 25?
Answer: The 2021 NSPL data from January 1 - January 15 will be posted by end of business Monday, January 18. The Hourly Load and UFE data will be updated on or after January 19.
DAT 00190 Published On: 01/25/2021
Question: Could you provide the PLC for each class for the new PJM planning year 2021-22.
Answer: The 2021/2022 PLC snapshot will be posted by end of business Monday, January 18.
DAT 00191 Published On: 01/25/2021
Question: The NITS rate history from Y2016 to Y2021 suggests that the NITS rates have been increasing since Y2017 with the largest yearly increase of 172% for Met-Ed/Penelec from Y2017 to Y2018, 121% for PennPower from Y2017 to Y2018, while WestPennPower stayed flat or had minor decreases. Would the EDCs provide forward-looking estimates for future NITS rate as the suppliers bear the ultimate risks on NITS rate increase?
Answer: The FEPA Companies do not provide forward looking estimates of future NITS rates.
DAT 00192 Published On: 01/25/2021
Question: Can the FEPA utilities please post transmission NSPLs for dates into January 2021 to assist prospective bidders with their analysis?
Answer: The 2021 NSPL data from January 1 - January 15 will be posted by end of business Monday, January 18.
DAT 00193 Published On: 01/25/2021
Question: Can the utilities provide PY 2021/2022 PLC values for the current mix of shopping and non-shopping customers, by customer type? Additionally, can they provide the 2021 NSPL values for the current mix of shopping and non-shopping customers, by customer type?
Answer: The 2021 NSPL values for January as well as the 2021 PLC snapshot already have been posted to the "Load and Other Data" page on the FEPA DSP Auction Information Website.
DAT 00194 Published On: 04/20/2021
Question: The data in WPP_Hrly_Data appear to be missing 2/28 HE 24?
Answer: The corrected WPP Hrly Data report will be posted by the end of the day today.
DAT 00195 Published On: 04/26/2021
Question: Will the FEPA utilities provide an update of the PLC snapshot referenced in FAQ question DAT 00193 prior to the April 26th auction (current available version in Load Data site is dated Jan21)?
Answer: The FEPA Utilities will provide an updated 2021 PLC Snapshot by end of the day.
DAT 00196 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 04/26/2021
Question: For the Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Residential, Commercial loads that will be auctioned on April 26, 2021, did Utilities nominate ARR paths in the Stage 1A and 1B rounds? If so, could you please provide bidders with the results including the paths and the amount of MWs cleared? Additionally, once available, could you please also provide bidders with the results of Stage 2, including the paths and the amount of MWs cleared?
Answer: The awarded auction revenue rights (ARRs) for the PA accounts for the unassigned load for PY 21/22 can be found on the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website's Documents page using the ARR Results link.
DAT 00197 Published On: 04/26/2021
Question: Can you please confirm the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor is correct for West Penn Power starting Jan 2021 and forward? We noticed a very large jump from Dec 31, 2020 (0.98473) to Jan 01, 2021(1.05962). The NSPL DZSF does not show the same jump during the yearly change Dec 31, 2020 (0.996501) to Jan 01, 2021 (0.999583).
Answer: The WPP Capacity Daily Zonal Scaling Factor (DZSF) process was found to have an error which has been corrected. The corrected report will be posted by the end of day today.
DAT 00198 Published On: 04/26/2021
Question: Do the published ARR Results - 2021/2022 Delivery Year include only the ARR paths for the Default Service load that will be auctioned on April 26, 2021 (Only Residential and Commercial) for all 4 utilities?
Answer: Please see FAQ SMA 00028.
DAT 00199 Published On: 06/21/2021
Question: Can FEPA describe what caused the shift in eligible PLC from Commercial to Industrial in West Penn on 6/5/20?
Answer: A West Penn Power customer had a rate change which caused their PLC to shift from Commercial to Industrial.
DAT 00200 Published On: 06/21/2021
DAT 00201 Published On: 06/21/2021
Question: Can you confirm the plc data for March 21 for all utilities are correct? We noticed a very large step up in each of the 4 utilities.
Answer: The PLC data for March 2021 are correct, reflecting a shift from Shopping to Non-Shopping due to a supplier default at PJM.
DAT 00202 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 06/25/2021
Question: The question I had was regarding the West Penn non-shopping class PLC change from May 31 to June 01. With the PLC’s being set on the 5 peak hours from the previous year set in July at close to the height of Covid lockdowns, we were expecting to see a decrease in the PLC's. We saw decreases of roughly 10% in Met-Ed and PENELEC PLC’s for the non-shopping commercial class. We noticed for the West Penn non-shopping class there was only a decrease of 0.6% and same sort of drop for the shopping class so there wasn’t any migration between shopping and non-shopping. Was there a redefinition of the Commercial Class? The load data also show there was a drop in July 2020 where the PLC’s were set. When looking at the 2021 PLC snapshot, Met-Ed and PENELEC are very close to the snapshot value taking into account the Migration and Scaling Factor. West Penn on the other hand is substantially higher and there has been a decrease in the Non Shopping customers since January.
Answer: There has not been a redefinition of the commercial class. The West Penn Power contribution to the summer peak 2020 zonal load was relatively similar to the contribution for the 2019 zonal load. As a result, the aggregate capacity values reflect a slight decrease on June 1. The last snapshot, which is a forecast, is very close to the non-shopping commercial value posted, whereas the shopping commercial value has increased. This can be attributed to customer changes and any other changes that may have occurred from the time of the forecast (3/21/2021) to June 1.
DAT 00203 Published On: 06/28/2021
Question: Can you please provide us with the latest available final settle (March 2021) and latest initial settled data for month of May for both Met-Ed and Penelec Commercials hourly data? It seems the hourly data have been updated for West Penn Power and Penn Power but not for Met-Ed and Penelec.
Answer: The hourly data reports for Met-Ed and Penelec were posted at the end of the day on 6/25/2021 to reflect the complete primary settlement for the month of May 2021. The secondary data for March 2021 already are reflected within the reports.
DAT 00206 Published On: 12/10/2021
Question: Can you please provide us with a snapshot of 2022 NSPL values for residential and commercial shopping and non-shopping groups based on published NSPL values in PJM for 2022 for ME, PN, and WP zones?
Answer: The 2022 NSPL values have not been calculated and will not be available.
DAT 00207 Published On: 12/10/2021
Question: Are you able to provide Final Settled Data for the month of August?
Answer: Per the Data Description document, the monthly reports are to be posted by the 5th business day of the month. As such, the reports will be posted by the end of day Friday, November 5.
DAT 00208 Published On: 01/12/2022
Question: Will you be providing a 2022/2023 PLC snapshot for the Jan 2022 Auction?
Answer: The 2022/2023 PLC snapshot is expected to be posted by end of day Friday, January 14.
DAT 00209 Published On: 01/20/2022
Question: Will you be updating the Load Data to include DEC before the Jan 24th Auction?
Answer: The Load and Other Data reports reflecting complete December 2021 data have been posted.
DAT 00211 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 03/07/2022
Question: I noticed that the November 2021 hourly load data for Penelec and Penn Power have not been updated for Secondary settlement even though it is past the 60 day period (Met-Ed and West Penn Power have been updated). Do you happen to have updated versions of these files?
Answer: Corrected hourly load reports for Penelec and Penn Power, reflecting November 2021 secondary data, have been posted.
DAT 00213 Published On: 04/13/2022
Question: Can the FEPA companies please update the PLC snapshot file found at https://www.fepaauction.com/Portals/0/Documents/LoadData/2022_PA_PLC_Snapshot.xlsx for a recent view (April preferably) prior to the April 19th auction?
Answer: A new 2022/2023 Capacity/PLC snapshot will be posted by the end of day Friday, 4/15/2022.
DAT 00214 Published On: 04/13/2022
Question: Can the utilities post an update to their 2022/2023 PLC snapshot file posted on 1/11/2022 to incorporate more recent data?
DAT 00215 Published On: 07/01/2022
Question: Could you please provide June 2022 Capacity data for all four of the utilities in the corresponding Cap_Trans.xls files? Thank you.
Answer: The June 2022 PLC and NSPL data will be posted per our normal reporting schedule which is by the 5th business day of July.
DAT 00216 Published On: 07/01/2022
Question: Can FirstEnergy provide the PLC data post 05/31?
DAT 00217 Published On: 01/11/2023
Question: Would you be able to provide Hourly load / PLC / NSPL / Customer Counts beginning 1/1/2014 at the very least. The data room has data beginning 1/1/2019 and we need more data to make an informed load forecast while participating in the auction.
Answer: At this time, FEPA will not be posting historical data prior to 1/1/2019.
DAT 00218 (revised 01/20/2023) Published On: 01/19/2023
Question: Can you provide the 2023 NSPL by rate class for each utility?
Answer: The monthly load data report, Capacity and Transmission by Rate, will be updated by the 5th business day of the month. The next update will be posted by end of day February 7, 2023. The updated capacity and transmission reports reflecting the first seven days of January 2023 will be posted on January 20, 2023.
DAT 00219 Published On: 01/19/2023
Question: We are analyzing Cap PLC and Trans NSPLs for MetEd and Penelec and are finding a notable drop in both tags occurring between Sept 1st and 2nd across almost all customer classes, both shopped and non-shopped. Can FEPA comment on what’s happening here? It doesn’t seem to be customer migration as both shopped and non-shopped accounts are dropping (not netting). Similarly, on Sep 21st, there seems to be a reallocation of tags (not quite net zero impact) between COM, RES, and IND Cap and Trans tags – is this a correction of a previous misallocation? If so, can that correction be applied to the historical data to show a clean data set?
Answer: In September 2022 we implemented a new settlement system and as with any new system there may be unexpected system or data issues not found during testing. We continue to focus on finding and resolving any of these issues that have occurred since the new system implementation. As such the original shift or drop in values posted in early September was due to the system integrations. The adjustment reported in late September reflects improvements made within our processes. We are not able to go back and repost adjusted data.
DAT 00220 Published On: 02/02/2023
Question: In the "Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate" file the data has been updated to January 7, 2023. For the Transmission PLS or NSPL data it appears there is a material change in the values from 12/30/22 to 12/31/22 and no material change from 12/31/22 to 1/1/23 as would be expected from the new calendar year NSPL values. Is it possible that the new 2023 NSPL values were applied a day early and reflected in the 12/31/22 values? Thanks
Answer: The FEPA monthly Cap_Trans reports had a reporting error for the Transmission data for 12/31/2022. The reports have been corrected.
DAT 00221 Published On: 02/02/2023
DAT 00222 (revised 04/21/2023) Published On: 04/18/2023
Question: On the “Load and Other Data” page under “Hourly Load by Class”, the files contain Hour 25 on 11/6/22. Both the spreadsheet titles and the Data Description Document state that the data is provided in Eastern Standard Time, and that all days should contain exactly 24 hours. While past years contain only 24 hours per day, it’s difficult to identify where the inconsistency began. Is this a mistake?
Answer: Within the Hourly Load by Class reports, the data posted since the implementation of our new settlement system (9/1/2022 Primary, 7/1/2022 Secondary) are reflected in Eastern Prevailing Time (EPT). Due to this, the day of the time change in spring will reflect 23 hours whereas the day in the fall will reflect 25 hours. This aligns with PJM operations. The previous settlement was in Eastern Standard (EST) which always reflected 24 hours. A note will be added to the top of the reports to identify this.
DAT 00223 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: We have a question about time zones in the hourly load files. You state in the description tab of each file and in the FAQ response DAT 00222 that hourly load data is in EST until 7/1/2022, after which point data is presented in EPT. At which hour does it transition? 6/30/2022 HE24 prevailing timezone was EDT, so 6/30/2022 HE24 EST is 7/1/2022 HE1 EPT. Yet, there is a separate 7/1/2022 HE1 EPT with a different value. In fact, each hourly load file shows 24 hours for each of 6/30 and 7/1, so the hour at which point the data transitions to EPT is not clear at all. There is also an "x" next to 6/30/2022 HE24 in the Penelec Hourly Data file. This looks erroneous, or we have misinterpreted your FAQ response. Could you please address this and please confirm that what you wrote in the FAQ and the description file is actually representative of the hourly load data? If we've misinterpreted, could you clarify? Thanks.
Answer: Within the FEPA Hourly Load reports, data as of 7/1/2022 are reported in EPT due to the implementation of the new settlement system. All data posted prior are in EST as that data were from the former settlement system.
DAT 00224 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: I’m pulling data for the Nov 2023 FEPA DSP-VI auction, and it seems that for at least METED and PENELEC that Cap and Trans data is missing for 12 March 2023 and there is bad data for April 1-2, 2023. Can someone review and revise or advise on the issue?
Answer: The FEPA Cap_Trans reports have been corrected and re-posted.
DAT 00225 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: In the sheet "MET-ED 2019-2022" from the file "ME_Hrly_Data.xlsx", there are 8,761 hours for the data in 2022. This appears to be due to a reporting change during the year from Standard time to Prevailing time in order to accommodate DST, since 3/13/2022 data does not reflect DST and shows 24 hours of data (not 23 hours), while 11/6/2022 shows 25 hours of data (consistent with DST). Please confirm at which exact timestamp does the reporting shift from Standard time to Prevailing time.
Answer: Within the FEPA Hourly Load reports, data as of 7/1/2022 are reported in EPT due to the implementation of the new settlement system. All data posted prior are in EST as the data were from the former settlement system.
DAT 00226 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: What is causing the drop in Capacity and Transmission tags in the Meted data for 4/1 and 4/2/2023 - is this a data error and can FirstEnergy please confirm or provide corrected numbers?
Answer: The ME Cap_Trans report has been corrected and posted.
DAT 00227 Published On: 11/09/2023
Question: Why are there two records for each day in June 2022 for the Transmission data found in PP_Cap_Trans.xlsx in the PENN POWER TRANS 2019-2022 tab? Can FirstEnergy please correct this?
Answer: The PP Cap_Trans report has been corrected and posted.
DAT 00228 Published On: 09/13/2024
Question: According to the responses for FAQs GEN 00161 and GEN 00163, there is a single "PA UFE report" that contains updated UFE data. However, I am unable to locate this report on the Load and Other Data page, although I do see a link to a combined PA Deration report. Could you please guide me on where I can access the updated PA UFE report?
Answer: Please refer to the "Unaccounted for Energy" section on the "Load and Other Data" page to access this information. https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx
CRE 00001 Published On: 10/26/2012
Question: Is there a credit-based tranche bid limit in the Default Service Program auctions?
Answer: No, there is no credit-based tranche bid limit. There is a load cap that limits the number of tranches any bidder can bid across all products within an auction.
CRE 00002 (revised 05/15/2013) Published On: 11/02/2012
Question: Bidder applicants are given an option to submit either an LOC or cash for the pre-bid security. Can we propose changes to the LOC and if so when would those be due?
Answer: Yes, during the Part 1 Application process, you can propose redlined changes to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit. The Word version of the Pre-Bid LOC can be found here: http://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/SupplierDocuments.aspx. The deadline for all Part 1 Application documents for an upcoming auction is announced on the Calendar page of the Information Website: http://www.fepaauction.com/Calendar.aspx.
CRE 00003 Published On: 11/08/2012
Question: What is the timeline for the return of the pre-bid security?
Answer: Once the auction results are approved by the Commission, a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit will be marked as canceled and returned, and any pre-bid cash deposit will be transferred to the account designated on the bidder's Part 1 Application. This will occur as soon as possible if the bidder has won no tranches, or after the winning bidder has signed the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) and has complied with all creditworthiness requirements of the SMA for the tranches that it has won.
CRE 00004 Published On: 11/26/2012
Question: There are multiple beneficiaries on the Pre-bid Letter of Credit. Can you please confirm that if the Pre-Bid LC is drawn upon, payment will be made to only one account?
Answer: The Companies may do a partial or full drawing in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit. The Companies would use Annex 2 of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for that purpose. The amount specified in Annex 2 would be directed to a single account.
CRE 00005 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 11/26/2012
Question: (1) With respect to the letter of credit that must be maintained during the term of the Supplier Master Agreement, would each letter of credit have a single EDC beneficiary or would only one letter of credit with multiple EDC beneficiaries be required if the bidder were to be awarded tranches with multiple EDCs to serve full requirements Default Service for those EDCs?
(2) In the event that a bidder is awarded tranches to serve full requirements Default Service under multiple EDC auctions (e.g., for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power), will margining be done on an EDC-specific basis (i.e., Total Exposure Amount calculating exposure of that particular EDC only), or would it take into account and aggregate the exposure of all of the EDCs to DS Supplier?
(3) Are the EDCs required by the SMA or any other provision of the Default Service Program to maintain a minimum standard of credit quality (e.g., Minimum Rating as defined in Section 6.4 of the SMA)?
Answer: (1) Each letter of credit that must be maintained during the term of an SMA will have a single EDC beneficiary.
(2) Margining will be done separately for each EDC.
(3) No. The SMAs do not include credit requirements for the EDCs and there is no provision of the Default Service Program requiring the EDCs to maintain a minimum standard of credit quality.
CRE 00006 (revised 07/08/2014) Published On: 12/03/2012
Question: Can a Pre-Bid LOC be used for consecutive auction events? Our intent would be to instruct the Independent Evaluator in our Part 2 Application for the first event to retain the LOC for the second event if it is allowed.
Answer: Yes, the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit can be kept open for subsequent auctions. The Expiration Date must be at least thirty days following the date of the last auction for which the LOC will be used.
CRE 00007 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 12/03/2012
Question: How do we deposit cash as pre-bid security?
Answer: Per page 15 of the Part 2 Application, "If you are submitting a cash deposit, you must attach a copy of your W9 (for tax ID) and a copy of your banking information on your company's letterhead, signed and dated." To make a cash deposit, request the wiring instructions from the Independent Evaluator. Also on page 15 of the Part 2 Application, you must provide wiring instructions that will be used to return your cash deposit. This information is needed so that the cash can be returned promptly to the bidder.
CRE 00008 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 07/29/2013
Question: Sections 6.1 of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) requires the Default Service Supplier to "inform the Company immediately of any changes in its credit rating or financial condition," and Section 6.8(a) of the SMA requires the DS Supplier to "inform the Company immediately of any changes in its credit rating or financial condition or that of its Guarantor." Can you provide examples of when the Companies want to be notified?
Answer: A couple of examples: (1) If a Supplier's (or its Guarantor's) credit rating from any of the three SMA-referenced rating agencies changes, notification to the Companies is required. (2) If a material event occurs that detrimentally impacts a Supplier's (or its Guarantor's) financial condition, such as what would be reported in an 8-K filing, then the Companies require notification.
CRE 00009 (revised 02/23/2015) Published On: 12/09/2013
Question: In a follow-up to FAQ CREDIT 00006, may a Supplier request that the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit posted for the upcoming auction be held by CRA for future auctions? The Supplier would instruct the bank to amend the letter of credit to $1.00 in between auctions, amending it by increasing to the proper dollar amount at the time of the next auction. The pre-bid letter of credit would not expire for one calendar year hence.
Answer: Yes, CRA can hold the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit on file.
CRE 00011 Published On: 10/14/2014
Question: What is the amount per tranche required for the "maximum Pre-Bid Security" discussed in the Part 1 Application, necessary for applicants with foreign guarantors?
Answer: The pre-bid security amount is $250,000 per tranche of desired initial eligibility, regardless of whether there is a foreign guarantor.
CRE 00012 Published On: 10/14/2014
Question: Can you confirm the limit amounts necessary for inclusion in Section 1 of the Guaranty (Appendix G of the Default Service Supplier Master Agreement) for "Option 1" and "Option 2" in that paragraph? Additionally, if we are currently a Default Service supplier and we win any products in the October 2014 DS auction, is it possible to extend the guaranty already in place to cover any new products won, or is a new guaranty required?
Answer: The amounts for Option 1 or Option 2 are at the discretion of the Guarantor. The Guarantor can issue a guaranty amount up to the Maximum Credit Limit based on the Guarantor's Credit Rating per Appendix A of the Supplier Master Agreement. If the Total Exposure Amount exceeds the Guaranty amount, then a Margin call may be required per Section 6.5 of the Supplier Master Agreement. Since this is a new delivery period, the Companies prefer that a new guaranty be issued, which is Appendix G of the Supplier Master Agreement.
CRE 00015 Published On: 03/11/2015
Question: If a Default Service Supplier is not granted an unsecured line of credit based on its creditworthiness, and is also not granted an unsecured line of credit based on the creditworthiness of a guarantor, is there a minimum security deposit that must be provided when the SMA is executed if the DS Supplier is a winning bidder? Or may such DS Supplier provide no security deposit upon execution of the SMA and instead provide cash or a letter of credit only if and when, during the term of the SMA, the Total Exposure Amount exceeds the Minimum Transfer Amount (assuming that such DS Supplier’s credit limit would be $0), pursuant to a request to post Margin?
Answer: If a bidder wins Industrial tranches and has no unsecured credit, then security of $140,000 per Industrial tranche would be required per Section 6.3 of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA). If a bidder wins Residential and/or Commercial tranches, the MTM credit exposure methodology in Appendix B of the SMA is used. If the Total Exposure Amount exceeds the Minimum Transfer Amount (the bidder has zero unsecured credit), then security would be required at the time the SMA is signed.
CRE 00016 (revised 12/03/2015) Published On: 09/10/2015
Question: The applicant is not rated. Can we still get some unsecured credit by submitting financials? The financials are not audited.
Answer: Per Section 6.4 of the Supplier Master Agreement, in order to be granted an unsecured line of credit, the Default Supply Supplier or its Guarantor (if the DS Supplier is providing a Guaranty) must be rated by at least two of the following rating agencies: S&P, Moody's, or Fitch.
CRE 00017 Published On: 09/30/2015
Question: If an applicant submits cash as their form of pre-bid security, are they bound to that form of security throughout the entire supply period should they win tranches in the auction? Or is an applicant allowed to use cash for pre-bid security and then execute an approved letter of credit after the auction results are known?
Answer: The pre-bid security is returned to bidders once the auction results are reviewed by the Commission. The form of security chosen if the bidder becomes a Default Service Supplier can differ from the form of pre-bid security. Section 6.7 of the Supplier Master Agreement lists the acceptable methods for posting security as a Default Service Supplier.
CRE 00018 (revised 03/13/2017) Published On: 03/13/2017
Question: The Part 1 Application indicates the following:
A potential bidder that had secured approval for an alternate form of guaranty from any previous Default Service procurement auction held by one or more of the Companies and wishes to use the same alternate form of guaranty can renew this by submitting the following: 1. The alternate form of guaranty from any previous Default Service procurement auction by the Companies; 2. The enforceability opinion from any previous Default Service procurement auction by the Companies; 3. A certification that the text of the alternate form of guaranty is exactly the same as the alternate form of guaranty that had been previously approved from any previous Default Service procurement auction by the Companies; 4. A certification that the text of the enforceability opinion is exactly the same as the enforceability opinion that had been previously approved from any previous Default Service procurement auction by the Companies.
Are the Companies requesting that these certifications be provided by in-house legal counsel?
Answer: The only certification from outside counsel is the enforceability opinion. The applicant must provide an enforceability opinion with respect to the alternate form of guaranty from its counsel. The accompanying enforceability opinion must be from a law firm of national (i.e., United States) standing, must not be weaker than would be industry norm, and must contain only those qualifications that would be typical. The opinion shall name the Companies and explicitly state that the Companies are entitled to rely on the opinion for purposes of the transaction at issue.
CRE 00019 Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: We have already posted the pre-bid security, I am just wondering that if in the event we win tranches, when will the DS Supplier post-bid security need to be posted?
Answer: FEPA’s Credit department will reach out to winning suppliers within 24 hours after the auction results have been released, and post-bid security must be established as soon as possible. The pre-bid security will not be returned / cancelled until the post-bid requirement has been met. If a bidder does not win tranches, the pre-bid security will be returned / cancelled as soon as practical.
CRE 00020 Published On: 10/03/2023
Question: We don't have financials for the entity participating in the auction but there is a consolidated financial for the parent company. We are also not seeking any unsecured credit as we will post collateral to support our bids. Would we still be required to post a financial report or can we submit something else in lieu of it?
Answer: You should use the parent company as a guarantor and submit their financial information with your Part 1 Application.
PJM 00012 Published On: 02/18/2015
Question: Do the Companies schedule 2 separate load contracts in the InSight Scheduling System, one for the 95% and the second for the 5%, or do they include all the load in one single contract.
Answer: The Companies include the entire amount of load in one PJM InSchedule. The breakdown of the 95% and 5% volume pricing is performed in each Company's monthly Settlement process.
PJM 00015 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 04/28/2015
Question: Could you disclose the charge (monthly cost per MWh or other format) for PJM meter error corrections (billing item 1250) in Met-Ed and Penelec zones? Are the utilities currently allocated this charge?
Answer: Appendix D to the Companies' Supplier Master Agreement lists which PJM billing statement line item charges are allocated to and are the responsibility of Met-Ed and Penelec, and which are the responsibility of the Default Service Supplier. As shown in Appendix D, line item 1250 (meter error correction) is the responsibility of utility. It is possible Default Service Suppliers may be allocated and responsible for 1250 meter error correction charges related to EDCs other than Met-Ed and Penelec, however, meter error corrections that are related to Met-Ed and Penelec are not allocated to and are not the responsibility of their Default Service Suppliers. The PJM billing line item may be a charge or credit each month. The rate and volume used to determine the charge/credit vary month to month (and therefore so does the charge/credit), but the amounts typically are considered small.
PJM 00016 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 10/13/2015
Question: If PJM begins including additional line items on their bill, will those new line items be the responsibility of the Default Supplier or the Company?
Answer: For the delivery period of June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2021, any new line items that PJM may begin billing will remain the responsibility of the Default Service Supplier under the Companies' Commission-approved plans.
PJM 00017 Published On: 10/15/2015
Question: Can you confirm that the volume of MWh's a Default Service Supplier will be paid on will equal the volume of MWh's a Default Service Supplier will be charged for by PJM? For example if a Default Service Supplier delivers and is paid for 100 MWh, will the PJM bill reflect a 100 MWh charge for the same time period?
Answer: A Default Service Supplier will be paid for the de-rated MWh volumes from PJM's InSchedules, which also are the basis for PJM's energy charges to the Supplier.
PJM 00018 (revised 11/04/2015) Published On: 10/15/2015
Question: What PJM line items are covered on the Delegation of Authority that the winning bidder must sign as part of the confirmation process?
Answer: Please refer to Appendix D of the Default Service Supplier Master Agreement for a list of PJM line items the winning bidder is responsible for. Due to the implementation of PJM’s Billing Line Item Tool, the Delegation of Authority no longer is completed as part of the confirmation process. Billing line item transfers will be created by FirstEnergy’s Regulated Settlements Group and then approved by the winning bidders using the Billing Line Item Tool.
PJM 00023 Published On: 12/05/2016
Question: What PJM Zone is the historical generation for West Penn Power and Penn Power located in for auction revenue rights (ARR) purposes?
Answer: West Penn Power is part of the APS Zone. Penn Power is part of the ATSI Zone. Historical generation resources for ARR purposes are associated with those respective zones.
PJM 00024 Published On: 01/10/2017
Question: Can you provide the historical generation for ARR auction purposes for West Penn Power and Penn Power?
Answer: The Default Service Suppliers independently participate in the PJM ARR/FTR auctions and are awarded ARRs and FTRs from the PJM auction into their individual PJM account. The FEPA Utilities do not have access to the awarded ARR paths or nominated FTR paths for any Default Service Supplier.
PJM 00025 Published On: 01/13/2017
Question: Is the sink for the Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) auctions for Penn Power ATSI_RESID_AGG or Penn_Power_Resid_Agg?
Answer: PENNPOWER_RESID_AGG - Please refer to FAQ SMA 00011.
PJM 00029 (revised 01/20/2017) Published On: 01/20/2017
Question: What is the difference between NITS charges and Transmission Enhancement Charges (TEC)? What is the function of each?
Answer: See PJM's Guide to Billing, which includes definitions for Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) and Transmission Enhancement Charge (TEC): http://pjm.com/markets-and-operations/billing-settlements-and-credit/guide-to-billing.aspx
PJM 00030 Published On: 02/12/2018
Question: Are PJM sub-accounts required for each EDC? If so, how and when are those set up?
Answer: For PJM Pennsylvania Default Service (DS) load reporting, a unique PJM sub-account is required for each EDC/product. For example, if a DS supplier is serving Penelec commercial, Penelec residential, and Met-Ed residential DS load, three PJM sub-accounts would be required. These PJM sub-accounts must be unique to the given load (EDC/product). PJM sub-accounts are established by submitting a PJM Customer Account Manager Designation Form B to PJM which can be found at the following location: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/member-services/membership-assistant/customer-account-manager-designation-form.ashx. Questions relating to creating PJM sub-accounts can be directed to: AccountManager@pjm.com.
PJM 00031 Published On: 03/07/2018
Question: The Part 1 Application requests the applicant to provide documentation from PJM that the Applicant has a PJM E-Account. What documentation satisfies this requirement and what are these e-accounts?
Answer: A screenshot of the applicant's PJM E-Account will be sufficient proof that the applicant is a PJM Market Participant and Load Serving Entity in PJM. If the applicant does not currently have an E-Account, they may certify in the Part 1 Application that "there exist no known impediments for the Applicant to establish the PJM E-Accounts necessary to provide Default Service Supply and execute the PJM E-Account contract(s) for the supply period prior to the beginning of the supply period."
PJM 00032 Published On: 03/12/2018
Question: We understand PJM is moving to 5 minute settlement for real-time trading. Could you tell us if/how this would affect the settlement for Default Supply?
Answer: PJM’s transition to 5-minute settlements will have no impact on the pricing of the Default Service products. As per the Supplier Master Agreement, the LMP used for variable pricing is the real-time hourly LMP for the given delivery point.
PJM 00033 Published On: 06/25/2018
Question: There has been discussion at PJM regarding the introduction of a new PJM Billing Line Item #1115, which is for a "Black Box" settlement related to a FERC Order in regards to reallocation of historical Transmission Enhancement Charges. This line item will allocate charges based on FERC EL05-121 TEC Settlement Agreement beginning in July 2018. Will the charges/credits for this line item be the responsibility of the FEPA EDCs or of the Default Service Supplier?
Answer: The Companies’ interpretation of their Default Service auction documents, including the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), is that the EDCs will bear responsibility for new line item 1115 charges/credits.
PJM 00034 Published On: 10/29/2018
Question: Given that the three out of the four zones in the FirstEnergy Pennsylvania auction use a formula-based NITS cost, are there any plans for West Penn Power to move to a formula? Are there any known plans to increase the West Penn Power NITS rate?
Answer: There has been nothing filed to convert to a formula-based NITS rate for West Penn Power and there are currently no known plans to increase the West Penn Power NITS rate.
PJM 00036 (revised 01/16/2019) Published On: 01/16/2019
Question: Do you know if Allegheny Power Zone (West Penn Power) has any plans to update its current NITS rate some time between now and 2021? Its NITS rate has not changed since 2002. Has it filed any changes to FERC that bidders should be aware of regarding its NITS rate?
Answer: On March 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Stated Rate Order to Show Cause to public utilities that use a stated transmission rate under an open access transmission tariff to address the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. On November 15, 2018, in FERC docket number ER18-1595-000, the FERC approved the APS rate change (with effective rates retroactive to March 21, 2018) associated with the reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. West Penn Power is not able to speculate on future APS NITS rate updates. The NITS rate for Allegheny (West Penn Power) can be found at https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/NITSRateInformation.aspx.
PJM 00037 Published On: 01/22/2019
Question: In the file published 1/16/2019 by PJM (located here: https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/billing-settlements-and-credit.aspx) the APS NITS rate is $17,895/MW-Year. Why does the NITs rate published on 1/15/2019 on the FEPA Information Site not agree with PJM’s published rate?
PJM 00038 Published On: 01/10/2020
Question: On the Information Website, the APS NITS rate is listed as $14,364/MW/Year; however, the PJM Website shows the APS NITS rate starting in January 2020 as $17,865/MW/Year. Can you please confirm the NITS rate that APS suppliers were charged in December 2019, and what that rate will be/is in January 2020?
Answer: The $17,895/MW-Year rate on PJM’s Website represents the GROSS AP Zone NITS rate. However, due to credits applied per Attachment H-11 of the PJM OATT, the NET AP Zone NITS rate billed to the applicable suppliers is $14,364/MW-Year. Since the AP Zone is under a stated transmission rate, there is no change from year to year.
PJM 00039 Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: Can FEPA provide ARR paths nominated for PY20/21?
Answer: The awarded auction revenue rights (ARRs) for the PA accounts for the unassigned load for PY 20/21 can be found on the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website's Documents page using the ARR Results link.
PJM 00040 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 04/22/2020
Question: Do we have updated NITS rate for the new planning year 20/21 for the Met-Ed, PENELEC zone?
Answer: The MAIT NITS rate (applicable to the Met-Ed and Penelec Zones) is $37,083.18/MW-Year effective January 1, 2020. The MAIT NITS rate that will be effective January 1, 2021 will be published in October.
PJM 00041 Published On: 10/12/2020
Question: NITS rate information is showing the ATSI rate to be $57,340.35/MW/Year. Will ATSI be filing its formula rate before the auction date of 2020-10-26?
Answer: Yes, ATSI is expected to file its annual formula rate update prior to October 26, 2020.
PJM 00042 Published On: 10/13/2020
Question: NITs Rate information is showing MAIT's NITs rate to increase from $27,083.18 to $50,128.46 effective 2021-01-01. Is that from the Formula Rate filing as of 2020-10-05?
Answer: Yes, the NITS rate effective January 1, 2021 for MAIT will be $50,128.46, per the annual formula rate update filed earlier this month. However, the NITS rate effective January 1, 2020 for MAIT (per the annual formula rate update filed in October 2019) was $37,083.18, not the amount provided in the question.
PJM 00043 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: NITs Rate is showing APS zone's NITS rate to be $14,364.00/MW/Year. Does Allegheny Power Zone have a plan to change their NITS rate, or to have a FERC filing to change their NITS rate as of October 2020?
Answer: On October 29, 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, West Penn Power Company, in conjunction with affiliates Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, filed for a change in its Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) rate at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at Docket No. ER21-253.
PJM 00044 Published On: 11/04/2020
Question: How will suppliers be billed for the APS zone applicable credit for transmission and for transmission in general? We suspect that PJM will bill suppliers according to the 17,895 number and WPP will credit us for the two credits in the Allegheny supplementary in OATT and then rebate us for the rest of the difference in some kind of transmission charge adjustment?
Answer: Please refer to the following FAQs: PJM 00036, PJM 00037, and PJM 00038.
PJM 00045 Published On: 11/05/2020
Question: Are you able to provide us with the formula rate filing for West Penn's NITS rate for 2021, or with the corresponding FERC docket number?
Answer: On October 29, 2020, in Docket No. ER21-253-000, PJM submitted on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company (collectively, South FirstEnergy Operating Companies) revisions to PJM Tariff, Table of Contents, Schedules 1A, 7, and 8, and Attachment H-11 to change the rate used to establish the Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) revenue requirement for the Allegheny Power Zone and the Transmission Enhancement Charge. South FirstEnergy Operating Companies request a January 1, 2021 effective date.
PJM 00046 Published On: 11/10/2020
Question: FERC recently approved PJM’s Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) filing, which includes requirements for state-directed default service auctions to be exempt from the State Subsidy definition. For a default service auction to be exempt, it must be competitive, fuel-neutral, and not for the purpose of supporting the entry of preferred generation resources. While FERC approved PJM’s proposal in its current state, they did include a footnote citing NJ Basic Generation Service as a conflicting example due to language surrounding the Renewable Portfolio Requirements. What certifications will participants receive, either from the auction manager or other consultants, that can satisfy the requirement of being independent of the market participants, to ensure the FEPA procurement will not be subject to MOPR, and will be exempt due to meeting the requirements outlined in PJMs proposal?
Answer: No additional certifications will be provided. It is each Default Service supplier's responsibility to ensure compliance with PJM rules and regulations.
PJM 00047 Published On: 11/11/2020
Question: FAQs GEN 00115, GEN 00123, and PJM 00036 discussed about the impact from Federal Income Tax Rate on NITS rate. For any future Federal Income Tax Rate changes, should we expect similar impacts on future NITS rate?
Answer: The FirstEnergy Companies will follow guidance provided by FERC in conjunction with any proposed change to the Federal income tax rate with respect to: (1) transmission formula rates in which the Federal income tax rate is an input in the overall formula that is used to establish the NITS rate, and (2) if applicable, transmission stated rates in which the Federal income tax rate is not a formulaic input that is used to establish the NITS rate.
PJM 00048 Published On: 12/14/2020
Question: The APS transmission rates posted are lower than what was known in the previous auctions. Can you please explain what changed? Can you send reference documents to understand the changes.
Answer: Refer to the South FirstEnergy Operating Companies 2021 formula rate posted by PJM at the following location: https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/billing-settlements-and-credit/formula-rates.aspx.
PJM 00049 Published On: 12/14/2020
Question: Can you provide any information on the future early 2022 asset transfer in West Penn Power? When will the new WPP Transmission Company move to formula rates, similar to NITS in Met-Ed and Penn Power? Any information on rates to be used in the upcoming FEPA Auction on November 16, 2020 for delivery period 24-months?
Answer: The new transmission company, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company (KATCo), expects to acquire certain transmission assets from its affiliates (including West Penn Power Company) on January 1, 2022, and, thereafter, provide transmission service over those facilities pursuant to the rates, terms, and conditions of the PJM Tariff. For additional details, see the October 30, 2020 filing submitted under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") Docket No. ER21-265-000. In addition, on October 29, 2020, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, West Penn Power Company, in conjunction with affiliates Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, filed for a change in its Network Integration Transmission Service rate at the FERC at Docket No. ER21-253 requesting an effective date of January 1, 2021.
PJM 00051 Published On: 01/08/2021
Question: Can you please provide the 5-year history for Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) charged to Met-Ed, Penelec, West Penn Power, and Penn Power DSP-suppliers?
Answer: NITS Rates ($/MW-Yr) are as follows:
PJM 00052 Published On: 02/23/2021
Question: Considering FAQ PJM 00049, can FirstEnergy Pennsylvania provide a forecast or guidance on the West Penn Power NITS rates for 2022 and 2023?
Answer: Please refer to FAQ DAT 00191.
PJM 00053 Published On: 01/07/2022
Question: We are hoping to find a answer as to why the PLC’s uploaded to our PJM Sub Account are different than the ones provided for the Auction. For example the June 01, 2021 PLC in our FRWPC Sub Account is 30.998 (this is the number scaled with the DZSF) and we are currently serving 11.76 % of the Default Service Load. This implies a PLC of 263.5. In the Auction Data for June 01 under the Commercial Non-Shopped PLC there is a value of 259.6 and after applying the DZSF you get a 257.1 PLC number. We are hoping for an explanation why there is a 2.5 % difference in these numbers.
Answer: The data used for upload to PJM Capacity Exchange are accurate and complete as the discrepancy is only within the auction procurement report. The system process that compiles the data for this report is currently under review as is the Data Description document. This review is to ensure the proper rate category definitions are being included and documented. Once the review is complete, any necessary changes will be reflected within the current delivery year being posted.
PJM 00054 (revised 10/27/2022) Published On: 01/07/2022
Question: Is the NITS rate for MAIT (for Met-Ed and PENELEC zones) posted at https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/NITSRateInformation.aspx approved/final and not subject to change for calendar 2022?
Answer: The projected NITS rate is not subject to Commission approval. The rate to be billed by PJM effective January 1, 2022 will be $45,112.82/MW-Year, unless PJM revises its preliminary-published NSPLs for the PN/ME zones.
PJM 00055 Published On: 04/13/2022
Question: I have the LMP settlement node for the 3 utilities as follows: meted_resid_agg, penelec_resid_agg, and pennpower_resid_agg - What node should I use for West Penn Power? - Please confirm West Penn is under APS capacity clearing price. - What capacity clearing price does Penn Power fall under?
Answer: (1) The PJM WPP LMP Pricing Node used for settling supplier Default Service invoices: 116472931 APS_RESID_AGG. (2) The WPP capacity clearing price can be found under the APS zone. (3) The PP capacity clearing price can be found under the ATSI zone. https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx
PJM 00056 Published On: 05/25/2022
Question: Has Met-Ed nominated any ARRs during the annual auction? And if so, I expect they will transfer to us accordingly?
Answer: The awarded auction revenue rights (ARRs) for the PA accounts for the unassigned load for PY 22/23 can be found on the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website's Documents page using the ARR Results link. Please see FAQ SMA 00028 for your second question.
PJM 00057 Published On: 03/20/2023
Question: Can you please confirm the Daily Zonal Scaling Factors are correct for MetEd and Penelec starting Jan 2023 and forward? Both factors almost double starting 1/21/23 according to the PJM Website.
Answer: Neither the Companies nor CRA is in a position to confirm the accuracy of the information posted by PJM.
PJM 00058 Published On: 04/18/2023
Question: Are there any known plans to adjust the NITs rates for any of the utilities in 2024 or 2025?
Answer: The Companies plan to file the NITS rates with PJM in October 2023. At this point, it is too early to tell if there will be adjustments.
SMA 00002 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 10/12/2012
Question: If we already have a signed Supplier Master Agreement with any of the Companies from a prior Default Service auction, will we need to submit a new signed Supplier Master Agreement for subsequent Default Service auctions?
Answer: An executed Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) from a prior Default Service Program (e.g., DSP-I) cannot be used for a subsequent DSP (e.g., DSP-II, DSP-III, DSP-IV, DSP-V). Only SMAs that have been approved for a particular DSP can be used for that DSP. See also FAQ SMA 00012.
SMA 00004 Published On: 10/16/2012
Question: Are volumes paid based on PJM de-rated volumes or Retail meter volumes?
Answer: The payments to Default Service Suppliers are based on the PJM de-rated volumes.
SMA 00008 (revised 11/04/2015) Published On: 11/19/2012
Question: (1) In the event that a bidder is awarded tranches to serve full requirements Default Service under multiple EDC auctions (e.g., for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) would each of the Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) execute the same Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) or would they each sign separate SMAs with the Default Service (DS) Supplier?
(2) In the event that multiple EDCs would execute the same SMA, would such EDCs be jointly and severally liable for Company obligations thereunder and would there be a common agent for them or would each be able to issue conflicting instructions to the DS Supplier?
(3) Should references to Company in the SMA be read as references to a single EDC or to all of the EDCs with respect to which Company has been awarded full requirements/hourly service pricing load?
(4) If there is an Event of Default under the SMA with respect to one EDC, is the DS Supplier entitled to terminate the SMA or other SMAs with respect to the other non-defaulting EDCs?
(5) Conversely, if there is an Event of Default with respect to a DS Supplier relating to load supply to a particular EDC, would the other EDCs have the right to terminate the SMA or other SMAs with respect to the DS Supplier even if the DS Supplier has not defaulted in its obligations to such other EDCs?
(6) How does the second sentence of Section 11.2 in the SMA which states that nothing in the Agreement shall restrict the rights of either party to file a complaint with FERC under relevant provisions of the Federal Power Act work with the Mobile-Sierra provisions in the third paragraph of Section 11.2?
Answer: (1) A winning bidder (Default Service Supplier) will execute a separate SMA document with each EDC for which the winning bidder has been awarded tranches.
(2) Each SMA document executed by the winning bidder will be executed by only one EDC (not multiple EDCs).
(3) References to Company in the SMA are references to a single Company (i.e., to a single EDC).
(4) No. Each SMA is between a supplier and a single EDC.
(5) No. Each SMA is between a supplier and a single EDC.
SMA 00011 (revised 01/18/2017) Published On: 01/22/2013
Question: Can you supply the PNODE ID of the settlement point for Penn Power and West Penn Power?
Answer: Penn Power PNode ID is 115944307 PENN POWER AGGREGATE. West Penn Power PNode ID is 8394954 APS ZONE.
Effective June 1, 2015, PJM will require all Zone aggregated LMP settlement points to be replaced with its respective residual aggregated LMP.
For the PA utilities, the following Residual LMPs will apply for settlements:
SMA 00012 (revised 11/06/2014) Published On: 02/11/2013
Question: The winning bidders for the Residential/Commercial (Fixed Price) product in a particular auction have signed the SMA agreements. If they become winning bidders in a subsequent auction, would they have to sign a new SMA or an amendment to an existing SMA? Also, would an additional Guaranty be needed?
Answer: A Default Service supplier and the Company will sign the applicable base Supplier Master Agreement and Appendix E the first time the supplier is awarded Default Service load for that Company for the current Default Service Program (DSP). For subsequent Default Service awards with that Company in the same DSP, only Exhibit 1 will need to be executed. In the event there are changes required to the SMA itself in subsequent procurements, a separate full SMA document (including the applicable appendix) can be executed. If the Bidder wins additional tranches in a subsequent auction, they can simply amend the existing guaranty by adding the date of the new Supplier Master Agreements to the guaranty.
SMA 00013 (revised 09/21/2016) Published On: 08/21/2013
Question: For the both the pre-bid LOC and performance LOC, the requirements is for the bank to be rated A by S&P and A2 by Moodys. Can a Bank that meets those credit requirements be used even if they do not have a US Branch (Foreign Bank)?
Answer: As long as the issuing bank meets the minimum credit rating requirements, there is no requirement that the bank have a US branch.
SMA 00014 (revised 11/03/2016) Published On: 08/21/2013
Question: Please advise on the process to provide comments in order to update SMA Appendix F (FORM OF SUPPLIER LETTER OF CREDIT).
Answer: The Companies generally do not modify forms of agreements during an ongoing bidding process, so as to maintain consistency in the rules and application forms across all potential bidders. Consequently, changes to Appendix F or any other part of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) generally are not permitted.
Further, the rules, agreements, and standard forms and supporting documents are reviewed and modified during a public legal proceeding that is intended to provide the opportunity for changes before regulatory approval of those documents is complete.
SMA 00015 Published On: 08/21/2013
Question: If a bidder's guarantor is formed under the laws of Canada, is an enforceability opinion with respect to the guarantee required to be provided by an outside law firm? Given the trading relationship and substantial overlap in US and Canadian law, can we instead provide an opinion from in-house counsel licensed to practice law in Canada?
Answer: The Companies' Bidding Rules and applications do not specify that the opinion letter come from either in-house or external firm counsel. It is up to the bidder to determine which is most appropriate, to the extent that the selected counsel is fully qualified under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction to provide such an opinion.
SMA 00017 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 12/02/2013
Question: Our guarantor is based outside of the US. If we become a Default Service Supplier, will we be required to submit a legal opinion & sworn certificates from our guarantor? The process for us to obtain these documents can take in excess of ten business days. If we win tranches in an auction, when will these documents be due?
Answer: Yes, per Section 6.4 (ii) of the SMA, these documents would be required. These documents, along with the Guaranty and execution of the Supplier Master Agreement, are due within three (3) business days following the Commission’s approval of the auction results.
SMA 00018 (revised 10/10/2014) Published On: 12/11/2013
Question: The Supplier Master Agreement references the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) for defining "Ancillary Services". The OATT defines the term as: "Those services that are necessary to support the transmission of capacity and energy from resources to loads, while maintaining reliable operation of the Transmission Provider’s Transmission System in accordance with Good Utility Practice." And "The Transmission Provider is required to provide … the following Ancillary Services (i) Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch, and (ii) Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources." For the purposes of Default Service supply, is "Ancillary Services" intended to mean ALL load-related charges or some subset of settlement charges related to ancillary services? (I.e.: Reactive Services, Black start, etc.) Are the administrative charges like "Market Monitoring Unit (MMU) Funding," "FERC Annual Recovery," and "Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI) Funding" included?
Answer: Yes, per the definition of Default Service Supply in the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), suppliers are responsible for all load-related charges except as listed in Appendix D in the SMA.
SMA 00021 Published On: 02/17/2015
Question: Per the SMA, the Company needs to be notified of any changes to the Supplier's financial stance. Would it be sufficient if we add the Company to the e-mail distribution list for shareholder notifications?
Answer: Adding the Company to the distribution list for shareholder notifications is not an appropriate means to notice the Company of change to financial condition or credit rating per Section 6.1 of the Supplier Master Agreement ("SMA"). Exhibit 2 to the SMA provides the required form of notice and recipients for any required notification under the SMA.
SMA 00022 Published On: 09/10/2015
Question: Section 1.9 Additional Certifications in Part 1 of the Application states, "if you become a winning bidder, you will execute the SMA within three (3) Business Days". Does this imply that the Authorized Representative has to have the ability to sign the SMA? Or that the Applicant (not necessarily the Authorized Rep.) must execute the SMA within the time period specified?
Answer: The SMA does not need to be signed by the Authorized Representative. The SMA needs to be executed by the Applicant, which may or may not be the Authorized Representative.
SMA 00023 (revised 12/03/2015) Published On: 11/16/2015
Question: Section 6.2 of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) states: "The DS Supplier may submit and maintain a security deposit in accordance with Section 6.4 of this Agreement in lieu of submitting to or being qualified under a creditworthiness evaluation." However, towards the end of Section 6.2 it also states: "DS Supplier shall provide the Company and its agent’s unrestricted access to audited financial statements; provided that if audited financial statements are not available, the Company, in its sole discretion, may specify other types of financial statements that will be accepted." Does the first statement mean that providing a security deposit would exempt a DS supplier from the audited financial requirements? The entity that we will be using to participate in the auction does not have audited financials, but we can provide un-audited information.
Answer: Per Section 6.2, the Default Service Supplier may submit and maintain a security deposit in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Supplier Master Agreement in lieu of submitting to or being qualified under a creditworthiness evaluation. Also, per Section 6.2, DS Suppliers shall provide unrestricted access to audited financial statements; provided that if audited financial statements are not available, the Company may specify other types of financial statements that will be accepted.
SMA 00024 Published On: 07/05/2016
Question: For West Penn Power, the Default Service Supplier is responsible for PJM Charge 1104 (NITS Offset). Is the same NITS Offset Charge applied for both retail suppliers (1104.12) and wholesale suppliers (1104.14)?
SMA 00026 Published On: 12/01/2016
Question: For Penn Power and West Penn Power, what energy forward price do you use for margin purposes? In these locations, there are no broker quotes.
Answer: Per Appendix B of the Supplier Master Agreement, the energy forward price is based on PJM Western Hub.
SMA 00027 Published On: 12/07/2017
Question: Is balancing congestion the responsibility of the supplier? Also, is it known when the SMA will be updated to reflect this charge?
Answer: Section 2.5 (PJM Agreement Modifications) of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) addresses this issue. The load serving entity, or in this case, the Default Service supplier, is responsible for all balancing congestion line items.
SMA 00028 Published On: 01/17/2018
Question: It is our understanding that Default Service Suppliers independently participate in the PJM ARR/FTR auctions and are awarded ARRs and FTRs from the PJM auction into their individual PJM account. The FEPA Utilities do not have access to the awarded ARR paths or nominated FTR paths for any Default Service Supplier." However, Section 2.3 of the SMA indicates that "The Company shall transfer or assign to the DS Supplier the Company’s rights to Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs) to which the Company is entitled as an LSE pursuant to the PJM Agreements, including the rights to ARRs, provided that such rights are related to the service being provided to meet the DS Supplier Responsibility Share and such rights are for the Delivery Period." These two statements seem to contradict one another, can you please confirm whether the companies assign ARRs directly to tranche providers? If so, how are ARRs allocated?
Answer: Section 2.3 of the SMA relates to the load that has yet to be assigned to a Default Service (DS) Supplier at the time of the PJM Annual Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) Allocation process. There may be times when not all the load is assigned to DS Suppliers in time to participate in the PJM Annual Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) Allocation process. In this case, the FE Companies will be responsible for this load and will obtain the ARRs. Once suppliers are secured for the unassigned load, the ARRs obtained are allocated to the DS Suppliers by PJM pursuant to the PJM Agreements.
SMA 00029 Published On: 01/29/2018
Question: Where the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) discusses termination due to default, it states that "The Non-Defaulting Party shall calculate, in a commercially reasonable manner, a Settlement Amount with respect to the obligations under this Agreement. The DS Supplier may, in its sole discretion, select the notional quantity in the following subsection 5.4(a)(i) by checking the box below. If the DS Supplier does not select subsection 5.4(a)(i) by checking the box, it will be deemed to be excluded from this Agreement." Is there additional information available on how the "commercially reasonable manner" would be determined? Is there a calculation available for the price component?
Answer: No, there is no additional information on "commercially reasonable manner" for calculating a settlement amount. Any such calculation would be prepared and reviewed after the default and the applicable variables would be applied. Such settlement calculations are the exception and the pricing component calculation also would be developed after the default event.
SMA 00030 (revised 05/21/2019) Published On: 04/27/2018
Question: How do Suppliers typically fulfill the obligations described in Appendix E of the Supplier Master Agreement? Is the Supplier required to transfer AECs to the Company, or does the Supplier retire the AECs themselves? If the latter, what "proof" is used to demonstrate compliance? Also, is the Company considered the Electric Generation Supplier (EGS) for the purposes of submitting quarterly retail sales reports to PennAEPS, or is the Supplier responsible for that reporting? (See http://www.pennaeps.com/electricity-suppliers/)
Answer: Please see FAQ GEN 00013. In addition, the Companies (Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) will send each Default Supplier notification of its AEC obligation along with the due date for the AEC transfer. Suppliers must transfer the AECs to the Company-specific PJM GATS account. The Companies will review, accept, and retire the AECs in GATS. The AEPS Program Administrator then determines if compliance for the energy year has been met and then issues a letter to the Companies stating that retirement requirements were met. The Companies (Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) are electric distribution companies ("EDCs"). Default Suppliers are considered Electric Generation Suppliers ("EGSs"). Both EDCs and EGSs must submit quarterly reports to the AEPS Program Administrator.
SMA 00031 Published On: 09/26/2018
Question: Why are LSE suppliers responsible for NITS and TECs?
Answer: FirstEnergy's PA Default Service Programs DSP-IV and DSP-V were approved by the PA PUC. The DSPs and supporting documents as approved by the PA PUC designate the Parties' responsibilities, including that Default Service suppliers are responsible for Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) and the Companies are responsible for Transmission Enhancement charges (TECs), which are the same responsibilities that have been in place for several default service terms.
SMA 00032 Published On: 10/17/2018
Question: Can you please elaborate on this change between DSP-IV and DSP-V? Appendix C – DS Supply Specifications: Default Service customer groups have been updated to reflect new commercial class rate schedules accompanying the move to hourly pricing.
Answer: Due to the move to hourly pricing, the commercial Default Service customer groups were revised. For DSP-V, the Group of Rate Schedules that comprise the Commercial Class for DS Supply and itemized in Appendix C of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) and are shown here: Met-Ed - Rate GS-Small, Rate GS-Medium (PTC), Rate MS, Borderline Service, Street Lighting Service, Ornamental Street Lighting, and Outdoor Lighting Service Penelec - Rate GS-Small, Rate GS-Medium (PTC), Rate H, Borderline Service, High Pressure Sodium Vapor Street Lighting Service, Municipal Street Lighting Service, and Outdoor Lighting Service Penn Power - Rate Schedules GS (excluding GS Special Rule GSDS), PNP, GM (PTC), PLS, SV, SVD, and SM West Penn - Rate Schedules 20, 30 (PTC), 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 71 and 72 Effective 6/1/2019, all customers who have demands of 100 kW or greater for 12 consecutive months during the period April 1 to March 31 of each 12-month period shall be moved to hourly pricing for all of the Companies. This class of customers is in addition to the current rate classes that are receiving Default Service under the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider. In addition, for Penn Power, GS-Large customers will be moved from the Price-to-Compare Default Service Rate Rider to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider. For DSP-IV, the Group of Rate Schedules that comprise the Commercial Class for DS Supply and itemized in Appendix C of the SMA are shown here: Met-Ed - Rate GS-Small, Rate GS-Medium, Rate MS, Borderline Service, Street Lighting Service, Ornamental Street Lighting, and Outdoor Lighting Service Penelec - Rate GS-Small, Rate GS-Medium, Rate H, Borderline Service, High Pressure Sodium Vapor Street Lighting Service, Municipal Street Lighting Service, and Outdoor Lighting Service Penn Power - Rate Schedules GS (excluding GS Special Rule GSDS), GS Optional Controlled Service Rider, PNP, GM, GM Optional Controlled Service Rider, PLS, SV, SVD, SM, OH With Cooling Capabilities, OH Without Cooling Capabilities, and WH Non-Residential West Penn - Rate Schedules 20, 22, 23, 24, 30 (small), 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 71
SMA 00035 Published On: 10/24/2018
Question: In the DSP-V docket (P-2015-2511333), FEPA represents that the threshold for hourly pricing will be lowered from 400 kW to 100 kW as of June 1, 2019. In the current redlined DSP-V Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), FEPA shows changes to the classes that will affect the Commercial and Industrial Classes (e.g., Met-Ed GS-Medium which was part of Commercial for DSP-IV appears to become GS-Medium (PTC) in Commercial and GS-Medium (HP) in Industrial for DSP-V). Can FEPA please describe in detail the new sub-classes created for DSP-V and how existing customers will be classified? Do the changes in Commercial and Industrial sub-classes represent a lowering of the demand threshold from 400 kW to 100 kW? Are there any additional thresholds or attributes that will be used to classify customers in the new sub-classes? Will customers be able to decide or influence their sub-class or will FEPA classify customers? How often will these sub-classes be reviewed and can customers migrate between the PTC and HP subclasses? Further, Can FEPA provide historical data including usage, counts, PLC, NSPL, etc., for the customers that are being reclassified?
Answer: Each question is shown again to facilitate the response:Q1: In the DSP-V docket (P-2015-2511333), FEPA represents that the threshold for hourly pricing will be lowered from 400 kW to 100 kW as of June 1, 2019. In the current redlined DSP-V Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), FEPA shows changes to the classes that will affect the Commercial and Industrial Classes (e.g., Met-Ed GS-Medium which was part of Commercial for DSP-IV appears to become GS-Medium (PTC) in Commercial and GS-Medium (HP) in Industrial for DSP-V). Can FEPA please describe in detail the new sub-classes created for DSP-V and how existing customers will be classified?A1: Effective June 1, 2019, a review of the measured demand for the period April 1 of the preceding year to March 31 of the current year will be conducted. Based on that review, if the measured demand in any twelve months is greater than 100 kW, then any GS Medium (Met-Ed, Penelec), GM (Penn Power), and Schedule 20 (West Penn Power) customer that meets that criterion will be migrated to Rider I, Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider for the period June 1 of the current year to May 31 of the following year. Each year, this review will be done at the same time. In addition, at Penn Power, all GS-Large customers will be migrated to Rider I, Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider.Q2: Do the changes in Commercial and Industrial sub-classes represent a lowering of the demand threshold from 400 kW to 100 kW?A2: Yes, for purposes of determining placement of the customer to Rider H, Price to Compare (PTC) Default Service Rate Rider, or Rider I, Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider.Q3: Are there any additional thresholds or attributes that will be used to classify customers in the new sub-classes? A3: No.Q4: Will customers be able to decide or influence their sub-class or will FEPA classify customers? A4: No, GS-Large customers at Penn Power will be migrated to Rider I, Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider.Q5: How often will these sub-classes be reviewed and can customers migrate between the PTC and HP subclasses? A5: The sub-classes will be reviewed each year on April 1 and will be effective June 1.Q6: Further, can FEPA provide historical data including usage, counts, PLC, NSPL, etc., for the customers that are being reclassified? A6: Once the review is complete each year, the Companies will provide the customer data that will be the basis for any migration from Rider H to Rider I and vice versa. Since the review is based on measured demand for the 12-month period, that data will be provided.
SMA 00036 Published On: 10/29/2018
Question: In DSP-IV, there is a rate class for Met-Ed and Penelec called RT. There does not appear to be a rate class RT in DSP-V. Where did rate class RT go?
Answer: All of the customers in the RT rate schedule were moved to the standard residential rate schedule RS as part of the 2014 distribution rate case. While the Appendix C in the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), "DC Supply Specifications," still had these rate schedules in the DSP-IV SMA, all of the customers on these rate schedules were now taking service under rate schedule RS. In DSP-V, this oversight in the SMA was corrected.
SMA 00037 (revised 04/26/2019) Published On: 10/29/2018
Question: Can you please provide us some perspective from a load and tag (Capacity and NSPL) point of view the impact of rate classes moving from the Commercial class to Industrial class for the DSP-V periods? Can you please provide us with some color on why some classes seem to disappear from Commercial under DSP-V, but were there under DSP-IV, for example rate class OH w/Cooling in Penn Power? Can you please provide us with some color on new class created in DSP-V like rate class 72 in West Penn Power?
Answer: Due to multiple inquires above, questions are repeated. Q1: Can you please provide us some perspective from a load and tag (Capacity and NSPL) point of view the impact of rate classes moving from the Commercial class to Industrial class for the DSP-V periods? A1: Based on Current Delivery Year ICAP Values
Number of Non-Shopping Commercial Accounts on GSM and GP30 rate tariffs metered over 100 kW
Met-Ed
Penelec
West Penn
Penn Power
Total
# of Accounts from 02/2016 - 01/2018
983
1,149
1,539
274
3,945
Shopping Accounts as of 01/2018
912
1,059
1,357
245
3,573
Non-Shopping Accounts as of 01/2018
71
90
182
29
372
Total # of Accounts as of 01/2018
Percentage of Commercial Load served by Non-Shopping Accounts on the GSM and GP30 rate tariffs with billing demands > 100kW for 12 Consecutive Months
Sep-17
6.2%
6.8%
11.6%
Oct-17
6.5%
9.4%
13.1%
Nov-17
6.6%
9.1%
13.7%
Dec-17
6.0%
8.5%
12.9%
Jan-18
5.2%
7.9%
12.2%
Feb-18
5.9%
13.0%
Mar-18
5.3%
8.2%
12.5%
Apr-18
6.4%
May-18
8.9%
14.9%
Jun-18
6.1%
9.0%
12.8%
Jul-18
5.4%
11.9%
Aug-18
11.8%
Percentage of PLS ICAP kW Aggregates of Non-Shopping Commercial Accounts on GSM and GP30 rate tariffs metered over 100 kW
PLC*
5.1%
9.2%
NSPL*
8.0%
10.0%
Please note for the Penn Power load, we’re posting hourly values on the supplier portal for these non-shopping Commercial customers since AMI data are available. Q2: Can you please provide us with some color on why some classes seem to disappear from Commercial under DSP-V, but were there under DSP-IV, for example rate class OH w/Cooling in Penn Power? A2: As a result of the 2014 and 2016 rate cases, the PA EDCs went through a process of eliminating certain rate schedules, and moving those customers to other rate schedules. For instance, Penn Power rate schedule OH w/cooling was eliminated and merged into either GM or GS Large rate schedule. Q3: Can you please provide us with some color on new classes created in DSP-V like rate class 72 in West Penn Power? A3: Rate Schedule 72 at West Penn Power is an LED street lighting schedule that was added in the 2014 rate case.
SMA 00038 Published On: 10/29/2018
Question: Are the Companies or are the Suppliers responsible for PJM billing line item 1999, PJM Customer Payment Default, as it is not specified in Appendix D of the SMA?
Answer: Suppliers are responsible for the PJM Billing Line Item 1999 (PJM Customer Payment Default). The Bidding Rules section 2.2 (Full Requirements Service) defines the Suppliers obligations and exclusions. In the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA) for DSP-V, a footnote was added to the end of the Appendix D in the SMA to clarify the issue of new Billing Line Items to the SMA. "**Any PJM fees or charges not specifically identified as being the responsibility of the EDC shall be the responsibility of the EGS…."In section 2.6 (PJM Member Default Cost Allocation) of the SMAs for DSP-IV and DSP-V also addresses the issue of a supplier default in PJM.
SMA 00039 Published On: 10/29/2018
Question: For Penn Power Residential, what happened to the eliminated rate classes between DSP-IV and DSP-V? I am referring to RS Optional Controlled Service Rider, RH, RH Water Heating Option, and WH.
Answer: All of the customers in the affected rate schedules identified in the question were moved to the standard residential rate schedule RS as part of the 2014 distribution rate case. While the Appendix C in the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), "DC Supply Specifications," still had these rate schedules in the DSP-IV SMA, all of the customers on these rate schedules were now taking service under rate schedule RS. In DSP-V, this oversight in the SMA was corrected.
SMA 00041 Published On: 04/24/2019
Question: For the AEPS obligation, can you confirm that the MWh that the percentages are applied to are based on the same load that the DS Supplier is serving and receiving payments?
Answer: Per Appendix E of the FEPA Companies' Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), AEPS obligation percentages are applied to total MWh supplied by the Default Service Supplier based on PJM Settlement amounts.
SMA 00042 Published On: 04/30/2019
Question: Did the FE Companies nominate PY 2019/2020 ARRs for the contracts starting on June 1, 2019, or was it the Default Supplier as of March 4, 2019, when the 2019/2020 ARR - Stage 1A window opened? If it was the FE Companies, could you provide the paths that were awarded?
Answer: See FAQs PJM 00024 and SMA 00028. The Default Service Suppliers independently participate in the PJM ARR/FTR auctions and are awarded ARRs and FTRs from the PJM auctions into their individual PJM accounts. The FEPA Utilities do not have access to the awarded ARR paths or nominated FTR paths for any Default Service (DS) Supplier. There may be times when not all the load is assigned to DS Suppliers in time to participate in the PJM Annual Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) Allocation process. In this case, the FE Companies will be responsible for this load and will obtain the ARRs. Once DS suppliers are secured for the unassigned load, the ARRs obtained are allocated to the DS Suppliers by PJM pursuant to the PJM Agreements.
SMA 00043 Published On: 05/02/2019
Question: Can you please replace references to "BGS Supplier" with "DS Supplier" in Sections 1 and 4 of "APPENDIX G - GUARANTY" in the SMA, or confirm that winning bidders can make the change in the Guaranty they would issue?
Answer: Going forward, "BGS Supplier" will be replaced with "DS Supplier" in Appendix G - Guaranty in all Supplier Master Agreements (SMAs) sent to winning bidders.
SMA 00044 (revised 10/24/2019) Published On: 10/17/2019
Question: Can we please reach out to the Utilities and ask for an update for FAQ SMA 00037 to include Sep-18 through May-19 data?
Answer: Accounts Metered Over 100 kW 12 Consecutive Months
# of Accounts as of 06/2019
998
1,270
1,677
318
4,263
Shopping Accounts as of 06/2019
878
1,077
1,355
276
3,586
Non-Shopping Accounts as of 06/2019
120
193
322
42
677
Total # of Accounts as of 06/2019
Percentage of Commercial Load served by Non-Shopping Accounts on the GSM and GP30 rate tariffs with billing demands > 100kW for 12 Consecutive
Sep-18
11.7%
9.5%
22.6%
Oct-18
9.6%
22.8%
Nov-18
21.2%
Dec-18
10.8%
8.4%
19.6%
Jan-19
10.6%
8.3%
19.4%
Feb-19
20.0%
Mar-19
11.2%
21.1%
Apr-19
12.0%
23.0%
May-19
12.3%
10.1%
23.5%
SMA 00045 Published On: 11/04/2019
Question: In the event we have an existing Default Service Supplier Master Agreement in place with a utility, will we need to issue a new legal opinion post auction: (1) if we are amending an existing guaranty to increase the amount? (2) if we issue a new guaranty to replace an existing guaranty?
Answer: The legal opinion needs to be executed and submitted twice by the supplier: (1) with the Part 1 Application, and (2) at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement should the supplier become a Default Service Supplier. Another legal opinion is not required post-execution of the Supplier Master Agreement.
SMA 00046 (revised 10/19/2020) Published On: 09/04/2020
Question: Can you please confirm the Default Service (DS) supplier requirement for PJM years 2022/2023 is as listed in the previous Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), Appendix E, and any incremental AEPS compliance requirement from table "Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Obligations for the period beginning June 1, 2019 based on the total MWh supplied by DS Supplier" is not within the DS supplier obligation?
Answer: For any contracts entered into before a change in AEPS requirements, the EDCs will be responsible for the incremental portion above what is in the SMA. For any contracts entered into after a change in AEPS requirements, the supplier will have the responsibility.
SMA 00047 Published On: 10/13/2020
Question: The Supplier Master Agreement states that "...All rights, liabilities and obligations associated with such ARRs will accrue and be assumed by the DS Supplier through the transfer or assignment from the Company to the DS Supplier including the responsibility and ability of the DS Supplier to request or nominate such ARRs when applicable and feasible." So, in the PJM annual ARR allocation and FTR auction, will a DS Supplier have the right to (1) request ARRs for specific paths against its share of load and (2) use the ARRs transferred to it by FirstEnergy to acquire FTRs on specific paths?
Answer: Please see FAQ SMA 00042.
SMA 00048 (revised 10/19/2020) Published On: 10/16/2020
Question: PA AEPS currents hold flat for 2021-06-01 and beyond. There's been a Senate Bill introduced to increase AEPS requirements from current levels. If such bill becomes law, will Default Service suppliers be required to meet such requirements?
Answer: Appendix E of the SMA addresses changes in the Alternative Energy Portfolio requirements. If the change occurs after an SMA is executed, the Companies will be responsible for the incremental change. If the change occurs before an SMA is executed, the Suppliers will be responsible for the new Alternative Energy Portfolio requirements.
SMA 00049 Published On: 10/19/2020
Question: This question addresses a statement in Appendix E in the SMA. You write, "The above amounts are estimates and will vary based on actual load served. DS Supplier will need to true-up, higher or lower, actual credits needed based on Monthly Settlement Amount," with above amounts referring to the compliance %'s. What exactly do you mean by the "above amounts are estimated"? That the percentages are estimates? Then you say, "will vary based on actual load served" -- what does this mean? Do you mean that the percentages are not in fact fixed to, e.g., for Tier I, 8% of total settled load, and the actual %'s themselves can change based on a supplier's total monthly settled load?
Answer: The percentages will be fixed based on the requirements in the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) Act. The percentage may change over time to reflect changes in law or other applicable regulatory requirements. The number of Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) needed to satisfy the AEPS requirements will vary based on actual load served.
SMA 00050 Published On: 11/12/2020
Question: Are all winning suppliers required to execute the APPENDIX H - SUPPLEMENT?
Answer: Only suppliers that win tranches for a product where a Capacity Proxy Price is used will be required to sign APPENDIX H - SUPPLEMENT in the Supplier Master Agreement.
SMA 00051 Published On: 03/07/2022
Question: Appendix B of the Supplier Master Agreement details the MTM Exposure Amount Calculation methodology but does not specify if intra-month valuation is used. For example, suppose I have sold one tranche of Penelec residential load in an auction for the 12 months beginning June 1, 2022. If FirstEnergy/Penelec calculates my MTM exposure on June 15, 2022, will it be for only 11 months (i.e., 7/1/22 - 5/31/23), or will it also include a non-zero MWh amount, proportional to the amount of days remaining in June 2022, for on-peak and off-peak load remaining in June 2022?
Answer: The intra-month calculation includes a month-to-date notional value that is a payable offset owed to the supplier and a balance-of-month MTM value. Since a mark for the current month is not provided, FirstEnergy does not revise the balance-of-month MTM and continues to use the last mark from the last business day of the preceding month. In the example above, on June 15, 2022 there will be a notional payable value of the price times the settled volumes through June 15, 2022, and there will a balance-of-month MTM exposure value based on the May 31, 2022 mark times the remaining volumes for June 16, 2022 thru June 30, 2022.
SMA 00052 Published On: 04/18/2022
Question: Can you please confirm: is the Default Supplier responsible for Tier 1 solar? In your info session presentation on slide 10, you mention that the utility will be providing the solar obligation themselves. However, in the Master agreement it lists 0.5% obligation.
Answer: For the April 2022 auction: In Met-Ed/Penelec/Penn Power: The Default Service Suppliers are responsible for Tier I - Non-Solar and Tier II. The Companies are responsible for the Tier I - Solar. In West Penn Power: The Default Service Suppliers are responsible for Tier I - Solar, Tier I - Non-Solar, and Tier II. The Companies do not have any AECs to allocate to Default Service Suppliers.
SMA 00053 Published On: 01/25/2023
Question: Slide 13 of the Bidder Information Session PPT mentions that the utilities will be providing the solar obligation. However, the percentage listed for the 1st year of the DSP-VI for Met-Ed is 0.00035 SPAECs/MWh which is less than the 0.5% obligation listed in the SMA. Are suppliers responsible for the difference? For the 2nd year, the EDCs will be providing 32% of the SPAECs needed for the Residential Default Service Suppliers' solar requirement - so if the total MWh served was 100,000, are the suppliers responsible for 100,000*0.005*0.32?
Answer: In the first year of DSP-VI (June 1, 2023 to May 31, 2024), Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power will allocate out the last of the SPAECs from our long-term contracts that end May 31, 2024. The SPAECs we receive from the long-term contracts will not be enough to cover the entire solar RPS requirement. The suppliers will be responsible for any of the SPAECs not provided by the long-term contracts. West Penn Power suppliers continue to be responsible for all SPAEC requirements. Beginning in the second year of DSP-VI, Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power will be providing 32% of the SPAECs needed for the Residential Default Service suppliers. The Residential Default Service suppliers will be responsible for the remaining 68%. All other suppliers are responsible for 100% of the SPAECs.
SMA 00054 Published On: 01/25/2023
Question: Can you provide an example of how the Capacity Proxy Price true-up amounts will be reflected in the monthly statement of amounts due to the DS Supplier, once the BRA Planning Year 24/25 capacity prices are known? For example, If the BRA results for Planning 24/25 are released and known prior to the start of the contract term (June 1, 2023) and the final PY 24/25 price is below the Capacity Proxy Price for a utility, can you provide an example of what true-up amount (if any) a DS supplier would expect to see on the monthly statement for June 2023 supply?
Answer: The Capacity Proxy Price (CPP) true-up amounts will be reflected on each supplier's monthly statement as a separate line item. Each supplier will also receive a supporting document with details associated with the calculation of the true-up. Once the BRA is known, CPP true-up will commence for the 24-month product (6/23 - 5/25) in that month, with a 1-month lag. For example, if the 24/25 BRA is official in August 2023, the August statement will reflect the true-up for June and July. An expected amount by supplier cannot be provided because it depends on the supplier's daily UCAP obligation and the price variance between the CPP and BRA.
SMA 00055 Published On: 02/02/2023
Question: FAQ GEN 00116 states the following: "Appendix E – Default Service Suppliers Obligation for AEPS Compliance: - Clarified to specify that the Companies are responsible for changes in law to the AEPS requirements" For DSP-VI, who is responsible for any changes in the law to the AEPS requirements?
Answer: The language in GEN 00116 is referring to DSP V. In DSP VI, the DS Suppliers shall be responsible for any incremental AEPS compliance requirement in order to comply with DS Supplier’s obligations under DS Supply.
SMA 00056 Published On: 04/18/2023
Question: For the June 2023-May 2024 delivery period, the winning suppliers in Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power will be allocated SPAECs per MWh as follows: Met-Ed - 0.00035, Penelec- 0.00050, Penn Power - 0.00045. If, for example, Met-Ed's 12-month RES load settles at 180,000/MWh for the full term, will the supplier serving that load be allocated 63 solar RECs. Is this correct?
Answer: Yes, this is correct.