Commission takes under advisement buy‑back/reconciliation proposals after extended debate over POR, SCB and SB 937

The Public Service Commission at its May 28 administrative meeting reviewed annual POR (purchase‑of‑receivables) filings and proposed reconciliation procedures from Potomac Edison, Baltimore Gas & Electric (electric and gas), and Delmarva Power, and heard extended arguments about supplier consolidated billing (SCB), proposed reconciliation mechanics, and the statutory effect of recently passed legislation (referred to in the record as SB 937) that takes effect June 1.

Staff presented POR updates for Potomac Edison, BGE (electric and gas) and Potomac Edison’s request to set residential POR discount rates for the remainder of 2025 and to track POR revenues and expenses through 2026 for final reconciliation filings in 2027. Staff recommended that the commission accept the proposed POR rates and the recommended reconciliation reporting process, and proposed specific tariff language that would (1) note that the residential POR rate ends on Dec. 31, 2025 and (2) describe the final reconciliation process and how any commission‑approved over‑ or under‑recovery would be allocated to suppliers by relative share of 2025 residential POR purchase receivables.

Retail suppliers’ trade representatives and the Retail Energy Supply Association said they do not oppose the rates themselves but asked for clarity and more granularity in how final reconciliations would be calculated and allocated in 2027. Retail suppliers expressed concern about BGE’s ability to track uncollectible costs by individual supplier and said Potomac Edison’s supplier‑level tracking made Potomac Edison’s reconciliation approach easier to review. BGE stated on the record that its POR structure historically socializes uncollectible costs rather than tracking them by supplier and that developing supplier‑level tracking would require process changes and costs.

The Office of People’s Counsel supported staff’s recommendations in the short term but urged the commission to consider whether, if Potomac Edison reports an over‑collection as of Dec. 31, 2026, those funds could be used to offset utilities’ supplier consolidated billing (SCB) implementation costs that ratepayers were asked to front under a prior commission order. Retail suppliers objected to using any POR over‑collection to fund SCB implementation because not all suppliers intend to use SCB and cost causation concerns could arise.

A separate but related, longer debate concerned annual information filings (AIFs) and whether the Next Generation Energy Act (cited in the record as SB 937) prevents parties or the commission from seeking reconciliations after a stated deadline. Staff argued that the statute plainly prohibits reconciliations filed after a deadline and that the statute supersedes the commission's prior orders; staff recommended the commission follow the statute’s plain text. OPC and other parties urged a narrower reading: they said an AIF is an informational comparison distinct from a reconciliation filing and that the commission’s existing order on multiyear plans (order 89482) contemplates an information filing followed, only where warranted, by consolidated and final reconciliations. OPC asked for the opportunity to submit more detailed comments if the commission did not defer consideration; several commissioners said they wanted to take the matter under advisement and hear from colleagues not present at the meeting.

Delmarva Power’s year‑2 annual information filing also was discussed separately. Staff recommended Delmarva credit ratepayers $757,000 (plus carrying costs) as described in staff’s written review and asked the commission to approve the credit and associated tariff no later than May 30. Delmarva confirmed it will provide a refund if the Internal Revenue Service rules that prior tax normalization treatment was not required; the parties agreed the IRS ruling is an external matter the commission should not pre‑decide. OPC pressed for the opportunity to brief whether the company acted prematurely in implementing changes before a final IRS determination; Delmarva said it filed the AIF/tariff now because it viewed the AIF as the next available opportunity and said it will follow IRS guidance when received.

After extended questioning and argument on both the POR mechanics and statutory interpretation, the commission said it would take the matters under advisement to obtain input from commissioners not present and to allow further filings and deliberation.

Ending Staff’s proposed tariff language and the mechanics for final reconciliations remain under advisement. Parties on multiple sides were invited to submit additional comments; the commission signaled it will issue further guidance or a follow‑up order after receiving input from the absent commissioners and any additional filings.