PSC takes Pepco/Delmarva DRIVE Act time‑of‑use plans under advisement after questioning on marketing, EM&V and admin FTE

The Public Service Commission took under advisement revised time‑of‑use (TOU) implementation plans filed by Pepco and Delmarva Power after extended testimony from staff, the Office of People's Counsel and PHI company representatives about marketing budgets, EM&V (evaluation, measurement and verification) reporting requirements and the need for a proposed utility administration full‑time employee.

Staff presentation: PSC staff (David Hopock) told commissioners that PHI companies submitted revised DRIVE Act TOU implementation plans and that staff recommended reductions to the utilities' proposed marketing agency budgets. Staff said it reduced the combined marketing agency cost in its recommended budget by about half from a PHI‑cited total (roughly $405,000 across PHI) and proposed requiring PHI to detail work performed by a new full‑time employee and an EM&V consultant in a future base rate case. Staff also recommended that DRIVE Act TOU costs be accounted for as a regulatory asset, with decisions about including that asset in rate base, earning a return, and amortization deferred to a future base rate proceeding.

OPC concerns: Isaac Lindenbaum representing the Office of People's Counsel said PHI's responses to discovery lacked clarity about what the July DRIVE Act report will include, noting PHI told OPC it would not compare TOU to demand response or necessarily include a benefit‑cost analysis (BCA). Lindenbaum recommended reducing PHI's marketing agency budget to about $200,000, directing PHI to assess demand‑side program cost‑effectiveness, authorizing regulatory asset treatment for implementation costs with recovery deferred to base rate cases, and requiring marketing materials to disclose that customers fund TOU implementation costs.

PHI response and program rationale: PHI counsel Matthew Seager argued the DRIVE Act's purpose is customer education and enrollment to reduce peak load and system costs. Seager and PHI subject‑matter experts said the company proposed aggressive enrollment targets (11,000 Pepco; 3,000 Delmarva) and that prior pilot results suggested intensive outreach yields better results. Kasia Dana, PHI senior manager on rates, described multiple administrative tasks—billing coordination, enrollment, customer service support, and detailed EM&V reporting—that PHI said justified a dedicated utility admin FTE and agency support for marketing and outreach.

Key figures and deadlines: Staff cited a prior PHI marketing total near $405,000 and said it recommended reductions to roughly 50% of that figure. PHI proposed Pepco marketing of $550,000; staff recommended $398,750. Delmarva proposed $400,000; staff recommended $348,750. Staff and OPC pointed to the DRIVE Act/PUA reporting requirement that investor‑owned utilities file a report by July 1, 2026, evaluating potential distribution capital deferrals through TOU, demand response, demand‑side programs and on‑site renewables; staff also mentioned further reporting due Oct. 1, 2027, for EM&V items.

Areas of disagreement and next steps: Commissioners repeatedly pressed both staff and PHI for evidence that PHI's in‑house resources could not carry out required tasks without hiring new staff or agencies and asked whether a BCA should be included in future evaluations. PHI acknowledged differences with OPC on whether discontinued programs (for example, certain peak time rebate or dynamic pricing programs) must be evaluated in the July report. Staff said it will raise the need for common EM&V metrics in today's Energy Analysis Group working group meeting and that stakeholder feedback will inform the commission's expectations. Chair Barve stated the commission would "take this matter under advisement" for further consideration.

What to watch: The July 1, 2026 DRIVE Act report deadline and work‑group outcomes on EM&V metrics are the near‑term milestones; commissioners indicated they expect clearer metrics, potential BCA work and explicit plans for how implementation costs would be tracked and ultimately recovered.