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)?
Answer: Yes, that is correct.
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.