Home Background Supplier Information Data Room Calendar Contact Us Online Proposal Website

Click here for the Online Proposal Website

Contact Us

FAQ Archives - Fall 2009 Solicitation

The FAQs on this page are no longer relevant, as they are from past solicitations.  These FAQs are posted here only for reference purposes.  Do not rely on the information provided on this page for the current solicitation.

• FAQ-148:
  Is there a size limit where customers must have a hourly interval meter if they shop?
   
  
  All Large Commercial & Industrial customers must have an hourly interval meter; these are customers with 500kW or more of annual peak demand.  PECO does not require customers in the Residential, Small Commercial or Medium Commercial classes to have hourly interval meters. 
   
  
  01/27/2010 in Rules , Data
  
  
• FAQ-147:
  I have a question about PECO tariffs and/or data posted by PECO to its web site. Who should I address it to?
   
  
  This web site (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP.   Please send your question to egc@peco-energy.com, or you may call the PECO supplier hotline at 215-841-3700. 
   
  
  01/27/2010 in General , Data
  
  
• FAQ-146:
  What are the line losses (a.k.a. distribution losses) for residential customers?
   
  
  The following transmission and distribution line loss percentages will be utilized, effective 1/1/2010. These percentages shall be reduced to the extent that PJM and/or the Company separately charge for line losses, such as for a portion or all of transmission line losses under a FERC jurisdictional tariff.

   

  Rate Class	Loss Factor
  R	10.31%
  RH	10.31%
  GS	10.31%
  PD	8.41%
  HT	3.97%
  EP	3.97%
  SLE	10.31%
  SLS	10.31%
  SLP	10.31%
  OP	10.31%
  POL	10.31%

   
  
  01/27/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  

• FAQ-145:
  Paragraph I.1.8 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules states that Large Commercial and Industrial customers will be required to express their interest in receiving Default Service on a fixed-price basis in advance of the Spring 2010 solicitation.  What is the deadline by which LC&I customers must express such interest? Once the solicitation is held and the price for this service is known, how long will LC&I customers who expressed interest have to decide whether or not to elect the fixed-price option?
  
  Customers in the Large Commercial & Industrial Group who wish to receive PECO’s fixed-price Default Service will be required to express their interest in electing this option by March 1, 2010.  They can submit interest by sending an email to PecoFixedPrice@PECO-energy.com or contacting their Account Manager (the number on their bill).  Information regarding the composition of the customers who have indicated interest, including the combined PLC and the resulting number of available tranches, will be presented at the Bidder Information Session on April 2, 2010.  If the PUC approves the results of the Spring 2010 Solicitation, customers who have indicated interest will then be given a 30-day window in which to elect the fixed-price option.  We are anticipating receiving the approved PUC fixed price by May 26, 2010, the date on which the PUC is expected to make its decision on the results of the Spring 2010 Solicitation.  Customers will have until June 25, 2010 to notify PECO that they want the fixed-price option. 
  
  12/24/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-144:
  

  Are switching fees charged to customers who choose a Third Party Supplier?

   
  
  

  PECO does not charge switching fees to customers for choosing other retail suppliers or choosing default service. PECO does not monitor whether any switching fees are charged by Third Party Suppliers.

  
  
  12/02/2009 in Contract , General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-143:
  The Residential Rate Design Description contains the statement: "However, PECO will also phase out the energy price differentials reflected in Rate Schedules RH (Residential Space Heating)".  What does this mean?
   
  
  Prices for R and RH eventually will be the same on a cents per kWh basis for default generation service by January 1, 2013.
   
  
  11/11/2009 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-142:
  What method does PECO apply when profiling a customer that has a monthly (non interval) meter and is on a time-of-use rate?
   
  
  PECO profiles the customer by applying the appropriate standard load profile to the customer's total kWh usage.
  
  11/11/2009 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-141:
  Where can I find information about submitting bids for PECO service contracts?
   
  
  This web site (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP.

  Inquiries regarding PECO RFPs for all other services must be sent to PECO directly via www.peco.com.
   
  
  10/28/2009 in General
  
  

• FAQ-140:
  Do the results for the Fall 2009 Solicitation posted on October 21, 2009 include or exclude Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax and line losses?
   
  
  The average winning bid prices reported in the Fall 2009 solicitation results announcement do not include losses or the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.
   
  
  10/28/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-139:
  Where can I find information about selling Solar AECs to PECO?
   
  
  This web site (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP. Information about PECO's RFP for Solar Alternative Energy Credits can be found here. Please submit your question to AEPS_RFP@peco-energy.com. The Bidder Inquiries Deadline is 5:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, November 6, 2009.
   
  
  10/28/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-138:
  In the Fall 2009 Solicitation Rate Impacts Results Announcement, how is the Residential rate impact figure calculated?. 
   
  
  PECO used the Retail Generation rate conversion model posted on the procurement website here. The 17-month result is inputted into the nominal one year product and the 29 month result into the nominal two year product. All of the assumptions and calculations are explained in the rate conversion model.
   
  
  10/28/2009 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-137:
  Is there a calendar showing key dates for future PECO solicitations?
  
  The schedule of subsequent solicitations can be found on the RFP website here.
  
  10/09/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-136:
  We are an RFP Bidder that has approved Bids from Solicitation #1 and a fully executed Default Service Program SMA for that RFP. However, on page 26 of the contract in Section 12.3(c) we inadvertently did not check the box for subsection 12.3(c) to be deemed as included in the Agreement. What is the proper process for amending the SMA to include subsection 12.3(c)?
  
  For inquiries regarding changes to Supply Master Agreements that have already been executed, please contact PECO directly by calling Busola Awoniyi at 215-841-6615.
  
  09/30/2009 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-135:
  Once service has started, what information on the load will PECO provide to suppliers? Will PECO provide this same information to winning suppliers prior to the start of the contract term?
   
  
  See Article 3 of the Full Requirements Supply Master Agreement (the "SMA") for the full description of scheduling, forecasting and information sharing under the SMA.  As stated in Article 3, on each Business Day of the Delivery Period under the SMA, PECO will provide to the Seller on a reasonable efforts basis the Energy and Capacity information related to Seller's obligations under the SMA that PECO provides to PJM daily at the time PECO provides this information per PJM scheduling deadlines.  This information will include PECO's estimation of the PLC which PJM requires PECO to provide 36 hours ahead of any given day and will be available in eRPM at the beginning of the contract.  Although PECO will not provide PLC information directly to winning suppliers prior to the start of the contract, PECO will continue to provide updated PLC information on a monthly basis in the Data Room on the RFP Web site.
  
  09/23/2009 in Contract , Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-134:
  It appears that for the Small Commercial customers the PLCs are rising but the load is falling or staying flat. Is there a reason for this?
  
  It is the responsibility of each bidder to analyze historical data and reach its own conclusions regarding observable patterns.  The hourly load and PLC data provided for the Small Commercial class have been reviewed and are accurate.  While PECO does not offer any speculation as to the reasons behind the pattern you observe, note that customer PLCs are based on each customer’s contribution to the PECO Energy Zone five coincident peak ("5CP") hours from the previous summer, as identified by PJM; these PLCs are only updated every year on June 1, while load varies hourly.
   
  
  09/23/2009 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-133:
  How are the volumes on which PECO suppliers are paid determined?  Do the volumes include distribution losses, transmission losses, marginal losses, and Unaccounted For Energy?.
  
  A winning bidder will be paid based on energy volumes as settled by PJM. This zonal energy settlement volume will be the loss-loaded volume (i.e., including all applicable transmission and distribution losses), derated by PJM for marginal losses.  A winning bidder must supply Default Service, which, as stated in the Supplier Master Agreement, is “…the total sales at the retail meter, plus any losses and Unaccounted For Energy, as reflected in PJM settlement volumes...”
   
  All hourly load data provided in the Data Room include both applicable distribution and transmission system losses.  PECO is also supplying hourly marginal loss de-ration factors in that Data Room so that you may make the deration adjustment to the hourly load data including losses.
   
  
  09/23/2009 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-132:
  Please explain the following behavior of the historical Small Commercial - HT total energy load data: The average consumption from Jan06 – Dec06 is 16.7 MW. The peak consumption from Jan06 – Dec06 is 22.8 MW. The average consumption from Jan07 – Dec07 is 15 MW. The peak consumption from Jan07 – Dec07 is 19.4 MW. The average consumption from Jan08 – Dec08 is 8.3 MW. The peak consumption from Jan08 – Dec08 is 16.4 MW. The average consumption from Jan08 – May09 is 3.6 MW. The peak consumption from Jan08 – May09 is 5.8 MW. What are the reasons for the changes in consumption from one year to the next? Is this trend of customers’ demand changing annually expected to continue in the future?
   
  
  Within the historical data files, customers are assigned to Classes on January 1 of each year, effective for the rest of that calendar year. The customers assigned in a given year may have a different load factor and profile than those assigned in the next year. Please note that beginning in June 2011, Class changes will occur on June 1 each year.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-131:
  Please explain the following behavior of the Small Commercial – SLE historical load data: At the end of September 2006 the historical load increases from a peak of approximately 15 MW to approximately 37 MW. The load data persists at this higher regime through December 2006 then drops back down to a peak of approximately 18 MW. What is the cause of the onetime dramatic increase in the SLE class?
   
  
  PECO changed its billing system in October 2006. PECO suspects that there may be anomalies in the data because of issues with the billing system shortly after it was put in place.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-130:
  Please explain the following behavior of the Small Commercial – TL historical load data: Beginning in December 2008, the historical load suddenly drops from a peak of approximately 4.6 MW to a peak of approximately 2.2 MW. Then beginning in January 2009 the historical load suddenly increases from a peak of approximately 2.2 MW to a peak of approximately 4.6 MW. What is the cause of the onetime dramatic decrease in the SLE class? Is behavior like this expected to occur in the future?
   
  
  There was an unbilled TL account at the time of reconciliation (when data was locked in) for December 2008. This is not expected to occur in the future.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-129:
  On Slide 28 of the Bidder Information Session Presentation, the table lists the amount of previously procured Alternative Energy Credits that will be allocated to the 17-month residential class tranches. These credits will effectively reduce the amount of AECs that the winning suppliers will need to provide. For AEPS reporting year 5, the second column of the table lists the “Time Period” as 6/1/10 – 5/31/11. However, this time period is not aligned with the time period of the procurement which runs from 1/1/11 – 5/31/12. Will the AEC obligation of the winning bidders for the term 1/1/11 – 5/31/11 be reduced by the full 1,280 credits as listed in the table or will the different time frames result in a proportional reduction of the 1,280 credits?
   
  
  The Tier I (non-solar) AEC obligation of a Seller of a Full Requirements Residential Class Tranche (whether 17-month or 29-month) will be reduced by 1,280 AECs for the period 1/1/11-5/31/11. “Time Period” refers to the time period of the listed AEPS Reporting Year; the 1,280 AECs allocated to the portion of the supply period spanning 1/1/11-5/31/11 already reflect a pro-rated portion of the AECs that would be available for an entire AEPS Reporting Year.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-128:
  In the RFP Rules, it states "The Independent Evaluator will notify each RFP Bidder whether each of its Bids is or is not being presented to the PUC as a winning Bid by 6:00 PM on the Bid Date." Additionally it states in I.3.11. that “the PUC will have one (1) business day to consider the report of the Independent Evaluator and to approve or reject each of the winning Bids. If the PUC does not act within one (1) business day, the winning Bids are deemed to be approved." However, in the Part 2 Application, it says "I certify that any Bid on any product submitted in response to this RFP for this solicitation is binding until six (6) business days after the Bid Date and constitutes a binding and irrevocable offer to provide service under the terms of the Default Service SMA at the price specified in the Bid." Could you please explain the rationale for the two different timeframes? We are most interested in a scenario where suppliers could submit a price on Monday, 9/21 (bid day) that would be non-selected on bid day, but then later that same price could be selected up until Tuesday, 9/29. This would imply that the supplier could potentially bear the risk of a six day market move. Would you please specifically state the last date and time upon which a supplier’s bid would be INITIALLY notified of firm, non-reversible selection as a winning bid?
   
  
  The Independent Evaluator notifies each RFP Bidder of whether of its Bids are or are not being presented to the PUC as winning Bids by 6:00 PM on the Bid Date (9/21 for this Fall 2009 solicitation). Further, if the PUC accepts the results of the solicitation, the Independent Evaluator will notify the RFP Bidder on the day of the PUC decision, expected to occur two business days after the Bid Date (9/23 for this fall solicitation). This date would be the last date and time upon which an RFP Bidder would be notified of a firm, non-reversible selection as a winning Bidder.

  While the decision of the PUC is final and expected to be released for this Fall 2009 Solicitation on September 23, 2009, RFP Bidders must certify that their Bids are binding for a timeframe beyond the PUC decision in order to ensure that such RFP Bidders execute all required Supply Master Agreements and Transaction Confirmations. Please consult section VII.3 of the RFP Rules for the full timeline of the full execution of the Supply Master Agreements and Transaction Confirmations.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in General , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-127:
  It appears that not all of the FAQs are available on the website. FAQ #86 posted on 07/13/2009 is the oldest one that can be accessed by using the "Next" links on the “View All FAQs” page. Also, clicking on the "FAQ Archives" link results in an error message. Can you assure bidders that there is no relevant information in older FAQ questions and answers?
   
  
  We apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced while using the RFP Web site. However, we are unable to reproduce the error you describe; it appears to us that the FAQ Archives section is accessible. If you continue to experience errors, please call the Independent Evaluator Office directly at 215-568-0200 for technical assistance.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-126:
  Do qualified bidders who have submitted a Guaranty for either the Full Requirements or Block Energy RFP have the ability to change the Guaranty Amount at any time in the future as long as the amount stays within the guidelines stipulated in Section 3 of the Part 2 Form?
   
  
  As stated in Paragraph 9 of the Guaranty, any change requires written agreement from PECO. The requirement for the Guaranty Amount is specified in Paragraph V.3.2 of the RFP Rules; if an RFP Bidder wishes to amend the amount of an existing Guaranty with PECO, PECO would find such an amendment acceptable provided that the amended amount continues to meet the requirements of the RFP Rules. However, please note that there is no process to amend a Guaranty that has been submitted with the Part 2 Proposal in advance of the PUC decision on the results of the relevant solicitation; the process for submitting an amendment to a Guaranty is only for Guaranties that are in force pursuant to approved winning Bids. The process is as follows:

  1. The Guarantor must send the original amendment directly to PECO.

  2. The amendment must be signed by an authorized officer of the Guarantor. It is not required that this authorized officer be the signatory to the Guaranty, but it must be an authorized officer with the authority to bind the Guarantor.

  3. If the amendment is in a form acceptable to PECO, PECO will counter-sign the original amendment and fax a copy of the fully executed amendment to the Guarantor. The amendment will be effective as of the date it is signed by PECO
   
  
  09/16/2009 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-125:
  On our Part 2 Form, we need to correct some of contact information in Section 1. Should we fill in all the blanks in Section 1, or just the ones that need to be corrected?
   
  
  If you are correcting information in Section 1 of your Part 2 Form, you need only fill in the fields for which you are correcting information; other fields may be left blank.
   
  
  09/16/2009 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-124:
  Is the Block Energy RFP physical or financial?
  
  The Block Energy RFP is for physical delivery of Block Energy Supply. Please see the Block Energy Supply Master Agreement, located on the Web site, for the complete definition of Block Energy Supply; also, please see Article 15.3, which states that “...it is the intention at the inception and throughout the term of this Agreement and each Transaction hereunder that the Agreement will result in physical delivery and not financial settlement...”
   
  
  09/09/2009 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-123:
  When will the hourly load files in the rata room be updated?
  
  The monthly update to the PECO data room is scheduled to be completed on Monday, September 14th, 2009.
   
  
  09/09/2009 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-122:
  I proposed a modification to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and it was rejected.  Is there an appeal process?
  
  Decisions made by PECO during the evaluation of Pre-Bid Letters of Credit are final and not subject to review until the next solicitation.
  
  09/09/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-121:
  The bank that will be issuing our Pre-Bid Letter of Credit is in the Pacific time zone. Can we change the times for drawing in Paragraph 5?
  
  It is permissible to change the time zone references in the LOC to the time zone in which the issuing bank is located, but it is not permissible to change the times of day by which events such as notices and payments must occur. Please see the list of all acceptable modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit that has been posted to the Web site.
   
  
  09/09/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-120:
  My bank will be sending the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit separately from my Part 2 Proposal. Where should the LOC be sent?
   
  
  The Pre-Bid Letter of Credit must be sent to the Independent Evaluator Office at the address below. Do not send your LOC to PECO.

  NERA - Independent Evaluator
  PECO Default Service Program RFPs
  1835 Market Street, Suite 1205
  Philadelphia, PA 19103
  Phone: (215) 568-0200
  Fax: (215) 568-9358
   
  
  09/02/2009 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-119:
  Does the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit need to be included in the same envelope as the Part 2 Proposal, or can it be submitted directly to NERA during the Part 2 Proposal Window?
   
  
  Pre-Bid Letters of Credit may be sent directly to the Independent Evaluator from the bidder's financial institution, provided they arrive in the Independent Evaluator's office before the close of the Part 2 Window on September 15, 2009 at noon. Pre-Bid Letters of Credit should be sent to the same address as the Part 1 and Part 2 Forms:

  NERA - Independent Evaluator
  PECO Default Service Program RFPs
  1835 Market Street, Suite 1205
  Philadelphia, PA 19103
  Phone: (215) 568-0200
  Fax: (215) 568-9358
  
  09/02/2009 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-118:
  What is PECO’s account information to be used in completing Section 7 of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
   
  
  Please use the following information in Section 7 of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit:

  Account Name: PECO Energy Company
  Account Number: 5800392168
  Bank Name and Address: Bank of America, 100 West 33rd Street, NY, NY 10001
  ABA Routing Number: 026009593
  Contact: Busola Awoniyi
  Phone number: 215-841-6615
  
  09/01/2009 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-117:
  There is a requirement that the Officer of the RFP Bidder who makes the representations in the Part 1 Proposal must be the same Officer of the RFP Bidder that makes the representations in the Part 2 Proposal. What can we do if the Officer who makes the representations in our Part 1 Proposal is unavailable to make the representations in the Part 2 Proposal?
   
  
  The Officer who makes the representations in the Part 1 Proposal must also to be the one who makes the representations in the Part 2 Proposal, who signs the Default Service SMA, and who signs the Transaction Confirmation(s). This provision simplifies greatly the administration of the RFP and the contract execution process by ensuring, for example, that the individual who signs the Default Service SMA in the Part 2 Proposal is also the individual who has represented being empowered to enter into such contracts in the Part 1 Proposal. Please note that this requirement applies to a given solicitation and does not apply from one solicitation to the next (see section III.1.3 of the RFP Rules, available here, which states that “For a given solicitation, all representations and certifications required by this RFP must be made by a single individual... this individual must sign the Default Service SMA and must sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if any of the RFP Bidder’s Bids are approved by the Commission.”). The time between the submission of the Part 1 Proposal and the execution of the Default Service SMA is approximately three weeks; thus this is the period during which a given Officer would need to be available. This time period is sufficiently short that we would expect that RFP Bidders could plan ahead for a single individual to satisfy the requirements of the Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals.

  Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the Officer of the RFP Bidder who signs the Part 1 Proposal will not be available for the Part 2 Proposal because of illness or for any other reason. In that case, the RFP Bidder will notify the Independent Evaluator who will ask the RFP Bidder to resubmit the Part 1 Form signed by a second Officer of the RFP Bidder. This second Officer of the RFP Bidder can also submit the certifications for the Part 2 Proposal. By this simple procedure the RFP Bidder will then comply with the requirements that all representations and certifications required by this RFP for a given solicitation be made by a single individual.

  The Independent Evaluator has the ability, for future solicitations, to make changes to the RFP documents to improve the administration of the solicitations. Should this provision prove systematically burdensome to a majority of RFP Bidders, the Independent Evaluator will consider at that time whether an alternate provision can be put in place that would be less burdensome and yet provide similar protections.

   
  
  08/26/2009 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-116:
  We intend to rely on our own financial standing, but we do not produce our own financial statements. Does this disqualify us from participating in the PECO RFP?
   
  
  No. If the RFP Bidder is relying on its own financial standing, but cannot provide either an SEC Form 10-Q or its most recent quarterly, monthly or bi-annual financial information, the RFP Bidder must clearly state this fact in its Part 1 Form. Such a statement will not in and of itself disqualify the RFP Bidder; however, such an RFP Bidder may not be granted unsecured credit under the Supply Master Agreement. Please see Paragraph IV.2.3 of the RFP Rules (available here) for a complete description of the financial requirements of an RFP Bidder relying on its own financial standing.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in General , Credit
  
  
• FAQ-115:
  With regard to the Short Part 1 Form, do all RFP Bidders need to sign the certification at the bottom of page 16?
   
  
  Please note that if you choose to submit the Short Part 1 Form in the Fall 2009 solicitation for either the Full Requirements RFP or the Block Energy RFP, your Officer must sign the certification at the bottom of Page 16 unless you are a current Default or Block Energy Supplier, respectively.

  The instructions at the top of page 14 of the Short Form incorrectly instruct you to proceed to Section 3, “Information Needed to Prepare the Guaranty” if you are not making any changes to the information needed to prepare the Supply Master Agreement, as provided to you in your initial status notification. Instead, the Short Part 1 Form should instruct you to proceed to the certification of the present section (item 3 for the Full Requirements Short Part 1 Form and item 2 for the Block Energy Short Part 1 Form). The certification in question that states: “I certify that the RFP Bidder has no pending legal proceedings or, to its knowledge, threatened legal proceedings against it or any of its affiliates that could materially adversely affect its ability to perform its obligations under the Default Service Program [Block Energy] Supply Master Agreement and each Transaction Confirmation”. In accordance with Paragraph IV.3.4 of the RFP Rules, this certification must be signed by the Officer of an RFP Bidder unless that RFP Bidder is an existing Supplier.

  We very much apologize for the discrepancy in the instructions. Please be advised that the certification is required and that failure to provide this certification will result in your Part 1 Proposal being deficient.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-114:
  For the Spring 2009 Solicitation, we submitted a Part 1 Proposal relying on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor, but later submitted another superseding Part 1 Proposal relying on our own financial standing. For the Fall 2009 Solicitation, is it safe to assume that we may submit the Short Part I Form whether we participate relying on our own financial standing or the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor?
   
  
  No. All previously qualified RFP Bidders have already received an Initial Status Notification identifying the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder last relied; if the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder last relied is not the same as the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder will rely for this Fall 2009 solicitation, such RFP Bidder must use the Standard Part 1 Form.

  In the situation you describe, if you submitted a second and final Part 1 Form relying on the financial standing of the RFP Bidder in the Spring 2009 solicitation, but you wish to rely on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor in this Fall 2009 solicitation, you cannot submit your Part 1 Proposal using the Short Part 1 Form.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Credit , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-113:
  If an RFP Bidder participates in a PECO RFP based on its own financial standing but in subsequent solicitations relies on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor, can all exposure be rolled under the new Guaranty? If so, would any collateral previously posted on behalf of the RFP Bidder be returned?
   
  
  If an RFP Bidder relying on its own financial standing has approved Bids in a solicitation, and then in a later solicitation relies on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor, such RFP Bidder would be permitted to provide a Guaranty with the Part 2 Proposal (i.e., in advance of bidding) to cover both the Agreements for which it is a current supplier and its Bids. If such RFP Bidder again has approved Bids, the executed Guaranty would cover all current and previous exposure, and any security provided to cover previous exposure from when the RFP Bidder relied on its own financial standing would be returned within five business days of PECO's execution of the new Guaranty.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-112:
  If we submitted a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit with only acceptable modifications in the Spring 2009 Solicitation, will the same Letter of Credit be acceptable in the Fall 2009 Solicitation?
  
  The Independent Evaluator does not retain the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit from previous solicitations, and therefore cannot determine if the acceptable modifications that you made to previously issued letters of credit would be acceptable in the present solicitation. However, the standards of acceptability for proposed modifications to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit have not changed since the previous solicitation; they must non-material in nature, or advantageous to both PECO and the RFP Bidder.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-111:
  What changes have been made to the Pre-Bid and Post-Bid Letters of Credit since the Spring 2009 Solicitation?
   
  
  The details of the changes to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit since the Spring 2009 Solicitation can be found on slide 45 of the Information Session Presentation, available on the Web site. The changes were made in response to bidder feedback.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-110:
  Does submission of the Part 1 Proposal bind the submitting entity to submit a Part 2 Proposal and/or a bid? 
   
  
  No. An entity that submits a Part 1 Proposal is not required to submit a Part 2 Proposal or a Bid, nor is an entity that submits a Part 2 Proposal required to submit a Bid. However, only an entity that submits a successful Part 1 Proposal will be permitted to submit a Part 2 Proposal, and only an entity that submits a successful Part 2 Proposal will be eligible to submit Bids.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-109:
  How do I know what to enter for the dollar limit of the Guaranty in Paragraph 1?
  
  In the Full Requirements RFP, the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is neither a Default Supplier nor a Block Energy Supplier is equal to the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $600,000; the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is a Default Supplier or a Block Energy Supplier equals or exceeds the sum of: i) the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty held by PECO under the Default Service SMA or the Block Energy SMA; and ii) the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $600,000.

  In the Block Energy RFP, the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is neither a Block Energy Supplier nor a Default Supplier is equal to the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $50,000; the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is a Block Energy Supplier or a Default Supplier equals or exceeds the sum of: i) the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty held by PECO under the Block Energy SMA or the Default Service SMA; and ii) the total number of blocks bid (for all products) times $50,000.

  Please see Paragraph V.3.2 of the RFP Rules (available here) for more information regarding the Guaranty and the Guaranty Amount.
   
  
  08/26/2009 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-108:
  What is the process to provide modifications to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit for the Fall Solicitation?
  
  If you wish to propose modifications to the current Pre-Bid Letters of Credit, you may do so by submitting these modifications in redline format with the Part 1 Proposal.  Responses to proposed modifications will be provided within two business days of receipt; early submission is encouraged.  Please see section IV.3.1 of the RFP Rules for complete details of the process to propose modifications to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit.
  
  08/19/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-107:
  Is the list of acceptable modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit from the Spring 2009 Solicitation still effective and applicable to the Fall Solicitation?
  
  The standard forms of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP have changed since the Spring 2009 Solicitation.  The forms have been improved in response to bidder feedback; you may find the details of these changes on slide 45 of the Information Session Presentation available on the Web site.  The previously posted list of acceptable modifications is now outdated.
  
  08/19/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-106:
  Is a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit that was deemed acceptable for the Spring 2009 Solicitation automatically deemed acceptable for the Fall 2009 Solicitation?
  
  Because the standard forms of the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit have changed, the only way to be certain that your Pre-Bid Letter of Credit will be acceptable to PECO is to use the updated standard forms available here, incorporating only modifications approved during the Part 1 Proposal process of this Fall 2009 solicitation.  A list of all approved modifications to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit will be posted within two (2) business days of the close of the Part 1 Window.
  
  08/19/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-105:
  Is an RFP Bidder permitted to leave a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit in effect for multiple solicitations, rather than issuing a new one for each solicitation and having the LOC cancelled at the conclusion of the solicitation?
  
  There is no provision in the RFP Rules for an RFP Bidder to leave a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit outstanding between solicitations.  Please see Paragraph V.2.5 of the RFP Rules for the protocols governing when the Independent Evaluator must release the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit.
  
  08/19/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-104:
  Can a supplier post cash as pre-bid security?
  
  No, cash cannot be submitted as pre-bid security. The Block Energy RFP Rules specify that the RFP Bidder must provide an executed Pre-Bid Letter of Credit with the Part 2 Proposal in an amount of $20,000 per block bid, and the Full Requirements RFP Rules specify that the RFP Bidder must provide an executed Pre-Bid Letter of Credit with the Part 2 Proposal in an amount of $250,000 per tranche bid.

  Please note that if the RFP Bidder is applying to participate in both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP, the RFP Bidder must submit two separate Pre-Bid Letters of Credit.

  Section V.2 of the RFP Rules, available on the Supplier Information/Documents page, describes the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit required to support the RFP Bidder’s Bids.

   
  
  08/12/2009 in Credit , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-103:
  We were notified that we qualify for a Short Part 1 Form. If I have to change some of my information, such as my fax/phone numbers, must I resubmit a Standard Part 1 Form?
   
  
  You can make fax/phone changes in the Short Part 1 Form and you do not need to resubmit a Standard Part 1 Form for that reason. Simply check the "No" box when you are asked if the fax/phone number is current, and fill out the new information. Generally each section of the Short Part 1 Form either asks you to confirm that the information on file at the Independent Evaluator is up-to-date or asks that you provide the most current information.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-102:
  In preparing the Part 1 form for either the Full Requirements or Block Supply, it is necessary to provide information needed to prepare the guaranty. How should we fill out this form if we are not using the standard form but are using an approved alternate form of guaranty? We would not be adopting the optional changes but instead using this approved alternate form.
   
  
  Please note in the Justification of Omissions section that you are submitting an approved Alternate Guaranty Form.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-101:
  Could there be changes to the rules to restrict the ability of customers to switch to an EGS and their ability to switch back to default service?
   
  
  While PECO cannot speculate on any action that the Commission may take in the future, the Commission has historically been reluctant to place switching restrictions on default customers.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-100:
  Can you confirm that customers may switch to an EGS at any time and return to default service at any time, subject only to proper notification to PECO?
   
  
  Residential or Commercial customers are free to switch to an EGS and to come back to Default Service at any time, subject to prior notice to PECO Energy Company. After a request by a Residential or Commercial customer to switch to an EGS, the switch is effective as of the next scheduled meter reading date, provided that PECO has received the request with at least 16 days of prior notice. For more information, please consult PECO's electric service tariff, available here.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-99:
  Would you consider a change in the rate structure to allow for rates that vary seasonally?
   
  
  No changes are contemplated during the term of the procurement plan. No changes can be made in advance of PECO’s next filing in May 2013.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-98:
  Are there any seasonal factors applied to the rates customers pay or the payments to suppliers?
   
  
  No, there are no seasonal factors in either the Full Requirements RFP or the Block Energy RFP.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General , Rates
  
  
• FAQ-97:
  Will the Independent Evaluator provide to a qualified bidder information on other bidders, including names and qualification status?
   
  
  No, information on other qualified bidders will not be made public or provided to other qualified bidders.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-96:
  Why are results for the Block Energy RFP only released once eight blocks have been procured?
   
  
  The release of information is made in accordance with the terms of the settlement as approved by the Commission.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General , Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-95:
  When is the Initial Status Notification sent to previously qualified RFP Bidders?
   
  
  The Initial Status Notification was sent to previously qualified RFP Bidders on August 7, 2009 in advance of the required date of August 11, ten (10) business days before the opening of the Part 1 Window. If you are a previously qualified RFP Bidder and you have not received your Initial Status Notification, you should contact the Independent Evaluator.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-94:
  Is the 65% Load Cap applied to each of the Full Requirements and Block Energy RFP separately, or is the Load Cap applied in aggregate?
   
  
  The Load Cap is applied separately to each of the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in Rules
  
  
• FAQ-93:
  Will the presentation materials for the bidder information session be posted on the Web site prior to the meeting on August 5th?
   
  
  No, the Bidder Information Session presentation will not be made available in advance of the session. Following the session, we posted the presentation to the Web site on the Documents page, along with an audio recording of the session. Please note that PECO has updated the Fixed-Price PLCs; this information is found on Slide 22 of the presentation as posted.
   
  
  08/12/2009 in General
  
  
• FAQ-92:
  If we are participating in both the Block Energy RFP and the Full requirements RFP, why do we need to provide a guaranty for each RFP if PECO plans to execute only the highest one?
   
  
  The guaranty with the higher amount is only selected when the RFP Bidder has approved Bids in both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP. If the RFP Bidder has approved Bids in one RFP only, the Guaranty submitted for that particular RFP will be the one selected to replace any existing guaranty.

  Please note that an RFP Bidder must provide two (2) signed copies of the guaranty for each RFP (Full Requirements and Block Energy) in which it wishes to participate. The Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is a Default Supplier or a Block Energy Supplier equals or exceeds the sum of: i) the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty held by PECO under the Default Service SMA or the Block Energy SMA; and ii) the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $600,000 for the Full Requirements RFP, or the total number of blocks bid (for all products) times $50,000.

  
   
  
  08/06/2009 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-91:
  If a current Default Supplier has executed a guaranty that covered the requirement for bidding ($600K x #Bidding on) or for the maximum unsecured credit limit allowed by the SMA, would they have to issue a new guaranty for the Full Requirements RFP or for the Block Energy RFP in order to participate in the Fall 2009 RFP?
   
  
  All RFP Bidders must submit two (2) signed originals of the guaranty for each RFP in which they wish to bid (Full Requirements and/or Block Energy) with the Part 2 Proposal for the Fall 2009 solicitation, regardless of any existing guaranty submitted in connection with a previous solicitation, and regardless of the amount of any such guaranty.
   
  
  08/06/2009 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-90:
  We have an existing guaranty with PECO in place from the Spring 2009 solicitation. We plan to participate in the Fall 2009 Solicitation for both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP.  Do we have to issue new guarantees to cover each RFP? In the case that we have to issue new guarantees, can we instead keep our current guaranty for the relevant RFP in place and amend the amount instead of submitting a new guaranty for that RFP?
   
  
  All RFP Bidders, whether current Default Suppliers or not, must provide two (2) signed copies of the guaranty for each RFP (Full Requirements and Block Energy) in which they wish to participate. For the Full Requirements RFP, the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is a Default Supplier or a Block Energy Supplier equals or exceeds the sum of: i) the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty held by PECO under the Default Service SMA or the Block Energy SMA; and ii) the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $600,000. For the Block Energy RFP, the Guaranty Amount for an RFP Bidder that is a Block Energy Supplier or a Default Supplier equals or exceeds the sum of: i) the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty held by PECO under the Block Energy SMA or the Default Service SMA; and ii) the total number of blocks bid (for all products) times $50,000. There is no option to amend an existing guaranty from a previous solicitation.

  If an RFP Bidder has winning Bids approved by the Commission for the Fall 2009 solicitation in one RFP (either the Full Requirements RFP or the Block Energy RFP), the guaranty submitted by such RFP Bidder in such RFP will replace any existing guaranty. If an RFP Bidder has winning Bids approved by the Commission for the Fall 2009 solicitation in both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP, the guaranty submitted by such RFP Bidder with the larger amount will replace any existing guaranty. In either case, any existing guaranty will be returned to the RFP Bidder when PECO executes the guaranty submitted during the Fall 2009 solicitation, which occurs within three (3) business days of the Bid Date.

  Please see Section V.3.2 of the RFP Rules for a complete description of the guaranty requirements with the Part 2 Proposal.
   
  
  08/06/2009 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-89:
  Will the Bidder Information Session presentation materials be made available on the RFP Web site prior to the session?
   
  
  No, the Bidder Information Session presentation will not be made available in advance of the session.  However, following the session, the presentation will be posted to the RFP Web site on the Documents page, along with an audio recording of the session.  Both the presentation and the audio are now available. 

  Please note that PECO has updated the Fixed-Price PLCs on Slide 22 since the presentation was given.  The presentation, as currently posted, reflects this change. 
   
  
  08/06/2009 in General
  
  

• FAQ-88:
  We signed and submitted the Default Service SMA and the Guaranty for the Spring 2009 solicitation, but we did not win and these documents were returned to us. May we re-submit the documents that were returned to us when applying for the Fall 2009 Solicitation?
   
  
  As stated in Section VII.3.4 of the RFP Rules, if an RFP Bidder does not have winning Bids approved by the Commission, the Independent Evaluator will return the two signed originals of the SMA, and (if applicable) the two signed originals of the guaranty to the RFP Bidder. Newly signed SMAs (and Guaranties, if applicable) will be required with such an RFP Bidder’s Part 2 Proposal for the Fall 2009 solicitation, because the returned documents will be dated as of the previous solicitation and therefore outdated by the Fall 2009 solicitation.

  If an RFP Bidder has approved Bids in an RFP (either Full Requirements or Block Energy), PECO will fully execute the SMA for that RFP and future solicitations will not require that the RFP Bidder provide new SMAs.

   
  
  07/22/2009 in Contract , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-87:
  If we participated in the Spring 2009 solicitation, are we required to re-submit Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals for the Fall 2009 solicitation?
   
  
  All entities who wish to participate in the Fall 2009 solicitation must submit the Part 1 Proposal and the Part 2 Proposal. There is an abbreviated qualification process for previous RFP Bidders; however, while the process is abbreviated, the requirement to qualify remains.

  The RFP Rules (available here) have been updated for the Fall 2009 solicitation to include the details of the abbreviated qualification process. Please see Sections IV and V. Parties that submitted successful Part 1 Proposals in the Spring 2009 solicitation may use the Short Part 1 Form instead of the Standard Part 1 Form (both available here) to submit their Part 1 Proposals for the Fall 2009 solicitation. All parties must use the Part 2 Form to submit their Part 2 Proposals.
   
  
  07/22/2009 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-86:
  If a bidder proposed modifications to the Guaranty that were approved in the Spring 2009 solicitation, do such proposed modifications need to be re-submitted in the Fall 2009 solicitation? 
   
  
  Modifications to the Form of Guaranty that were acceptable in the Spring 2009 solicitation will be deemed acceptable in the Fall 2009 solicitation as well. You do not need to re-submit proposed modifications that were acceptable in the Spring 2009 solicitation. A list of all acceptable modifications to the Form of Guaranty will be posted to the PECO Web site.
  
  07/13/2009 in General , Credit , Procedures
  
  

www.nera.com

www.peco.com

Privacy Policy