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

Click here for the Online Proposal Website

Contact Us

FAQ Archives - Fall 2010 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-337:
  Who do I contact at PECO regarding the GSA tariff?
  
  This web site (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP.   Please post your question through “Ask PECO” on www.pecoanswers.com and a representative will contact you.
  
  12/01/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-336:
  I am a PECO customer.  Where can I find information about my electricity rates?
  
  This website (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO’s Default Service Program RFP.  Please refer to www.pecoanswers.com, where you can find more information on retail rates for 2011.  You can submit questions there using the “Ask PECO” menu and someone will reply back to you shortly.
  
  12/01/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-335:
  Do the newly released rates include the Transmission charge and the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax?
  
  The rate impacts reported in this document refer to the Generation charge on a customer’s bill and include the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax and Line Losses, but do not include the Transmission charge and the AEPS charge.   This is not the Price to Compare. The Price to Compare includes the Generation charge + AEPS charge + Transmission charge.

  The rate impact percentage changes refer to the impact on the total bill, inclusive of the Distribution charge, the Transmission charge, and the CTC (which will be phased out when the new rates take effect).
  
  10/20/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-334:
  The rate impact document specifies a Generation charge for the Residential class of 8.76 cents/kWh, but the Price to Compare document released by PECO in its “Electric and Gas Supplier Communication Bulletin #E-205” shows a Generation charge of 9.07 cents/kWh for the Residential class.  Why are the rate impacts in the rate impact document different from the Generation charges in the Price to Compare document for 1/1/2011-3/31/2011?
  
  The Generation charges in the Rate Impact document are weighted averages.  For example, for the Residential class, the rate impact of 8.76 cents/kWh is the weighted average of the generation charges for rates R, RH and OP shown in the Price To Compare document in the Electric and Gas Supplier Communication Bulletin #E-205. 

  Please see PECO's Price To Compare website for rate-specific pricing:

  Residential:  http://www.peco.com/pecores/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm

  Business: http://www.peco.com/pecobiz/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm
  
  10/20/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-333:
  For what period of time are the rate impacts discussed in this document effective?
  
  The rate impacts are valid from 1/1/2011 to 3/31/2011. Please see PECO's Price To Compare website for rate-specific pricing:

  Residential:  http://www.peco.com/pecores/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm

  Business: http://www.peco.com/pecobiz/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm
  
  10/20/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-333:
  For what period of time are the rate impacts discussed in this document effective?
  
  The rate impacts are valid from 1/1/2011 to 3/31/2011. Please see PECO's Price To Compare website for rate-specific pricing:

  Residential:  http://www.peco.com/pecores/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm

  Business: http://www.peco.com/pecobiz/energy_rates/energy_choice/pricetocompare.htm
  
  10/20/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-332:
  When will the Rate Impact Announcement be released for the Fall 2010 Solicitation?
  
  The Rate Impact Announcement for the Fall 2010 Solicitation will be released at the same time that the results of the Fall 2010 Solicitation are released, on October 14, 2010.
  
  09/29/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-331:
  The Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement defines On-Peak Hours as “Hour Ending (“HE”) 0800 through HE 2300 EPT, Monday through Friday, excluding Saturday, Sunday and PJM holidays.”  However, the sample transaction confirmation (Exhibit A) reads “[On-peak: 5x16 Monday-Friday, excluding NERC Holidays, Hour Ending 0800 through Hour Ending 2300, Eastern Prevailing Time].”  Do On-Peak hours exclude PJM holidays or NERC holidays?
  
  The definition of On-Peak Hours in the body of the Block Energy SMA is correct.  On-Peak Hours exclude PJM Holidays.  The bracketed language in the sample transaction confirmation is not used in actual transaction confirmations executed pursuant to the Block Energy RFP.  We apologize for the confusion. 
  
  09/17/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-330:
  Can you please provide the most recent PLC table from the Spring 2010 Solicitation webcast presentation?
  
  There was a typographical error in the Spring 2010 webcast presentation.  The correct PLC table for the Spring 2010 solicitation is as follows:

  Class	Total PLC (MW)	Fixed-Price PLC (MW)	Fixed-Price Tranches	Fixed-Price Tranche Size	Fixed Price MW-Measure (MW
  R	3,153	2,364	47	1.60	50.31
  SC	1,308	1,177	25	3.60	47.09
  MC	1,123	954	19	4.47	50.22
  Large C&I	2,558	2,015	20	5	100.75

  Please note that in the presentation, the total PLC column represents the PLC for the Default load in each class and does not include shopping customers, and should be compared to the Default column in the historical load data in the data room. Default Suppliers are not responsible for serving the load of customers served by Electric Generation Suppliers.  In addition, 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.
  
  09/17/2010 in Data
  
  

• FAQ-329:
  We do not collect information regarding our tangible net worth.  Will we be in violation of Section 14.8 of the SMA?
  
  In the event that the Seller cannot provide the information required by Section 14.8 of the SMA to determine the Seller’s Tangible Net Worth, the Seller may not be granted Unsecured Credit under the SMA.  This will not be considered a violation of the terms of the SMA and will not prevent the bidder from participating in the RFP.
  
  09/17/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-328:
  Why is the Alley Lighting rate class absent from the hourly load data?
  
  There is only one account in the Alley Lighting rate class, and this account is not programmed into the billing system.  This is scheduled for implementation in 2011.
  
  09/15/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-327:
  Please provide distribution loss factors by rate class.
  
  PECO does not have explicit distribution losses.  All hourly load data provided in the Data Room include both applicable distribution and transmission system losses. 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.  PECO is 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.
  
  09/15/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-326:
  Do you have customer load profiles for non-interval meters?
  
  Please see the hourly load profiles posted to the Additional Data Room under "Load Profile Information".
  
  09/15/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-325:
  How many Tier 1 Solar AECs will be allocated to each tranche in the Fall 2010 solicitation?
  
  The AEC allocations in our announcement dated August 24, 2010 have been revised.  Please ignore the allocations for Tier 1 Solar AECs specified in the August 24 announcement and use the table below.  The previously specified allocations of Tier 1 Non-Solar AECs remain the same.  We apologize for the confusion.

  Tier 1 Solar	Residential	Small Commercial	Medium Commercial	Large Commercial & Industrial
  Jan 2011 - May 2011	17	10	12	8
  June 2011 - May 2012	66	35	33	19
  June 2012 - May 2013	102	52	N/A	N/A

  
  
  09/15/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-324:
  Are we able to request that PECO provide collateral under the credit provisions of the Supply Master Agreement?  If not, are we able propose modifications to the SMA?
  
  PECO will not provide collateral to Suppliers under the terms of the Supply Master Agreement (“SMA”).  There is no process to propose modifications to the SMA.  Please note, however, that there is an accelerated payment clause in Section 14.10 of the SMA, in the case of a Buyer Downgrade Event.
  
  09/01/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-323:
  Can a Supplier’s load obligation change when customer classes are re-assigned January 1 of each year?
  
  It is possible that a Default Service customer in one class could be re-assigned to another class due to a change in energy usage.  Additionally, Peak Load Contributions (“PLCs”) change on June 1 every year.  However, please note that specific customers are not matched directly with suppliers.  A Default Supplier serving a tranche in a particular class provides full-requirements service for the percentage of that class’s Default Load represented by that tranche.  There are other factors besides customer class reassignment that can affect a Default Supplier’s load obligation.
  
  09/01/2010 in General , Data
  
  
• FAQ-322:
  Please provided strata GS 004 data for the Fixed Large Commercial & Industrial customer class for the date ranges 12/19/2008 to 4/16/2009, 2/6/2007 to 5/3/2007, and 6/1/2006 to 6/30/2006.
  
  Data for the date ranges you reference are not included in the data file because Total Energy was 0 in all hours of those days.
  
  09/01/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-321:
  Page 5 of the Data Series Descriptions defines Strata 4 as “peak demand between 15.1 and 25.0 kW”.  Medium Commercial customers are defined by an annual peak demand of >= 100 kW and < 500 kW and LC&I customers are defined by an annual peak demand of >= 500 kW.  How is it that there is Medium Commercial and Large Commercial & Industrial load in Strata 4?
  
  Strata 004 is a default strata assigned for rate GS.  For example, if a Medium Commercial class customer on rate HT switches to rate GS, the strata assigned will be GS 004 and the customer will remain in strata 004 until strata are re-assigned on January 1.
  
  09/01/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-320:
  Where can I find SEC filings for PECO Energy Company?
  
  Please see the Investor Relations page of Exelon Corporation’s website.
  
  09/01/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-319:
  Are we able to propose modifications to the Supply Master Agreement?  If so, may I submit a Part 1 Proposal without certifying that the Officer of the RFP Bidder understands the terms of the SMA?
  
  There is no process to propose modifications to the Supply Master Agreement.  Paragraph IV.5.1 of the RFP Rules states that “[t]he Officer of an RFP Bidder that has not previously qualified must, in the Part 1 Proposal, certify that the Officer of the RFP Bidder understands the terms of the Block Energy SMA [and] that the RFP Bidder accepts all of the terms of the Block Energy SMA without modifications.”
  
  08/25/2010 in Contract , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-318:
  May we make changes to an executed Supply Master Agreement using the available elections in the Part 1 Form?
  
  No.  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.
  
  08/25/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-317:
  Where can I find acceptable modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and the Performance Assurance Letter of Credit?
  
  Please note that the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Full Requirements RFP must be used to provide Pre-Bid Security for the Full Requirements RFP, and the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Block Energy RFP must be used to provide Pre-Bid Security for the Block Energy RFP.  You may not use a Performance Assurance Letter of Credit to provide Pre-Bid Security. 

  The Pre-Bid Letters of Credit are attached as Appendix 11 to each of the Full Requirements RFP Rules and the Block Energy RFP Rules, available as standalone files on the "Supplier Information - Documents" page of the RFP website here.  Please see the files labeled "Appendix 11 - Full Requirements Pre-Bid Letter of Credit" and "Appendix 11 - Block Energy Pre-Bid Letter of Credit". 

  The file labeled "Acceptable Modifications to the Standard Pre-Bid Letter of Credit", available here, contains modifications that are deemed acceptable for both the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Full Requirements RFP and Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Block Energy RFP.

  The file labeled "Acceptable Modifications to the Standard Performance Assurance Letter of Credit" on the same page contains modifications that are deemed acceptable for both the Performance Assurance Letter of Credit for the Full Requirements RFP and the Performance Assurance Letter of Credit for the Block Energy RFP.
  
  08/25/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-316:
  How will Generation Deactivation charges be allocated to Default Suppliers?
  
  Generation Deactivation charges will be allocated to Default Suppliers in the PECO Zone based on the Default Supplier’s share of the aggregate NSPL (consistent with how PJM assigns Generation charges) for each procurement class the Default Supplier serves.
  
  08/25/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-315:
  We have an alternate form of guaranty approved in a previous solicitation.  Do we need to re-submit the alternate guaranty in this solicitation?
  
  An alternate form of guaranty that is approved through the Guaranty Process may be used in the solicitation during which it is approved and the subsequent two solicitations.  If you wish to use an alternate form of guaranty after the subsequent two solicitations, you will be required to participate in the Guaranty Process pursuant to that solicitation.
  
  08/18/2010 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-314:
  Why does the PLC data show significant changes on January 1 of each year?
  
  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.
  
  08/18/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-313:
  We are a Block Energy Supplier, but not a Default Supplier.  Since we have an executed Block Energy SMA, are we exempt from submitting a signed Default Service SMA with our Part 2 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP?
  
  An RFP Bidder that is not a Default Supplier pursuant to the Full Requirements RFP must submit a signed Default Service SMA with its Part 2 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP, even if such RFP Bidder has an executed Block Energy SMA.  However, an RFP Bidder that is a Block Energy Supplier will not need to submit a Block Energy SMA with its Part 2 Proposal for the Block Energy RFP.
  
  08/12/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-312:
  Is PECO looking to procure RECs during the Fall 2010 Default Service RFP?  If not, who do I contact regarding PECO’s RFPs for Alternative Energy Credits?
  
  Please note that this website is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP. Information about PECO's RFPs for Alternative Energy Credits can be found here.  You may submit questions concerning AEC procurement directly to PECO at AEPS_RFP@peco-energy.com.
  
  08/04/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-311:
  Will future Medium Commercial class rates be “one size fits all”, or will they contain demand components and variably priced energy blocks?
  
  For generation, Medium Commercial class rates will be tiered for 2011 and 2012, but there will be a single cents/kwh rate starting in 2013. Please see the pending Electric Tariff for GSA, pages 31-34.
  
  07/28/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-310:
  Which customer and rate classes require an interval meter?
  
  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.

  The rate classes within the Large Commercial and Industrial class are GS, HT, PD and EP; please note that rate classes GS, HT and PD are also in the Small Commercial and Medium Commercial procurement classes, but only the Large Commercial and Industrial customers are required to have an hourly interval meter.
  
  06/30/2010 in General
  
  

• FAQ-308:
  Can a winning bidder’s obligations under the Supply Master Agreement be assigned to another party after execution?  If so, what must be done to effect such an assignment?
  
  Assignment is governed by Section 16.7 of the Supply Master Agreement, available here.  Please contact Busola Awoniyi of PECO Energy Company directly at 215-841-6615 for inquiries regarding assignment.
  
  06/22/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-307:
  Where can I find results from previous solicitations?
  
  Results from previous solicitations are posted to the RFP website under “Background” and “Previous Results”, available here.
  
  06/02/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-303:
  What information about the results of the Full Requirements RFP will be made public?
  
  The Independent Evaluator releases information in accordance with Exhibit G of PECO’s settlement filing (available here), which was approved by the Commission.   Exhibit G states that after each solicitation for which full-requirements products are procured, PECO will release the average bid price for each class.  The average bid price for a product will be released only after all the solicitations for a given supply period have been completed.
  
  06/02/2010 in Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-302:
  If Generation Deactivation Charges become effective, will Default Suppliers have a way to pass these costs on to customers?
  
  No. Default Suppliers will not have a mechanism to pass the costs to customers; Generation Deactivation charges are the responsibility of the seller as shown in Exhibit D of the SMA.
  
  05/24/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-301:
  Are suppliers responsible for Generation Deactivation charges? Additionally, are suppliers responsible for Generation Deactivation charges enacted after the Bid Date?
  
  As shown in Exhibit D of the PECO Full Requirements SMA (available here), “Sample PJM Invoice”, Generation Deactivation charges are the responsibility of the Seller.  This is the case even if the Generation Deactivation Charges become effective after the Bid Date.
  
  05/24/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-299:
  What information is available about the Large Commercial & Industrial customers who have elected to receive Default Service on a Fixed-Price basis?
  
  PECO has provided historical load, customer count and PLC data for the LC&I customers who have elected to receive Fixed-Price Default Service in the Data Room.
  
  05/21/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-298:
  Based on the historical hourly load data, the load factor of Residential and Small Commercial customers is approximately the same. However, the ratio of PLC/NSPL to average usage yields a significant difference between Residential and Small Commercial load. Can you explain the apparent difference?
  
  It is the responsibility of each bidder to analyze historical data and reach its own conclusions regarding observable patterns.  The hourly load and PLC/NSPL data provided 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.
  
  05/21/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-297:
  Please provide the rate translation mechanism PECO uses to convert the average bid prices into the generation rates by rate class.
  
  Please consult the Retail Generation Rate Conversion Model posted to the RFP website here.
  
  05/21/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-295:
  Please explain why the historical load for Small Commercial customers appears to be flat while the PLC data is growing.
  
  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.
  
  05/20/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-293:
  When does the scheduled monthly data update take place?
  
  The monthly update to the PECO data room is scheduled to be completed on the 13th day of the month.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-291:
  Will PLC and NSPL values by procurement class be provided for the 2010-2011 planning year?
  
  PLC reports by procurement class/strata for the month of June 2010 have been posted to the Additional Data page of the Data Room under “June 2010 PLC”.  NSPL values will remain the same until December 31, 2010; only the PLCs change on June 1.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-289:
  Do the figures cited in PECO and PPL’s press releases include Alternative Energy Credits?
  
  Please note that this website is for the PECO RFPs only.  We cannot answer questions about other solicitations.

   
  Default Suppliers are responsible for providing Alternate Energy Credits (“AECs”) during the term of the Default Service SMA necessary for PECO to meet its obligations under the AEPS Act, as well as other Orders, regulations and rules that may be promulgated by the PUC with respect to the AEPS, excluding the Company’s obligations associated with the Company serving the PECO Share.

  
  Block Energy Supply does not include capacity, ancillary services, or renewable energy.
   
  
  05/19/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  

• FAQ-288:
  Does the average winning bid calculation exclude distribution losses and Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Taxes?
  
  The average winning bid prices do not include losses or the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.
  
  05/19/2010 in Rules , Rates
  
  
• FAQ-287:
  How is PLC calculated?
  
  PECO calculates PLCs by first assigning each account an individual PLC and then totaling all account PLCs for a given day to produce aggregate PLC results; this is also known as a “bottom-up” calculation.
   
  Prior to January 1, 2008, PLCs were submitted by Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) to PJM effective from January 1 through December 31st of a calendar year. Beginning in 2008, PJM made a change for PLCs to be effective for June 1 through May 31, coincident with the PJM planning year.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-286:
  Is the customer count data for the Small Commercial class correct?  The data shows a 17% increase from 1/1/06 to 3/1/10.  However, population growth during this period was negative.
  
  The customer count data for the SC class is correct.  Please note that while the number of customers taking Default Service has increased by approximately 17%, the total number of SC customers has only increased by approximately 2%, and the number of customers taking service from an EGS has decreased by approximately 47%.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-285:
  Will PECO provide winning suppliers with 10-day forecasted PLCs?   Does PECO provide winning suppliers with additional data to track customer switching?
  
  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.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-284:
  Do you provide daily zonal scaling factors for PECO?
  
  Daily zonal scaling factors have been provided from June 2007 through the present in the Data Room under “other data”.
  
  05/19/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-283:
  If we already have a guaranty out with PECO for the maximum amount of our Unsecured Credit Line, please confirm that as part of qualification process, we are required to re-issue a guaranty and that our existing guaranty will be returned to us in the event that we are a winning supplier.
  
  All RFP Bidders relying on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor must submit two (2) signed originals of the guaranty for each RFP (Block Energy and Full Requirements) to which they apply with the Part 2 Proposal, even in the case that the RFP Bidder is an existing Default Supplier and/or an existing Block Energy Supplier.
   
  In the case that your Guaranty Amount exceeds your Unsecured Credit Limit, you must provide a guaranty for the maximum amount allowed by your Unsecured Credit Line.  You will be allowed to bid on the number of tranches secured by your Pre-Bid Letter of Credit.
  
  05/19/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-282:
  If we are required to submit a guaranty for the maximum amount under the Unsecured Credit Line for the Full Requirements product do we have to submit a guaranty for the Block product, even if the sum of the two guaranties exceeds the Unsecured Credit Line?  Additionally, please confirm that the guaranty with the highest amount is executed in the event that we are selected as a winning supplier.
  
  All RFP Bidders relying on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor must submit two (2) signed originals of the guaranty for each RFP (Block Energy and Full Requirements) to which they apply with the Part 2 Proposal, even in the case that the RFP Bidder is an existing Default Supplier and/or an existing Block Energy Supplier.  The guaranty submitted by an RFP Bidder that is a Default/Block Energy Supplier and that has winning Bids approved by the Commission in this solicitation will replace the existing guaranty. The existing guaranty will be returned to the RFP Bidder when PECO executes the new guaranty, which occurs within three (3) business days of the Bid Date.  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.
  
  05/19/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-281:
  Can you please provide the PECO FAQ list in pdf format?
  
  The Independent Evaluator does not provide FAQs in pdf format.  Please note that FAQs are sortable by date and by category, and the entire RFP website is searchable here.
  
  05/19/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-280:
  Will PECO provide an hourly service product for the LC&I customers that choose not to accept the fixed-price Default Service? What are the switching rules for LC&I customers between fixed-price Default Service and hourly service?
  
  Yes,  LC&I customers who take Default Service from PECO and who have not elected to receive Default Service on a fixed-price basis will receive Default Service on an hourly-price basis as determined by the PJM day-ahead spot market.

  As stated in the Draft Agreement posted to the RFP website available here, customers may leave fixed-price  Default Service to take supply from an EGS or to take Default Service on an hourly-price basis.  However, LC&I customers returning to Default Service after having been served by an EGS will receive Default Service on an hourly spot-price basis, and LC&I customers who leave fixed-price Default Service to take Default Service on an hourly-price basis cannot return to the fixed-price Default Service.
   
  
  05/19/2010 in Procedures , Rules
  
  

• FAQ-279:
  Once LC&I customers elect to receive the fixed-price option, are there any switching restrictions that would prevent them from leaving default service to sign up with retail suppliers, or returning to fixed price default service once they sign up with a retailer?
  
  There are no switching restrictions that prevent customers from leaving or returning to Default Service.  However, LC&I customers returning to Default Service after having been served by an EGS will not be eligible for the fixed-price option - they will receive Default Service on an hourly spot-price basis.
  
  05/19/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-278:
  Will LC&I customers that did not express interest in the fixed-price option be allowed to sign up for this service at a later date?  When the service period expires on December 31, 2011, will there be another opportunity for LC&I customers to opt to receive default service on a fixed-price basis?
  
  LC&I Customers who did not express interest in the fixed-price option before March 1, 2010 will not be able to elect to take fixed-price Default Service.  After December 31, 2011, all LC&I default service will be priced to the hourly market.
  
  05/19/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-277:
  Were Large C&I customers automatically signed up for fixed-price service within 30 days of the PUC’s approval of the RFP results?  How did customers opt-in to the LC&I fixed-priced option?  When did customers receive confirmation of their opt-in choice?
  
  The LC&I fixed-price option was "opt-in", as opposed to "opt-out"; customers who indicated interest were required to actively elect to receive the service within 30 days of receiving the price notification and agreement. Those who did not respond to the notification are not able to opt in at a later date.  A confirmation receipt was sent once the signed agreement was received.  Large C&I customers were required to sign the agreement and can fax it or return it via ground mail as well as email.  Large C&I customers can always call their Account Managers if they have questions.
  
  05/19/2010 in Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-276:
  Exelon stated that it expects revenue requirements of $2.6m per RMR-month for Cromby Unit No. 2 and $8.0m per RMR-month for Eddystone Unit No. 2, excluding Project Investment recovery.  How will these RMR costs be allocated to load?  Will Default Suppliers be expected to cover the Project Investment recovery amount in their bids?
  
  The following is a link to the PJM website on the Revenue requirement and Project Investment recovery amount: http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-retirements/~/media/planning/gen-retire/exelon-response-to-revised-deactivation-study-for-cromby-and-eddystone.ashx, and a link to the PJM website on zonal percentage cost allocation: http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-retirements/~/media/planning/gen-retire/cromby-2-zonal-cost-allocation-for-2011.ashx. RFP Bidders should determine the impact of the information on their bids.
  
  05/19/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-274:
  We have a question about data we obtained from PECO’s Success website.  To whom should we direct our question?
  
  This website (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.
  
  05/19/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-273:
  The Full Requirements RFP Rules state that an RFP Bidder relying on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor must provide with its Part 2 Proposal a guaranty that equals or exceeds the Guaranty Amount of any current guaranty with PECO under a Default Service SMA or a Block Energy SMA, plus an amount equal to the total number of tranches bid (for all products) times $600,000.  Our firm wishes to submit pre-bid security that will allow us to bid on the maximum number of tranches allowed by the Load Cap, but the resulting Guaranty Amount exceeds our Unsecured Credit Limit as provided in our Notification of Qualification.  Can we still bid on the maximum number of tranches?
  
  Yes.  In the case that your Guaranty Amount for the Full Requirements RFP exceeds your Unsecured Credit Limit, you must provide a guaranty for the maximum amount allowed by your Unsecured Credit Line.  You will be allowed to bid on the number of tranches secured by your Pre-Bid Letter of Credit for the Full Requirements RFP, or $250,000 per tranche bid.
  
  05/13/2010 in Credit , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-272:
  When will estimates of the PJM generator deactivation charges applicable to the PECO zone be made known to bidders?
   
  
  PJM posts updates about generation retirement studies on its web site here and has made available the following documents:
  1. An updated deactivation evaluation
  2. Exelon’s response to the deactivation evaluation:
  3. Zonal cost allocations for 2011:
     1. Cromby
     2. Eddystone
  
  
  05/12/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-270:
  Section 3 of the Full Requirements Part 2 Form asks if we already have a Default Service SMA executed with PECO.  Please confirm that this question refers to Full Requirements SMAs, and not Block Energy SMAs.
   
  
  That is correct.  Please note that Section 3 of the Full Requirements Part 2 Form asks if you are a Default Supplier with PECO, such that you have a current and fully executed Default Service Program Supply Master Agreement; Section 3 of the Block Energy Part 2 Form asks if you are a Block Energy Supplier with PECO, such that you have a current and fully executed Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement.
   
  
  05/12/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-269:
  The RFP Rules state that the Officer of the RFP Bidder named in the Part 1 Proposal is expected to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if successful in the RFP. The Rules further state: "If the Officer of the RFP Bidder named in the Part 1 Proposal is unavailable to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), the Officer of the RFP Bidder will advise PECO of this fact, will name another individual to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), and will confirm that this individual is an officer, a director, or an individual otherwise authorized to undertake contracts." Does PECO require that changes to the Officer signing the Transaction Confirmation(s) be submitted in a certain format? Additionally, can the confirmation be faxed with the Offer’s signature?
   
  
  There is no standard template for the RFP Bidder to use to inform PECO of an Officer’s unavailability to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s).  PECO will evaluate such submissions on a case-by-case basis, but RFP Bidders can be assured that if such a submission meets all the requirements stated in Section IV.1.2 of the RFP Rules, it will be acceptable. 

  The confirmation process is described in Section 2.15 of the applicable SMA. On the third Business Day following the Bid Date, PECO will fax to the winning bidder the partially executed Transaction Confirmation(s), and send by overnight delivery three (3) originals.  By 2:00 p.m. EPT on the next Business Day following the bidder’s receipt of such facsimile of the partially executed Transaction Confirmation(s), the bidder shall return by facsimile to the Buyer the fully executed Transaction Confirmation(s), and shall send by overnight delivery two (2) originals.
   
  
  05/12/2010 in Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-268:
  Is the guaranty that was provided with our Notification of Qualification available in Word format?
   
  
  A Word version of your guaranty is unavailable.   As stated in Section V.3.2 of the RFP Rules, the Independent Evaluator prepares the guaranty for execution using information provided by the RFP Bidder in its Part 1 Proposal.  The RFP Bidder fills in the amount and signs two originals of the guaranty, which are to be provided with the RFP Bidder’s Part 2 Proposal.  The Part 1 Form is the only process to elect optional modifications to the guaranty; the Guaranty Process for this solicitation, which is the only way to propose modifications to the Form of Guaranty, has already concluded.

  If the person named in your Part 1 Form as the signatory to the Guaranty is unavailable to sign the Guaranty, you will be required to re-submit the pages of your Part 1 Form naming a new signatory to the Guaranty.  At such time, the Independent Evaluator will prepare an updated guaranty and provide it to you for execution.
   
  
  05/12/2010 in Credit , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-267:
  Where can I obtain more information about PECO’s smart grid activities?
  
  The Independent Evaluator is responsible for the Default Service Procurement only; for information about PECO’s smart grid activities, please contact Kelly Lyman at Kelly.lyman@exeloncorp.com.
  
   
  
  05/03/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-266:
  In filling out the Short Part 1 Form, if I only want to change one item (such as the phone number for my Representative), can I leave the other fields in the section blank?
   
  
  Yes.  In general, when filling out the Short Part 1 Form and making changes to the information that the Independent Evaluator has on file, as provided in your Initial Status Notification, you may fill in only the fields relevant to the information that has changed.  You may leave blank the fields relevant to information that has not changed. 
   
  
  05/03/2010 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-265:
  In the Fall 2009 Rate Impact Announcement, what were the calculations used to determine that the rate impact of 9.41 c/KWh for residential customers indicates a 4% increase and that the rate impact of 9.79c/KWh for Small and Medium Commercial customers indicates a rate impact of -0.5%?
   
  
  The rate impact percentage changes refer to the total bill.  Please see the tables below for the calculations behind these rate impacts.

   

  	Residential		Small/Medium Commercial
  	Old Rate	New Rate	Old Rate	New Rate
  Energy/Capacity	6.26	9.41	6.10	9.79
  CTC	2.57	0	3.75	0
  Distribution	0.51	0.51	1.80	1.80
  Transmission	5.03	5.03	0.56	0.56
  Total Unit Rate (Cents/kWh)	14.37	14.95	12.21	12.15

   
  
  04/28/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-264:
  When are the executed Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and Guaranty due?
   
  
  If you wish to propose modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter 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.

  The executed Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and the executed Guaranty are due with Part 2 Proposals.
   
  
  04/28/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-263:
  Will PECO provide redline comparisons of the solicitation documents, showing the changes from the previous solicitation?
  
  Paragraph I.1.5 of the RFP Rules states that the Rules “…will be updated to include the dates for that solicitation and to refer to the particular products to be procured in that solicitation… The RFP Rules may be further updated to reflect additional decisions by the Commission, relevant changes in law, or non-material modifications to the processing of Proposals expected to improve potential participation by suppliers.

  Further, the Independent Evaluator and the Company may amend the RFP Rules if necessary to cure inconsistencies in the provisions of this RFP.” 

  PECO will not be providing redline versions of solicitation documents, but provides the following summary of the changes made to such documents. 

  • The RFP Rules have been updated to include the dates for this solicitation and to refer to the particular products to be procured in this solicitation, including:
    • How the load cap applies to the products in this solicitation
    • What amounts of pre-bid security are necessary for each product in this solicitation
    • The key dates in the schedule for this solicitation
  • The Default Service Supply Master Agreements have not changed since the previous solicitation. 
  • The tentative schedule of subsequent solicitations has not changed since the previous solicitation. 
  • The load cap examples have been updated to account for the products available in this solicitation. 
  • The guaranty process has not changed since the previous solicitation. 
  • The Standard Part 1 Form, the Short Part 1 Form, the Part 2 Form and the Sample Bid Form have been updated to mirror the updates made to the RFP Rules. 
  • The CFO Attestation and the Officer’s Certificate have not changed since the previous solicitation. 
  • The Pre-Bid Letter of Credit has been updated to reflect the new expiration date relevant to this solicitation. 
  • The Confidentiality Statement and the Performance Assurance Letter of Credit have not changed since the previous solicitation.

   
  
  04/28/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-261:
  The Officer of RFP Bidder is available to sign Part 1 and Part 2 Forms for this Solicitation. However, that Officer will not be available to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if successful in this solicitation. Can a different officer of the company execute the Transaction Confirmation(s) if we have winning bids in this Solicitation?
   
  
  Yes.  As stated in Section IV.1.2 of the RFP Rules, “[i]f the Officer of the RFP Bidder named in the Part 1 Proposal is unavailable to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), the Officer of the RFP Bidder will advise PECO of this fact, will name another individual to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), and will confirm that this individual is an officer, a director, or an individual otherwise authorized to undertake contracts (including the Default Service SMA) and bind the RFP Bidder.”
   
  
  04/28/2010 in Contract , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-260:
  If my company submitted a successful Part 1 Proposal for the Block Energy RFP in a previous solicitation, can we use the Short Part 1 Form in the Full Requirements RFP, even if we have never participated in the Full Requirements RFP before?
   
  
  No.  You must use the Standard Part 1 Form to submit your Part 1 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP.  The Proposal process for the Full Requirements RFP is separate and distinct from the Proposal process for the Block Energy RFP.  RFP Bidders who have submitted successful Part 1 Proposals only in the Block Energy RFP are not eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of the Full Requirements RFP, and RFP Bidders who have submitted successful Part 1 Proposals only in the Full Requirements RFP are not eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of the Block Energy RFP.
   
  
  04/28/2010 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-259:
  Where can I find the schedules for past, present and future PECO solicitations?
   
  
  The schedule for each solicitation is specified the RFP Rules for that solicitation.  RFP Rules for past solicitations are available on the Archives page of the website; the schedule for the current solicitation and tentative schedules for future solicitations are available on the Calendar page of the website.
   
  
  04/21/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-258:
  To what email address should I submit proposed modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
   
  
  Please send the electronic copies of proposed modifications to the LOCs to IE@pecoprocurement.com. Proposed modifications must be submitted in Microsoft Word format with tracked changes.
   
  
  04/21/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-257:
  Are there any rate classes or strata that contain only time of use meters?
   
  
  No, there are no rate classes or strata that contain only time of use meters.
   
  
  04/21/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-256:
  Where can we find PECO hourly load profiles?
   
  
  Please see the hourly load profiles posted to the Additional Data Room "Load Profile Information". 
   
  
  04/21/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-255:
  How are monthly metered accounts settled? Do all monthly metered accounts settle on the strata profiles, or do some settle time of use? 
  
  All monthly metered usage is settled using the strata load profiles and historical actual weather over the billing period.
  
   
  
  04/21/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-254:
  What is the reason behind requiring one officer to sign all of the documents?
  
  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 and who signs the SMA.  This individual is also expected to sign 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 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 “[f]or 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/Block Energy] SMA.”).

  If the Officer of the RFP Bidder named in the Part 1 Proposal is unavailable to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), the Officer of the RFP Bidder will advise PECO of this fact, will name another individual to sign the Transaction Confirmation(s), and will confirm that this individual is an officer, a director, or an individual otherwise authorized to undertake contracts (including the SMA) and bind the RFP Bidder.
  
   
  
  04/16/2010 in Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-252:
  If generation deactivation charges go into effect, will they be subject to change over time?  Where should I send questions regarding generation deactivation charges in the future?
   
  
  While it is possible, in general, for generation deactivation charges to change over time, PECO cannot speculate as to whether the generation deactivation charges that may become the responsibility of Default Suppliers will change.  You may email questions concerning generation deactivation charges directly to PJM at the following email address: GoTo@pjm.com. 
   
  
  04/16/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-250:
  Is cash an option for pre-bid security?
  
  No, cash cannot be submitted as pre-bid security. Both the Block Energy RFP Rules 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.  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 of the RFP Web site, describes the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit required to support the RFP Bidder’s Bids.  The pre-bid collateral requirements, as specified in the RFP Rules, are part of PECO’s Default Service Plan as it was approved by the Commission.  At this time, PECO has no plans to petition the Commission to change the rules governing pre-bid collateral for future solicitations.
   
  
  04/16/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-249:
  May we provide a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit that would remain valid for multiple solicitations, instead of re-issuing a new one for each solicitation?
   
  
  An RFP Bidder may leave a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit outstanding between solicitations, provided that both of the following changes are made:

  Replace

  “the Bidder has made a material omission or misrepresentation in the Part 1 Proposal or the Part 2 Proposal submitted in connection with this solicitation”

  with

  “the Bidder has made a material omission or misrepresentation in the Part 1 Proposal or the Part 2 Proposal submitted in connection with any solicitation under this RFP”

  And, replace

  “the Bidder has disclosed information relating to its Proposal publicly or to any other party before the PUC has rendered its decision on the results of the solicitation”

  with

  “the Bidder has disclosed information relating to its Proposal for any solicitation under this RFP publicly or to any other party before the PUC has rendered its decision on the results of that certain solicitation”

   
  
  04/14/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-248:
  Exactly what components are included in the prices released for previous solicitations on the previous results page?
   
  
  As stated in Article 1 of the Full Requirements Supply Master Agreement, "Full Requirements Service" means all necessary Energy, Capacity, transmission other than Network Integration Transmission Service, Ancillary Services, AECs for compliance with the AEPS Act, transmission and distribution losses, congestion management costs, and such other services or products that are required to supply the Specified Percentage except for distribution service.  Please note that PECO will allocate certain amounts of AECs to winners of Full-Requirements tranches.

  Block Energy Supply does not include capacity, ancillary services, or renewable energy.  As stated in Paragraph I.4.3 of the RFP Rules and in Article 1 of the Block Energy Supply Master Agreement, Block Energy includes the Energy, transmission other than Network Integration Transmission Service, transmission losses, congestion management costs, and such other services or products that are required by PJM to deliver the specified product to the PE Zone. As stated in Section I.1.9 of the Block Energy RFP Rules, "PECO will purchase all other necessary products to serve the PECO Share, including without limitation ancillary services and capacity, in PJM-administered markets. For the PECO Share, PECO will make purchases necessary to meet its obligations under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act".  

  The average winning bid prices released after each solicitation do not include losses or the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.
   
  
  04/14/2010 in General , Rates
  
  

• FAQ-247:
  How do NIDR (or summary profiled) meters settle?  Are there specific profiles or strata that are always time-of-use meters that settle time-of-use and are not monthly profiled? 
   
  
  Monthly metered accounts are settled on the strata profiles, regardless of whether or not they are on a time-of-use rate.
   
  
  04/14/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-246:
  Do the rate impacts reported in your announcement on 10/21/09 include the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax?
   
  
  The rate impacts reported in our announcement on 10/21/09 include the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.  Please note that this answer refers to the rate impacts, and not the average winning bid prices reported; the average winning bid prices reported in the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 solicitation results announcements do not include the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.
  
  04/09/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-245:
  Will PECO accept financial swaps or financial products as Bids in its Default Service RFP?
   
  
  Both the Block Energy RFP and the Full Requirements RFP procure physical supply only.  Please see Article 15.3 of the Supply Master Agreement, 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...”
   
  
  03/31/2010 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-244:
  Where can I find information about selling Alternative Energy Credits to PECO?
   
  
  This web site is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP. Information about PECO's RFP for Solar Alternative Energy Credits can be found here. You may submit questions concerning AEC procurement directly to PECO at AEPS_RFP@peco-energy.com. 
   
  
  03/31/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-243:
  Would it be possible to have both a "Guarantor" and an "Additional Guarantor" in the Standard Form of Guaranty?
   
  
  The Form of Guaranty that is part of the Default Service Program Supply Master Agreement does not contemplate being signed jointly and severally by two parties.  Please refer the Acceptable Modifications to the Form of Guaranty document located here to see all the changes that would be required to submit a Guaranty with both a “Guarantor” and “Additional Guarantor”.
   
  
  03/24/2010 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-242:
  How does PECO calculate load profile shapes?
   
  
  For an explanation of how PECO calculates load profile shapes, please see the backcasting methodology document  posted in the Additional Data room.
   
  
  03/24/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-240:
  Are winning suppliers responsible for compliance with the AEPS act? 
   
  
  The supplier of a Full Requirements tranche is responsible for compliance with the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act. As stated in Article 1 of the Full Requirements Supply Master Agreement, "Full Requirements Service" means all necessary Energy, Capacity, transmission other than Network Integration Transmission Service, Ancillary Services, AECs for compliance with the AEPS Act, transmission and distribution losses, congestion management costs, and such other services or products that are required to supply the Specified Percentage except for distribution service.  Please note that PECO will allocate certain amounts of AECs to winners of Full-Requirements tranches.

  Block Energy Supply does not include capacity, ancillary services, or renewable energy.  As stated in Paragraph I.4.3 of the RFP Rules and in Article 1 of the Block Energy Supply Master Agreement, Block Energy includes the Energy, transmission other than Network Integration Transmission Service, transmission losses, congestion management costs, and such other services or products that are required by PJM to deliver the specified product to the PE Zone. As stated in Section I.1.9 of the Block Energy RFP Rules, "PECO will purchase all other necessary products to serve the PECO Share, including without limitation ancillary services and capacity, in PJM-administered markets. For the PECO Share, PECO will make purchases necessary to meet its obligations under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act".  
   
  
  03/24/2010 in Contract , General
  
  

• FAQ-239:
  How will PECO treat assignments of PLC and NSPL for OP rates for the term of the default service plan?
   
  
  Starting on January 1, 2011 PECO will set new Network Service Peak Load (NSPL) for OP rates and starting on June 1, 2011 the Capacity Peak Load Contribution (PLC) for OP rates based on metered load.

  Under the current practice, PECO assigns no PLC or NSPL to OP accounts. Based on preliminary load study information, PECO estimates that impact of this process improvement to more accurately determine PLC for customer accounts will result in an increase of 30 MW of PLC and NSPL associated with the aggregate of OP accounts, a decrease of 15 MW of PLC/NSPL from other residential accounts, and a decrease of 15 MW of PLC/NSPL from non-residential accounts. For the purposes of this RFP for residential default service, the estimate of the net impact of this change is an increase of 15 MW of PLC/NSPL to the residential customer class. For the upcoming solicitation, PECO will assign the estimate of the 15 MW decrease over the non-residential customer groups (i.e. small commercial and medium commercial, and large commercial).
   
  
  03/16/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  

• FAQ-238:
  Will a list of the RFP Bidders in a particular solicitation be distributed to the other RFP Bidders?
   
  
  Under the RFP processes for PECO's procurement of full requirements products and for PECO’s procurement of energy blocks, it is not proposed that the list of RFP bidders be disclosed to other RFP Bidders.
  
  
   
  
  03/10/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-237:
  Is there a contingency plan in place for these RFPs in case the solicitations are not fully subscribed?
   
  
  Yes, there is a contingency plan for both the Full requirements RFP and the Block energy RFP. Details can be found in the relevant RFP Rules, posted on the PECO Procurement website.
  
  03/10/2010 in Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-236:
  The response to FAQ-238 states that “it is not proposed that the list of RFP Bidders be disclosed to other RFP Bidders.” How can an RFP Bidder comply with the requirements in Paragraphs IV.4.3, V.1.5 and V.1.7 of the RFP Rules if it does not know the identities of the other RFP Bidders?  
   
  
  None of the certifications you reference requires a list of other RFP Bidders. 
  
  Article IV.5.2 of the RFP Rules, available here, requires that you certify that “the RFP Bidder is not part of a bidding agreement, a joint venture for purposes of participating in any solicitation for this Full Requirements RFP or for the Block Energy RFP, a bidding consortium, or any other type of agreement related to bidding in any solicitation of these RFPs.”  You do not need a list of other bidders in the RFP to be able to certify that you have not entered into a bidding agreement for bidding in the RFP.
  
  Article V.1.2 of the RFP Rules requires that you certify that “the RFP Bidder is bidding independently and that it has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) in response to this solicitation or any future solicitation in this Full Requirements RFP or in the Block Energy RFP.”  You do not need a list of other bidders in the RFP to be able to certify that you are bidding independently and have no knowledge of other proposals being submitted in the RFP. 
  
  Article V.1.2 of the RFP Rules also requires that you certify that “the RFP Bidder has not disclosed, and will not otherwise disclose, publicly or to any other party any information relating to its Proposal, which could have an effect on whether another party submits a Proposal in any solicitation under one or both of the RFPs (Full Requirements RFP or Block Energy RFP), or on the contents of the Proposal that another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) would be willing to submit in response to one or both of the RFPs.”  You do not need a list of other bidders in the RFP to be able to certify that you have not made and will not make certain information disclosures. 
  
  03/10/2010 in Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-235:
  Section I.3.1 of the RFP Rules states that "…the alternate guaranty form must not have a monetary limit and must provide credit protections to PECO and its customers that are substantially similar to the credit protections provided to PECO by the Form of Guaranty."  Appendix 3 to the RFP Rules states that "[a] prospective supplier can utilize the safe harbor provided by the Form of Guaranty, which has a liability limit." Is it acceptable to include the following language in the Alternate Guaranty Form?
  
  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the maximum aggregate liability of the Guarantor under this Guaranty shall in no event exceed $[_______], less the value of other liquid securities posted by Seller under the Agreement(s)."
   
  
  The Minimum Requirements for the Alternate Guaranty Form in Appendix 3 to the RFP Rules, available here, state that “[t]he guaranty must not be subject to any monetary limit.”  Your proposed language imposes a monetary limit on the guaranty.  It would therefore be unacceptable to PECO. 
  
  The “safe harbor provided by the Form of Guaranty” refers to the fact that the Form of Guaranty provided as Exhibit F to the Supplier Master Agreement has a monetary limit and is both acceptable to PECO and available for use by all suppliers; any alternate form must not have a monetary limit.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-233:
  What happens if the number of Alternative Energy Credits (“AECs”) required for a tranche is actually less than the AECs allocated to that tranche by PECO?
   
  
  Any PECO AECs allocated to the Seller’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (“AEPS”) Obligation (as defined in the SMA, available here) shall remain the property of PECO and shall not be transferred to Seller.  In the event that the Seller's AEPS Obligation for an AEPS Reporting Period is less than the amount of AECs allocated to the Seller's Obligation, the Seller will not be required to transfer any AECs to PECO for that Reporting Period.  The allocated AECs will remain the property of PECO.  No credit will be granted to the Supplier and the Supplier cannot request that these AECs apply to any other Reporting Period’s obligation.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-232:
  Will staff from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) or the Office of Consumer Advocate perform a separate evaluation of the bids?
   
  
  No. The Independent Evaluator performs the evaluation of the bids and presents the results to the PUC in a confidential report. PUC staff may choose to observe the evaluation process.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-231:
  Is it possible for an unrated entity to qualify for the solicitations?
   
  
  Yes. A prospective supplier that is not a rated entity may still qualify for the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP. Such an entity would be required to post any security under the Supply Master Agreement in the form of cash or a letter of credit.
  
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-230:
  If an entity wishes to bid in both the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP, can it submit one single Part 1 Form to cover both RFPs, or must it submit a separate Part 1 Form for each RFP?
   
  
  There are separate Part 1 Forms for the Full Requirements RFP and the Block Energy RFP.

  You will find the header “Full Requirements RFP” or “Block Energy RFP” on the upper left-hand side of each page to distinguish the Part 1 Form for the Full Requirements RFP from the Part 1 Form for the Block Energy RFP. 

  An RFP Bidder that participates in both the Full Requirements RFP and in the Block Energy RFP submits two separate Part 1 Forms.  A Part 1 Form for one RFP requires that the RFP Bidder submit certain documents, some of which are the same as the documents required for the other RFP.  For the convenience of RFP Bidders participating in both the Full Requirements RFP and in the Block Energy RFP, the Independent Evaluator will accept a single copy of the following documents:
  •    If submitting a Proposal under an Agency Agreement, a copy of the Agency Agreement. [Section 5]
  •    For the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder relies, a copy of the most recent SEC Form 10-Q (if unavailable, the most recent quarterly, monthly or bi-annual financial information accompanied by an attestation by the entity’s Chief Financial Officer that the information contained in the financial statements fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of the entity. [Section 2]
  •    For the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder relies, documentation showing the name of the rating agency, the type of rating, and the rating of the entity [Section 2]

  All other documents required by the Part 1 Form must be provided separately in the Part 1 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP and in the Part 1 Proposal for the Block Energy RFP.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in General , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-229:
  Will PECO accept a Letter of Credit from a non-US branch of a fully accredited bank?
   
  
  No. PECO will accept a Letter of Credit (Pre-Bid or Post-Bid) issued by a U.S. branch of a U.S. commercial bank or issued by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank, but PECO will not accept a Letter of Credit from a non-U.S. branch of a bank.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-228:
  If a company qualifies to bid in an RFP, but does not submit a bid in that RFP, is that company eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations under that RFP?
   
  
  An entity is eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of an RFP if it has previously submitted a successful Part 1 and/or Part 2 Proposal in that RFP, regardless of whether or not that entity actually submits a bid in any given solicitation of the RFP for which it qualifies.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-227:
   Assume that an RFP Bidder receives a request from a third party before the deadline for submission of a response to the RFP to sell to the third party the following energy product:
  Product Type: Firm (LD), as defined in the EEI Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, available at the following link:
  Delivery Point: “PE Zone, as defined within PJM” as used in the Supplier Master Agreement
  Delivery Term: January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012
  Hours of Delivery: All hours
  Contract Quantity: Load following energy based on a % of the hourly load reported by PJM for the “PJM Mid-Atlantic Region,” as referred to in the following link, http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/energy/real-time/loadhryr.aspx, that is approximately 50 MW at peak;
  
  Assume further that the third party has not disclosed that the third party will be an RFP Bidder, and that the RFP Bidder does not otherwise know whether the third party is an RFP Bidder.
  
  Question 1: If the RFP Bidder chooses to make an offer to the third party, which the third party accepts, has the RFP bidder violated the requirements of either the Block or Full-Requirements RFP as set forth in Article V. Section V.1.5 of both RFPs that “it has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) in response to this solicitation or any future solicitation in this Full Requirements RFP or in the Block Energy RFP.”

  
  Question 2: If the RFP Bidder chooses to make an offer to the third party, which the third party accepts, has the RFP bidder violated the requirements of either the Block or Full-Requirements RFP as set forth in Article V. Section V.1.5 of both RFPs that “the RFP Bidder has not disclosed, and will not otherwise disclose, publicly or to any other party any information relating to its Proposal, which could have an effect on whether another party submits a Proposal in any solicitation under one or both of the RFPs (Full Requirements RFP or Block Energy RFP), or on the contents of the Proposal that another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) would be willing to submit in response to one or both of the RFPs.”
   
  
  This response addresses both questions jointly as the factors that determine whether a particular transaction in a particular context would imply that an RFP Bidder has knowledge of information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder are largely similar to those that would imply that an RFP Bidder has disclosed information regarding its Proposal.    For example, if an RFP Bidder were completing a transaction with a counterparty for the sale of a full requirements product to serve PECO’s Residential Class for the period January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012 – a product that is sufficient to meet virtually all the obligations of a Default Supplier for PECO’s Residential Class -- the RFP Bidder would have acquired information regarding the valuation of a counterparty that is another RFP Bidder as there are not other uses or market for this product.  Further, the terms of and the negotiations toward the transaction are likely to imply that the counterparty has acquired information regarding the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the value of a tranche, which could have an effect on whether the counterparty submits a Proposal or on the contents of the Proposal that the counterparty would be willing to submit.  
   
  An RFP Bidder is asked, in its Part 1 Proposal, to certify that the RFP Bidder is not part of a bidding agreement, a joint venture for purposes of participating in any solicitation for this Full Requirements RFP or for the Block Energy RFP, a bidding consortium, or any other type of agreement related to bidding in any solicitation of these RFPs.  In its Part 2 Proposal, the RFP Bidder will be asked to certify that:
  •     The RFP Bidder is bidding independently and that it has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) where such information includes but is not limited to:  the fact that another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) is submitting a Proposal in response to the Full Requirements RFP or the Block Energy RFP; the Bids by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the price offers by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) in this or in a subsequent solicitation under the Block Energy RFP; the number of tranches bid by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the number of blocks bid by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under the Block Energy RFP; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the value of a tranche of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the value of a block of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement (“Block Energy SMA”); the preference of another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under one or both of the RFPs;  and the contractual arrangements for power of another RFP Bidder to serve tranches of Default Service Load were that RFP Bidder to become a Default Service Supplier. 
  •    the RFP Bidder has maintained and will continue to maintain the confidentiality of its Proposal during the preparation of the Proposal, including in communicating with its financial institution for the purpose of preparing the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit or in communicating with advisors, if any.
  •     the RFP Bidder must certify that, with the exception of its financial institution for the purpose of preparing the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit or in communicating with advisors,  the RFP Bidder has not disclosed, and will not otherwise disclose, publicly or to any other party any information relating to its Proposal, where such information includes, but is not limited to:  the fact that the RFP Bidder is submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s Bids in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s number of tranches bid for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the value of a tranche of a product; the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; and the RFP Bidder’s preference for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP.

  The intent of these and other certifications is to promote competitiveness, to uphold the integrity of the RFPs, to prohibit collusive arrangements, and to ensure that no RFP Bidder gains superior information regarding its competitors that might affect the outcome of any solicitation.  However, please note that these certifications are not a substitute for antitrust laws and other competition regulation; compliance with the certifications does not ensure compliance with these broader legal requirements.  Your conduct and any transactions in which you take part will need to avoid impairing your ability to make the certifications under the terms of the RFPs but will also need to comply with the requirements of the broader legal context. 
  
  Each RFP Bidder is asked to make the certifications given above in its Part 1 and Part 2 Proposal.  It is the responsibility of the RFP Bidder to assess whether an RFP Bidder can or cannot make and uphold these certifications.  Whether the certifications can be made and upheld depends not just on the nature of the transaction but on the totality of the RFP Bidder’s circumstance. The Independent Evaluator can provide assistance in the RFP Bidder’s evaluation of whether the RFP Bidder can make the certifications in the totality of its particular circumstance only by giving an interpretation of the certifications in the narrow context of the hypothetical transaction.   

  Transaction of a “PJM-shaped product”, such as the one you describe, may or may not impede the RFP Bidder’s ability to make or uphold the certifications required by the Part 2 Proposal.  Such a transaction could be used to support a bid for the Full Requirements RFP and we consider below the certifications under that RFP.  A transaction of a PJM-shaped product in isolation, with that product having a fixed price, a delivery pattern that is defined as a fixed percentage of the PJM Mid-Atlantic Region load, may not reveal the buyer’s or the seller’s assessment of migration risk or weather risk associated with providing full requirements service for any particular class of PECO default service customers.  You, as the RFP Bidder, have stated that you have no knowledge that the counterparty will bid in the RFP; we conclude that the hypothetical transaction is not contingent on the counterparty winning tranches in a solicitation.  We note that PJM-shaped products have alternative uses; they can be used not only to support a bid in a solicitation for the PECO Full Requirements RFP but they can also be used for other purposes as well and can be resold to a buyer not participating in the RFPs.  PJM-shaped products can be used to meet only the energy component of full requirements supply for which several other significant components are required.  The transaction for a PJM-shaped product need not reveal or provide information in a way that would make the RFP Bidder unable to meet the certifications of the Part 2 Proposal, subject to the qualifications that we make in the next paragraphs.
  
  Such a transaction could reveal or provide information in a way that would prevent the RFP Bidder from making the certifications of the Part 2 Proposal.  For example, if this transaction were not an isolated transaction but instead the RFP Bidder were selling to the counterparty other components that could be used for providing full requirements supply of a PECO class of default customers, the totality of these transactions would most likely disclose or reveal information in a way that would impede the RFP Bidder’s ability to make the certifications of the Part 2 Proposal.  The totality of the transactions would indicate to the RFP Bidder that the counterparty is also presenting a Proposal in the PECO Full Requirements RFP and would make it unlikely that the RFP Bidder would be able to make or uphold all certifications of the Part 2 Proposal.
  
  Other characteristics of the transaction for a PJM-shaped product are also relevant to the RFP Bidder’s consideration of its ability to make the certifications.  For a PJM-shaped product such as the one you describe, the delivery point (or, for a financially settled product the LMP against which the product will be settled) is relevant.  A delivery point or settlement tied to a location at which standard block products are traded and quoted (such as the PJM Western Hub) would make it more likely that the RFP Bidder could make and uphold the Part 2 certifications as this product could apply to a wider range of supply opportunities compared to a product delivered to the PE Zone.  The supply period is relevant in the same way; a delivery term that follows the PJM year or the calendar year, as opposed to the exact term being solicited in the RFP, would make it more likely that you could make the certifications as it would not suggest participation by the counterparty in the RFP.  The RFP Bidder would need to consider all aspects of the transaction.  A product delivered to the PECO zone, transacted just before a solicitation  for a term exactly corresponding to the a supply period of a product in the RFP, and transacted with a counterparty with which the RFP Bidder does not typically trade such a product, would seem to communicate significant information, even if for a PJM-shaped product.  This is true even though the product is independent of switching and actual full requirements load, even though the load shape sold is the PJM mid-Atlantic load shape rather than the shape of any PECO class of default customers, and even though the product could conceivably be used to hedge full requirements or retail load in other zones.
  
  However, if the RFP Bidder typically engages and has engaged in the past with the counterparty in transactions of PJM-shaped products of exactly the type described in their normal course of business, the RFP Bidder may continue to engage in such transactions without a likely inference that the counterparty is intending to submit a Proposal in the RFP or without revealing or providing information that would prevent the RFP Bidder from making the certifications of the Part 2 Proposal.

  As stated above, it is the RFP Bidder’s responsibility to weigh all the information and come to the conclusion as to whether the transaction in the totality of the RFP Bidder’s particular circumstance would cause the RFP Bidder to be unable to make or uphold the certifications in the Part 2 Proposal.   The possibility that a counterparty could be submitting a Proposal in a solicitation under the RFP coupled with a single transaction that is not contingent on winning in the RFP for a product that does not reflect the load shape or migration risk of any PECO class of default service customers and that does not share with the RFP products either a delivery point or a supply period would not constitute such knowledge.  Even if it were the case, unbeknownst to the RFP Bidder, that the counterparty were submitting a Proposal in the RFP, the sale of such a product with realistic alternate uses would not in itself constitute knowledge of the counterparty’s valuation and would not reveal the RFP Bidder’s own valuation.
  
  03/10/2010 in General , Rules
  
  

• FAQ-226:
  Assume that an RFP Bidder receives a request from a third party before the deadline for submission of a response to the RFP to sell to the third party the following energy product:
  Product Type: Firm (LD), as defined in the EEI Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, available at the following link:
  Delivery Point: “PE Zone, as defined within PJM” as used in the Supplier Master Agreement
  Delivery Term: January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012
  Hours of Delivery: All hours
  Contract Quantity: 10 MW, or any multiple of 10 MW
  Assume further that the third party has not disclosed that the third party will be an RFP Bidder, and that the RFP Bidder does not otherwise know whether the third party is an RFP Bidder.

  Question 1: If the RFP Bidder chooses to make an offer to the third party, which the third party accepts, has the RFP bidder violated the requirements of either the Block or Full-Requirements RFP as set forth in Article V. Section V.1.5 of both RFPs that “it has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) in response to this solicitation or any future solicitation in this Full Requirements RFP or in the Block Energy RFP.”

  Question 2: If the RFP Bidder chooses to make an offer to the third party, which the third party accepts, has the RFP bidder violated the requirements of either the Block or Full-Requirements RFP as set forth in Article V. Section V.1.7 of both RFPs that “the RFP Bidder has not disclosed, and will not otherwise disclose, publicly or to any other party any information relating to its Proposal, which could have an effect on whether another party submits a Proposal in any solicitation under one or both of the RFPs (Full Requirements RFP or Block Energy RFP), or on the contents of the Proposal that another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy)would be willing to submit in response to one or both of the RFPs.”
   
  
  We will respond to both questions jointly as the factors that determine whether a particular transaction in a particular context would imply that an RFP Bidder has knowledge of information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder are largely similar to those that would imply that an RFP Bidder has disclosed information regarding its Proposal.   
   
  An RFP Bidder is asked, in its Part 1 Proposal, to certify that the RFP Bidder is not part of a bidding agreement, a joint venture for purposes of participating in any solicitation for this Full Requirements RFP or for the Block Energy RFP, a bidding consortium, or any other type of agreement related to bidding in any solicitation of these RFPs.  In its Part 2 Proposal, the RFP Bidder will be asked to certify that:
  •    The RFP Bidder is bidding independently and that it has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) where such information includes but is not limited to:  the fact that another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) is submitting a Proposal in response to the Full Requirements RFP or the Block Energy RFP; the Bids by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the price offers by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) in this or in a subsequent solicitation under the Block Energy RFP; the number of tranches bid by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the number of blocks bid by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under the Block Energy RFP; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the value of a tranche of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the value of a block of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement (“Block Energy SMA”); the preference of another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under one or both of the RFPs;  and the contractual arrangements for power of another RFP Bidder to serve tranches of Default Service Load were that RFP Bidder to become a Default Service Supplier. 
  •    the RFP Bidder has maintained and will continue to maintain the confidentiality of its Proposal during the preparation of the Proposal, including in communicating with its financial institution for the purpose of preparing the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit or in communicating with advisors, if any.
  •    the RFP Bidder must certify that, with the exception of its financial institution for the purpose of preparing the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit or in communicating with advisors,  the RFP Bidder has not disclosed, and will not otherwise disclose, publicly or to any other party any information relating to its Proposal, where such information includes, but is not limited to:  the fact that the RFP Bidder is submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s Bids in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s number of tranches bid for any product in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP; the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the value of a tranche of a product; the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; and the RFP Bidder’s preference for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP.
  The intent of these and other certifications is to promote competitiveness, to uphold the integrity of the RFPs, to prohibit collusive arrangements, and to ensure that no RFP Bidder gains superior information regarding its competitors that might affect the outcome of any solicitation.  However, please note that these certifications are not a substitute for antitrust laws and other competition regulation and compliance with the certifications does not ensure compliance with these broader legal requirements.  Your conduct and any transactions in which you take part will need to avoid impairing your ability to make the certifications under the terms of the RFPs but will also need to comply with the requirements of the broader legal context as well. 
  
  Each RFP Bidder is asked to make the certifications given above in its Part 1 and Part 2 Proposal.  It is the responsibility of the RFP Bidder to assess whether an RFP Bidder can or cannot make and uphold these certifications.  Whether the certifications can be made and upheld depends not just on the nature of the transaction but on the totality of the RFP Bidder’s circumstance. The Independent Evaluator can provide assistance in the RFP Bidder’s evaluation of whether the RFP Bidder can make the certifications in the totality of its particular circumstance only by giving an interpretation of the certifications in the narrow context of the hypothetical transaction.   
  
  A transaction of 10MW 7x24 blocks, for a two-year period, delivered at the PECO zone, and sold in the few weeks prior to a solicitation under the PECO Block Energy RFP where this exact block size, delivery point, and supply period are being purchased will impede your ability to make or uphold the certifications required by the Part 2 Proposal.  Such a transaction could be used to support a bid for the Block Energy RFP and we consider below the certifications under that RFP.  Such a transaction would seem to provide the RFP Bidder with knowledge that the counterparty is intending to submit a Proposal in the PECO Block Energy RFP and knowledge of the value of a block held by that counterparty.  Further, while selling such a product would not reveal an intent to submit a Proposal on the RFP Bidder’s part, the sale by the RFP Bidder of a near exact replica of a product being solicited as well as any negotiations toward that transaction would likely reveal to the counterparty the RFP Bidder’s valuation of that product, which could have an effect on the counterparty’s Proposal.  This is the case because the transaction is not standard in several respects: a 10MW block is not standard; the transaction tracks a product solicited in the Block Energy RFP in its delivery point rather than being tied to a location at which standard block products are traded and quoted (such as the PJM Western Hub); the transaction exactly tracks a product solicited in the Block Energy RFP in its supply period; and the timing of the transaction is nearly coincident with a solicitation under the Block Energy RFP. If the transaction were contingent on the outcome of the solicitation it would conceivably provide you with even more certain information that the counterparty was submitting a Proposal in response to PECO’s Block Energy RFP.
  
  Conceivably, if the RFP Bidder typically engages and has engaged in the past with the counterparty in transactions of blocks of energy of exactly the type described in their normal course of business, the RFP Bidder may continue to engage in such transactions without a likely inference that the counterparty is intending to submit a Proposal in PECO’s Block Energy RFP or without revealing or providing information that would prevent the RFP Bidder from making the certifications of the Part 2 Proposal.
  
  It is the RFP Bidder’s responsibility to weigh all the information and to assess the totality of the RFP Bidder’s circumstance to come to the conclusion as to whether the transaction would impede the RFP Bidder's ability to make the certifications of the Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals. 
   
  
  03/10/2010 in General , Rules
  
  

• FAQ-225:
  What does EGS stand for in the Customer Count data file?
   
  
  "EGS" stands for "Electric Generation Supplier".  This is analogous to the term “Third Party Supplier” that is used in other jurisdictions.  Please refer to Data Description document for an explanation of all the terms used in the Data Room files. The Data Description document states that the Customer Counts file provides the “[t]otal number of PECO customers in a particular Class by rate schedule and strata combination as of the last calendar day of the previous month, including counts for default service customers and customers served by EGSs.”
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-224:
  Regarding the Historical PJM Bill information, the line items # 1301 – 1312 have no charges associated with them from June 2007 to July 2008. However, an additional item without a line item # is provided called, “PJM Scheduling System Control and Dispatch Service Charges”. Is this item the accumulation of items 1301 – 1312?
   
  
  Yes, the un-numbered item is generally the sum of the more detailed line items 1301 to 1312. The un-numbered item "PJM Scheduling System Control and Dispatch Service Charges" was replaced by line items 1301 to 1312 in August 2008.  The un-numbered item will no longer be in use in future PJM Bills.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-223:
  Could you clarify the MTM calculation in Exhibit E of the Supply Master Agreement?
   
  
  The MTM Exposure amount is calculated, for each month remaining in the delivery period of a transaction confirmation, as follows:

  { [on-peak forward price – initial mark price] * [on-peak estimated energy quantity] * [current capacity PLC per tranche / MW-Measure] * [number of tranches] + [off-peak forward price – initial mark price] * [off-peak estimated energy quantity] * [current capacity PLC per tranche / MW-Measure] * [number of tranches] } * 1.1

  If the delivery period has begun, then for the current month of the delivery period, the calculation will be as follows:

  { [on-peak forward price – initial mark price] * [on-peak estimated energy quantity] * [current capacity PLC per tranche / MW-Measure] * [number of tranches] * [on-peak hours remaining in the current month / total on-peak hours in the current month] + [off-peak forward price – initial mark price] * [off-peak estimated energy quantity] * [current capacity PLC per tranche / MW-Measure] * [number of tranches] * [off-peak hours remaining in the current month / total off-peak hours in the current month]} * 1.1
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Contract
  
  

• FAQ-222:
  Article I of the Supply Master Agreement states that Credit Rating means, with respect to any entity, "the rating then assigned to such entity’s unsecured, senior long-term debt obligations (not supported by third party credit enhancements) or if such entity does not have a rating for its senior unsecured long-term debt, then the rating then assigned to such entity as an issuer rating by S&P, Moody’s or Fitch (discounted by one notch)." Are issuer ratings from all three rating agencies discounted by one notch, or just issuer ratings from Fitch?
   
  
  If an issuer rating is used in place of a senior unsecured long-term debt rating, that issuer rating is discounted by one notch, regardless of which of the three rating agencies assigned it.
   
  
  03/10/2010 in Contract , Credit
  
  
• FAQ-221:
  Our bank requires full contact information for the Beneficiary of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit. What is PECO’s contact information?
  
  If your bank requires full contact information for the Beneficiary of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit, you may use the following information:

  PECO Energy Company
  Energy Acquisition / S14-2
  2301 Market Street
  Philadelphia, PA 19103
  Contact name : Busola Awoniyi
  Telephone Number: 215-841-6615
  Fax Number : 215-841-4728
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-220:
  Please explain, in detail, the process by which PECO will determine, on a daily basis, the hourly values of the Monthly Settlement Load for each Customer Supply Group. Please also explain, in detail, the process by which PECO will determine the hourly values of the Monthly Settlement Load for each Customer Supply which Group will be to PJM for the "Reconciliation" process approximately 60 days later. Please include the source of the data being used (e.g. Customer hourly meter reads, EGS’ RLRs, generic load profiles, actual or forecasted weather, etc.), the timing of the data (e.g. hourly meter reads are available after midnight the day of delivery, EGSs submit the RLR prior to Noon the day prior to delivery, etc), and the availability of the data for review after delivery. (e.g. when will these figures be posted in the Data Room?)
   
  
  For 2011, PECO plans to change its energy scheduling process from a 'day-ahead' forecasting process to a 'day-after delivery day' backcasting process. This process change will apply to Electric Generation Suppliers' and default service suppliers' energy schedules.

  On a daily basis, following each delivery day, PECO will first determine the wholesale-metered hourly loads for the delivery day for the PECO zone. PECO's systems will keep track of the daily customer account responsibilities of all load serving entity groups, i.e. each EGS, and each default service Customer Supply Group. Full requirements suppliers will serve a percentage of the load of each Customer Supply Group. PECO will determine hourly loads by Customer Supply Group for all groups using a load profiling process that is consistent with industry practice. The inputs to the process for energy scheduling will be actual weather data inputs to static load profiles. At this time PECO will not have monthly read data applicable to the backcast day or interval meter data. As described in the Data Room on our Web site, PECO is in the process of load research and will be updating the load profile functions. New load profiles will be effective on January 1, 2011 and will be provided when they become available. The Monthly Settlement Load and its hourly component for SMA full requirements service invoicing and for PJM Wholesale Load Responsibility will be based on the MWHs assigned to full service suppliers by PJM via Wholesale Load Responsibility energy schedules. This would be the uploaded energy from the daily backcast adjusted for marginal losses.

  The '60 day' energy reconciliation process is described in the PECO EGS Supplier Coordination tariff. Under this process, hourly energy amounts are recalculated and reconciled to scheduled energy when sufficient customer load data is available from actual retail meter readings so that the final settlement hourly load shape is based on actual weather and actual metered retail load.

  60-day Settlement results by Procurement class, rate class, and strata broken into Default Load / EGS Load are posted in the Data Room during the first monthly update after the 60-day Settlement is completed. Backcast results are not posted to the Data Room and in any case are not currently performed by Customer Load Group.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , Data
  
  

• FAQ-219:
  Is there a phone number that can be used for parcels requiring a phone number for delivery? 
  
  For parcels requiring a phone number for delivery, please use 215-568-0200.
  
  03/09/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-218:
  If PECO were required to change the classification of customers, rate classes or strata among Customer Supply Groups, what notification and revised load data would PECO provide to Sellers and RFP Bidders?
  
  PECO does not expect to change the rate schedules that are part of each Customer Supply Group for the duration of the PUC-approved default service procurement plan, other than as required to comply with changes in regulation and/or legislation.  PECO-initiated changes to strata and load curves for the purpose of determining hourly energy for monthly-metered accounts are provided for in PECO's Electric Generation Supplier ("EGS") Coordination Tariff.  Customer assignments based on historical demand will initially be effective on January 1, 2011, with subsequent annual assignments effective June 1, beginning with June 1, 2012. 
   

  PECO will not retrofit the historic hourly load data provided to changes to the classification of customers, rate classes, or strata among Customer Supply Groups. PECO will update the data description document available in the Data Room to explain the current assumptions being used.  After a change has been effected, all data posted to the Data Room, including customer counts and hourly load, will reflect the new customer composition or changes in strata.  The Independent Evaluator will announce to registrants to the Web site when those changes are in effect.

  Each prospective RFP Bidder is invited to provide comments on the Data Room, including suggestions to PECO regarding data that would be useful in this context.  For more information, please see the Invitation for Comments.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Rates , Data
  
  

• FAQ-217:
  What process is PECO required to follow to change the classification of customers, rate classes or strata among Customer Supply Groups? Will PECO publicly file with the PA PUC if PECO were to propose making such a change?
   
  
  The Customer Supply Groups are defined in the Procurement Plan reviewed and approved by the Commission. Those Customer Supply Groups are:
  • The Residential class, which includes rate schedules R, RH, RT, OP, and CAP Rates A through G
  • The Small Commercial class, which includes small commercial and industrial customers served under rate schedules GS, PD and HT whose peak demand is less than 100 kW, as well as the following lighting rate schedules: AL, TL, POL, SLE, SLS, and SLP
  • The Medium Commercial class, which includes customers from the following rate schedules whose peak demand is equal to or greater than 100 kW but less than or equal to 500 kW: GS, HT, PD.
  • The Large Commercial and Industrial class includes customers on rate schedules GS, HT, PD, and EP with peak demands greater than 500 kW.

  PECO does not expect to change the rate schedules that are part of each Customer Supply Group for the duration of the PUC-approved default service procurement plan, other than as required to comply with applicable regulation and/or legislation. As a new business process associated with the Default Service Plan, PECO will conduct an annual review of all customer accounts and will assign customers to the proper Customer Supply Group based on customers' recent annual peak demand data. A particular commercial or industrial customer may be reassigned from one Customer Supply Group to another in this process. Such customer assignments will initially be effective on January 1, 2011, with subsequent annual assignments effective June 1, beginning with June 1, 2012. Customers in the Residential class will remain in the Residential class and are not part of the annual determination of procurement class. Commercial accounts (excluding Lighting) may be switched between small, medium, or large based on historical demands.

  PECO-initiated changes to strata and load curves for the purpose of determining hourly energy for monthly-metered accounts are provided for in PECO's Electric Generation Supplier Coordination Tariff. Under the EGS Coordination tariff, PECO will maintain, based on load survey data, load forecast categories corresponding to the Company’s current rate classes and strata within the rate classes identified in the EDC Tariff. The weather-sensitive load curves of these rate classes/usage strata will be the basis for preparing the energy schedules for the aggregate of an EGS's monthly metered customers in each rate class/usage strata, using hourly weather forecast data developed by an independent weather service. Strata changes are effective January 1 of each year.

  Under the tariff, PECO reviews annually its methodology, algorithms and load forecasting results and performs additional load studies to update the load curve data as required. The EGS Coordination Tariff will be revised and submitted to the PUC to reflect required changes to daily energy scheduling processes.

  Section 6.2 of PECO’s EGS Tariff (available here) states the following:

  6.2 Forecasting Methodology.

  6.2.1 Monthly Metered Customer Forecasts. For each EGS, the Company will provide hourly load forecasts for Customers with monthly metering equipment, which will establish the hourly supply obligations of the EGS for serving such Customers. The Company has developed and will maintain, based on load survey data, load forecast categories corresponding to the Company’s current rate classes and strata within the rate classes identified in the EDC Tariff. The weather-sensitive load curves of these rate classes/usage strata will be the basis for preparing the forecasts for the aggregate of an EGS's monthly metered Customers in each rate class/usage strata, using hourly weather forecast data developed by an independent weather service.

  6.2.2 Hourly Metered Customer Forecasts. An EGS shall provide hourly load forecasts for their Customers with Hourly or Sub-Hourly Metering Equipment.

  6.2.3 Typical Load Curve Data. On or before the day of energy scheduling, the Company will make available to EGSs the typical load curves (including weather sensitivity) and all algorithms and data necessary to calculate the hourly forecast for monthly metered Customers. This information will be available on an ongoing basis for an EGS to download from the SUCCESS website and will permit an EGS to develop forecasts for any future period using the same methodology as the Company will use.

  6.2.3.1 Updates to Typical Load Curve Data. The Company shall review annually its methodology, algorithms and load forecasting results and shall perform additional load studies to update the load curve data as required.
   
   
  
  03/09/2010 in General , Procedures , Rates , Data
  
  

• FAQ-216:
  Will there be one eSchedule or eSchedule Contract between Buyer and Seller for each of the successful bids by a Seller? Will the Buyer be submitting the eSchedule(s) between Buyer and Seller to PJM?
  
  While PECO is still working out the details with PJM, our plans are as follows. There will be one eSchedule contract (with associated daily energy schedules) between PECO and the Seller for each Transaction Confirmation between PECO and the Seller. A Transaction Confirmation for a particular product in a particular solicitation includes one or more winning bids on tranches.

  PECO plans to establish each eSchedule contract for unilateral confirmation by PECO of daily eSchedules, and will upload the eSchedules to PJM on a 'day after delivery day' basis.

  Also, PECO plans to have one PJM "short name" for the sum of all the Seller's Transaction Confirmations under each Customer Group. This is because PJM "short names" drive the aggregation of capacity PLC load uploaded to PJM.

  Under the SMA, the Seller is responsible for scheduling their energy to meet full service requirements with PJM. Please see Article 3 of the Supply Master Agreement, which states: “Seller shall schedule Full Requirements Service pursuant to the PJM Agreements.”
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract
  
  

• FAQ-215:
  What regulatory approvals will be required for assignment of an executed Supply Master Agreement (“SMA”) from one Seller to another?  Does the load cap apply to load acquired through an assigned SMA?
  
  As a potential Seller, it is your responsibility to determine what regulatory approvals are required for any proposed assignment of the Supply Master Agreement ("SMA").  The required approvals may differ based upon the circumstances of each Seller.  At the current time, we are unaware of additional regulatory approvals other than those generally required under the SMA (see, e.g., Section 15.1(b)), but do not represent that in the future or in certain other circumstances additional regulatory approvals could not be required before an assignment of an SMA could be effected.
  
  The Default Service Plan approved by the PaPUC provides that a supplier may not serve more than 65% of the load for any Customer Supply Group at any time (the "load cap"). The load cap is applied separately to block and full requirements supply.  Any assignment from one supplier to another which causes the assignee to exceed the load cap for either block or full requirements supply would be inconsistent with PECO's Default Service Plan and therefore prohibited.
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-214:
  Would the discussion with a Seller regarding assignment of its load obligation under an executed Supply Master Agreement (“SMA”) to us, if we were another Seller, violate any of the certifications or representations contained in the RFP rules?
   
  
  You will need to carefully review the certifications and representations in order to determine if such discussions regarding assignment of another supplier’s obligations to you would render you unable to make any the certifications or representations required of the Part 1 or Part 2 Proposals. 

  It would seem probable that any such discussion during the pendency of a solicitation or in anticipation of future solicitations could lead you to be unable to make some of the certifications required in your Proposal, including the following:
  •     that you do not have "any other type of agreement related to bidding in any solicitation of these RFPs."
  •    that you are bidding independently and have "no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) in response to this solicitation or any future solicitation in this Full Requirements RFP or in the Block Energy RFP."
  •    that you have no knowledge of "the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the value of a tranche of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the value of a block of a product; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; the estimation by another RFP Bidder (Block Energy) of the risks associated with providing supply under the Block Energy SMA; the preference of another RFP Bidder (Full Requirements or Block Energy) for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under one or both of the RFPs;  and the contractual arrangements for power of another RFP Bidder to serve tranches of Default Service Load were that RFP Bidder to become a Default Service Supplier."
  •    that you as the RFP Bidder have not "disclosed to any other party the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the value of a tranche of a product; the RFP Bidder’s estimation of the risks associated with providing supply under the Default Service SMA; and the RFP Bidder’s preference for bidding on specific products in this or in a subsequent solicitation under this RFP."

  It would seem probable that it would be difficult to make these certifications if you have discussed with any other entity the possibility that this other entity would transfer its obligations to you at some point in the future.  While it is true that the certifications are made for each solicitation and apply only until the Commission has either approved or rejected each of the winning Bids for a solicitation, substantive discussions of this type concerning assignment, even if held after a solicitation’s results have been reviewed by the Commission, could well reveal or provide information about how the other entity values the product and how you value the product that would jeopardize your ability to make these representations and qualify to participate in future solicitations.

  The Default Service Plan contains a series of solicitations.  There will be no 'Sellers', even after the results of the first solicitation have been approved, as at that time the winning suppliers will not be identified.  (Exhibit G of PECO's settlement filing contains additional information on the disclosure of information after each solicitation and once all solicitations for a supply period have been conducted).  Even in a situation where the identities of the Sellers are known, Sellers will be competitors who, having competed in some solicitations, may well compete again in additional solicitations.  Price information for a given Seller is not released.  In view of additional solicitations, discussions between such competitors or agreements that one competitor would assign its obligations to another, could reveal price and quantity data that would otherwise be kept confidential, and would seem to both impair each seller’s ability to make the certifications required of the Proposal and raise questions more broadly over potential collusion with respect to future solicitations. 

  There would, however, be situations where discussions of assignment would likely not impair your ability to make the certifications.  For example, if a Seller that is exiting the power marketing business is looking to transfer its supply responsibility and approaches another entity intending to continue in the business, discussions regarding assignment may take place without jeopardizing the entity’s ability to participate in future solicitations.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , Rules , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-213:
  It appears that the hourly energy consumption data provided in the Data Room are at the system or generator level but that winning RFP Bidders will be paid at the customer meter level.  Is this assumption correct?
   
  
  No, this assumption is incorrect.  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.
   
  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.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-212:
  In the Part 1 Form, can we include the Guarantor information knowing that we may opt to post cash instead of executing a Guaranty in the Part 2 Form?
   
  
  No, if you name a Guarantor in the Part 1 Proposal, you must provide a Guaranty with the Part 2 Proposal. 
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-208:
  Will PECO provide bidders with a tax-exemption or sales and use certificate for Pennsylvania sales tax?
   
  
  PECO Energy Company will provide winning suppliers with a resale exemption for the Pennsylvania Sales tax.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-207:
  Is there a seasonal component to the rates paid by Residential customers on Default Service? Are there any restrictions for a Residential customer who wishes to switch to an Electric Generation Supplier (“EGS”)?
   
  
  The solicitations under the Full Requirements aim to procure supply to serve 75% of the Residential Class Default Service Load.  The weighted average winning bid price from these solicitations will not be seasonally adjusted and it will be part of the determination of the rates for Default Service customers in the Residential Class.

  However, the weighted average winning bid price of the Full Requirements solicitations is not the only component of the rates.  Recall that PECO will serve 25% of the Residential Class Default Service Load (the "PECO Share").  PECO will use Block Energy Supply to meet 20% of the expected seasonal energy requirements of the Residential Class (80% of the PECO Share).  As more completely described in the Block Energy RFP Rules, the Block Energy RFP will solicit some peak products that are seasonal (summer and winter).  The weighted average winning bid prices for these block products will be reflected in the rates.  Furthermore, PECO will balance the blocks of energy and load of the PECO Share on an hourly basis through the hourly spot market energy in PJM.  These purchases, which exhibit the seasonal variations of spot prices, will also be reflected in the rates paid by Residential customers.  

  Residential 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 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.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Rates
  
  

• FAQ-206:
  What should be the date of issuance of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
  
  The date of issuance should be no later than the date of submission of the Part 2 Proposal.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-205:
  Will Microsoft Word versions of the Full Requirements Supplier Master Agreement and the Block Energy Supplier Master Agreement be provided? What is the procedure for filling out and submitting the Supply Master Agreements?
   
  
  The Supply Master Agreement (”SMA”) will not be provided in a .doc format as the RFP Bidder will not be preparing the SMA.  Instead, the Independent Evaluator provides the SMA that the RFP Bidder must sign and submit with the Part 2 Form.  Your Notification of Qualification includes a CD containing your Supply Master Agreement in .pdf format.  This SMA has already been filled out for you using the information that you submitted with the Part 1 Form.  You must:
  • print two (2) originals of the SMA;
  • have the Officer of the RFP Bidder sign each of the two (2) signature pages of the originals of the SMA (page 40 of the Full Requirements SMA and page 32 of the Block Energy SMA);
  • have the Officer of the RFP Bidder sign each of the two (2) originals of Exhibit J, the PJM Declaration of Authority (Full Requirements Only);
  • include both originals of the SMA, including all necessary exhibits, with your Part 2 Proposal.

  Please note that the Officer of the RFP Bidder is the individual designated as Officer of the RFP Bidder in the Part 1 Proposal.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract
  
  

• FAQ-204:
  Will a winning bidder receive one or several confirmations for multiple tranches or blocks won? As an example, if an RFP Bidder wins 2 Residential full requirement tranches with prices of $200 and $400, will the RFP Bidder receive one confirmation for two tranches with a price of $300, or two confirmations, one for one tranche with a price of $200 and another for one tranche with a price of $400?
   
  
  An RFP Bidder that wins multiple tranches of a product in a Full Requirements solicitation will receive one single transaction confirmation for all tranches of that product. Please note that a product is defined by three characteristics: a) the type of supply, either Fixed-Price Default Supply or Spot-Price Default Supply; b) the customer class; and c) the supply period. Using your example, if you win two tranches of the Fixed-Price Default Supply for the Residential Class in the same solicitation for the supply period January 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012 (a single product) at prices of $200 and $400, you will receive a single transaction confirmation at $300. However, if you win one Residential Fixed-Price tranche for the period 1/1/2011-5/31/2012 at $200 and one Residential Fixed-Price tranche for the period 1/1/2011-5/31/2013 at $400, you will receive two separate transaction confirmations, one for each product.

  An RFP Bidder that wins multiple blocks of a product in a Block Energy solicitation will also receive one single transaction confirmation for all blocks of that product, at the average price of the bids approved by the PUC for that product. A product, for purposes of the Block Energy RFP, is either a Baseload Product or a Peak Product to be delivered in specific months. An RFP Bidder that wins multiple blocks of a single product in a given solicitation will receive one single transaction confirmation, while an RFP Bidder that wins blocks of multiple products will receive multiple transaction confirmations.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Procedures , Rules
  
  

• FAQ-203:
  
  The Part 1 Form for the Full Requirements RFP requires that the Bidder certify that by the time service begins the Default Service Supplier will be a Load Serving Entity in PJM and must be a signatory of the RAA, whereas Section 2.10 of the Agreement states that "For the period of time that this Agreement is in effect, Seller shall be: ... (iii) qualified as a PJM "Load Serving Entity." What is the difference between these two requirements?
   
  
  PECO provides the following clarification: PECO's intent is that an RFP Bidder in the Full Requirements RFP who is not currently a PJM LSE must become a PJM LSE by the start of the supply period, as stated in the certification in Section 3 of the Full Requirements Part 1 Form.  While Section 12.1(c) of the Full Requirements SMA states that "the failure of a Party to comply with the requirements of Section 2.10 (PJM Membership) and 2.12 (FERC Authorization) if such failure is not remedied within three (3) Business Days after written notice" constitutes an Event of Default, PECO will not issue such a written notice earlier than three business days before the start of the supply period.  It is therefore acceptable for an RFP Bidder who is not a PJM LSE, but who will become qualified as a PJM LSE by the start of the supply period, to execute the Full Requirements SMA and submit it with its Part 2 Proposal. 
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-202:
  Are Load Serving Entities required to pay the Network Integration Transmission Service (“NITS”) for the Full Requirements RFP?
   
  
  Winning RFP Bidders are not required to pay NITS for Full Requirements tranches. 

  Please see Section 2.4 of the Default Service Program SMA, which states that: “PECO shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for the provision of Network Integration Transmission Service for PECO Energy customers and distribution service necessary to serve the Specified Percentage as defined in the Full Requirements SMA.  PECO is responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for future PJM charges assessed to network transmission customers for PJM-required transmission system enhancements.”
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract
  
  

• FAQ-201:
  Please specify what must be signed by the Officer of the RFP Bidder for submission of the SMA in each RFP.
  
  
  For the submission of the Default Service Program Supply Master Agreement (“Default Service SMA”) with your Part 2 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP, the Officer of the RFP Bidder must sign:
  •    the signature page (p. 40) of each of the two (2) originals of the Default Service SMA;
  •    two (2) originals of Exhibit J, the PJM Declaration of Authority.

  The following exhibits to the SMA do not require signatures, but must nevertheless be included in the submission of the Default Service SMA:
  •    the sample PJM invoice (Exhibit D);
  •    the Mark-to-Market exposure calculation methodology (Exhibit E);
  •    the form of Notice (Exhibit H); and
  •    the Alternate Energy Portfolio Standards obligations (Exhibit I).
  
  For the submission of the Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement (“Block Energy SMA”) with your Part 2 Proposal for the Full Requirements RFP, the Officer of the RFP Bidder must sign:
  •    the signature page (p. 32) of each of the two (2) originals of the SMA.

  The following exhibits to the SMA do not require signatures, but must nevertheless be included in the submission of the SMA:
  •    the Mark-to-Market exposure calculation methodology (Exhibit E); and
  •    the form of Notice (Exhibit H).
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , Rules , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-200:
  If an RFP Bidder wishes to include Section 12.3 (c) in the Supply Master Agreement for the Full Requirements RFP, even though at the time of the Part 1 Proposal, the RFP Bidder did not check the box to elect this section, what can be done?
   
  
  Please inform the office of the PECO Independent Evaluator of this request. If time permits, we will send a revised Supply Master Agreement. However, keep in mind that all signed SMAs must be received by noon on the Part 2 Date.
   
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-199:
  Where can I find RFP documents from past solicitations?
   
  
  RFP documents from past solicitations are currently available in the Archives. 
   
  
  03/09/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-198:
  Where can I find PECO PJM Historical bill data?
   
  
  Please see the Additional Data page, which contains historical PJM bill data dating back to June 2007.
  
  03/09/2010 in General , Data
  
  
• FAQ-197:
  How big are the tranche sizes for the Residential, Small, and Medium Commercial Classes?
  
  A Fixed-Price Default Load tranche for a Class represents a fixed percentage of the Default Load for that Class.  The Fixed Price tranche sizes are as follows: Residential 1.60%; Small Commercial 3.60%; Medium Commercial 4.47%.  The MW-Measures of these tranches are calculated as the annual PLC for the Fixed-Price Default Load of the Class divided by the total number of tranches in that class. 

  Spot-Price Default load is divided similarly, with the following tranche sizes: Small Commercial 3.33%; Medium Commercial 5.00%. 

  Please see Section I.2 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules for further details.
  
  03/09/2010 in Contract , General
  
  

• FAQ-196:
  Please define what "opening of business" means in the phrase: "on a Business Day, but at the opening of business on the first Business Day next succeeding the date of such drawing if delivery or transmission of the requisite documents pursuant to Paragraph 3 hereof is made on or after 11:00 AM (New York, NY time) on any Business Day", from Paragraph 5 of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit.
   
  
  The opening of business for the purpose of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit is the time at which the Issuing Bank opens for business.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-194:
  In Attachment 4 of the Part 1 Notification of each in the Full Requirements RFP and Block Energy RFP, we have been informed that we are provided an unsecured credit limit of $30 million under the terms of the SMAs. Is this unsecured credit limit provided to us for each of the SMAs separately, or for both of the SMAs together?
   
  
  Please see Section 14.3 (b) of each SMA. The section states that "For purposes of determining Unsecured Credit, the relevant Unsecured Credit Limit for Aggregate Transactions shall not exceed the Unsecured Credit Limit listed in the following table that corresponds to Seller’s (or Seller’s Guarantor’s) lowest Credit Rating most recently published by S&P, Fitch and/or Moody’s. The relevant TNW Amount shall be calculated using the percentage listed in the following table that corresponds to Seller’s (or Seller’s Guarantor’s) lowest Credit Rating most recently published by S&P, Fitch and/or Moody’s."
  
  The Unsecured Credit Limit applies to Aggregate Transactions which are defined as: "Aggregate Transactions means all Transactions under this Agreement and all other transactions under Supply Master Agreements executed between the Parties pursuant to the PUC Orders." Hence, Aggregate Transactions include both Block Energy and Full Requirements Supply.

  By the terms of the SMA, the Unsecured Credit Limit, in your case $30 million, will apply to exposure for Aggregate Transactions and there is no separate credit limit for each SMA. The Part 1 Notification provided to you indicated a credit limit for each SMA. If you were to win only in one RFP, that credit limit would be applicable, assuming no change in financial condition. However, if you win both in the Block Energy and in the Full Requirements RFPs, the SMA makes it clear that the Unsecured Credit Limit is applicable to Aggregate Transactions, which encompass transactions under both Agreements.

  Were the Aggregate Buyer's Exposure, which is calculated under each Agreement for Aggregate Transactions, to be compared instead on an Agreement by Agreement basis to an Agreement specific unsecured credit line, the performance assurance you would be required to post could be double counted. This is the case because the Aggregate Buyer's Exposure is determined over all Agreements and if it exceeded the Unsecured Credit Limit you would be required to post security under both Agreements for the difference between the Aggregate Buyer's Exposure and the Unsecured Credit Limit. By defining the Unsecured Credit Limit to apply to Aggregate Transactions, this situation has been avoided.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Contract , Credit
  
  

• FAQ-193:
  Are capacity, ancillary services, losses, and renewable energy included in the Block Energy product?
   
  
  No, Block Energy Supply does not include capacity, ancillary services, or renewable energy.  As stated in Paragraph I.4.3 of the RFP Rules and in Article 1 of the Block Energy Supply Supply Master Agreement, Block Energy includes the Energy, transmission other than Network Integration Transmission Service, transmission losses, congestion management costs, and such other services or products that are required by PJM to deliver the specified product to the PE Zone. As stated in Section I.1.9 of the Block Energy RFP Rules, “PECO will purchase all other necessary products to serve the PECO Share, including without limitation ancillary services and capacity, in PJM-administered markets. For the PECO Share, PECO will make purchases necessary to meet its obligations under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act”.   If the block energy supplier only schedules the block at the PECO Zone and does not physically schedule supply to the PECO Zone using point to point transmission service or buy Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs), the only loss and congestion management products that are required by PJM to deliver the specified product to the PECO Zone of which PECO is aware at this time are the marginal losses and congestion included in the LMP price for the PECO zone and no transmission would be required.  If a supplier elects to schedule supply using point to point service or elects to buy FTRs, the supplier would be responsible for all associated costs. 
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Contract , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-190:
  Administrative costs of the RFP are an additional component of customer rates. Where can I find an estimate of administrative costs of the RFP?
   
  
  PECO's estimate of administrative costs associated with the RFP is available on the RFP Web site here. 
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-189:
  Following the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s approval of winning bids in a solicitation, in accordance with Article V of the RFP Rules, can a winning RFP Bidder publicly disclose information regarding the results of its participation in either or both RFPs, including, but not limited to, the fact that it is a winning bidder, the number and term of tranches won in the Full Requirements RFP and in the Block Energy RFP, and the prices associated with tranches won? If not, is there an exception when the results of the solicitation would be material to shareholders of a successful RFP Bidder (or the parent company of the successful RFP Bidder) such that the RFP Bidder (or its parent company) has an obligation to disclose the material information if it is a publicly-held company or affiliated with a publicly-held company? For example, NYSE Rule 202.05 requires a listed company "to release quickly to the public any news or information which might reasonably be expected to materially affect the market for its securities," and a listed company must follow such rules as part of its obligation to comply with the federal securities laws.
  
  
  The RFP Rules require that an RFP Bidder bids independently, has no knowledge of any information concerning a Proposal being submitted by another RFP Bidder, maintains the confidentiality of its own Proposal, and does not disclose publicly or to any other party any information relating to its own Proposal. These certifications, as provided in more detail in Article V of the RFP Rules, must be binding and in effect until the Commission has either approved or rejected the results for this solicitation.

  There are no requirements on an RFP Bidder regarding the disclosure of information for a solicitation once the Commission has rendered a decision on the results of that solicitation; in particular, the RFP Rules do not prohibit an RFP Bidder disclosing the fact that it is a winning bidder, the number and term of tranches or blocks won, or the prices associated with tranches or blocks won. However, we would expect that an RFP Bidder may consider some of this information, particularly the number and term of tranches or blocks won and its winning bid prices, to be sensitive competitive information. We would expect that an RFP Bidder may not wish to disclose this information because an RFP Bidder may consider that such a release of information could impair its ability to compete in future solicitations. If required to release some information, or if the RFP Bidder desires to release some information to communicate its position to financial markets, we believe that there may be ways to provide meaningful information to the investment community without disclosing potentially sensitive competitive information. For example, if the successful RFP Bidder wishes to communicate how much it is hedged, it could release aggregate hedge ratios. If the successful RFP Bidder wishes to communicate a price level at which is hedged, it could release aggregate hedge price levels, a range within which its winning bid prices reside, or the fact that its winning bid prices exceed a specific threshold.
  
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-188:
  Is it sufficient to provide officer signatures on three faxed copies of the Transaction Confirmations for each product and send two of the faxed signed confirms as the two originals back to PECO by the deadline?
  
  The confirmation process is described in section 2.15 of the applicable SMA. On the third Business Day following the Bid Date, PECO will fax to the winning bidder the partially executed Transaction Confirmation(s), and send by overnight delivery three (3) originals.  By 2:00 p.m. EPT on the next Business Day following the bidder’s receipt of such facsimile of partially executed Transaction Confirmation(s), the bidder shall return by facsimile to Buyer the fully executed Transaction Confirmation(s), and shall send by overnight delivery two (2) originals.
  
  03/04/2010 in Contract , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-187:
  If a bidder proposed modifications to the Guaranty that were approved in a previous solicitation, do such proposed modifications need to be re-submitted for this upcoming solicitation?
   
  
  Modifications to the Form of Guaranty that were acceptable a previous solicitation will be deemed acceptable in this upcoming solicitation as well. You do not need to re-submit proposed modifications that were acceptable in a previous solicitation. A list of all acceptable modifications to the Form of Guaranty is posted to the PECO Web site here.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Credit , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-186:
  If we participated in a previous solicitation, are we required to re-submit Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals for subsequent solicitations?
  
  All entities must submit the Part 1 Proposal and the Part 2 Proposal in each solicitation. There is an abbreviated qualification process for previous RFP Bidders; however, while the process is abbreviated, the requirement to qualify remains.  Articles IV and V of the RFP Rules provide the details of the abbreviated qualification process.
  
  03/04/2010 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-185:
  We signed and submitted the Default Service SMA and the Guaranty for a previous 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 this upcoming solicitation?
   
  
  As stated in Article VII 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 subsequent solicitations, because the returned documents will be dated as of the previous solicitation and therefore will be outdated.

  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Contract , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-184:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-183:
  Is the 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.
  
  03/04/2010 in Rules
  
  
• FAQ-182:
  When is the Initial Status Notification sent to previously qualified RFP Bidders?
   
  
  The Initial Status Notification is sent to previously qualified RFP Bidders no later than 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 by then, you should contact the Independent Evaluator.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-181:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-179:
  
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-178:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-177:
  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.
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-176:
  In preparing the Part 1 form for either the Full Requirements or Block Supply, is it 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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-175:
  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.
  
  03/04/2010 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-174:
  What is the process to propose modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
  
  If you wish to propose modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter 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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-173:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-172:
  If we submitted a Pre-Bid Letter of Credit with only acceptable modifications from a previous solicitation, will the same Letter of Credit be acceptable in subsequent solicitations?
   
  
  The Independent Evaluator does not retain the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit from previous solicitations, and therefore cannot determine whether previously issued letters of credit would be acceptable in the present solicitation. However, all modifications to the Pre-Bid Letters of Credit that were acceptable in the previous solicitation remain acceptable in the current solicitation; the list of acceptable modifications is available here.
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-171:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-170:
  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.
   
  
  03/04/2010 in General , Credit
  
  
• FAQ-169:
  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
  
  03/03/2010 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-168:
  Does the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit need to be included in the same envelope as the Part 2 Proposal, or can my bank submit it 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. 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
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  

• FAQ-166:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-165:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-164:
  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...”
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-163:
  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.
   
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-162:
  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 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
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-161:
  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." When would be the last date and time upon which an RFP Bidder would be notified of firm, non-reversible selection as a winning Bidder?
   
  
  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. 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. 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.

  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in General , Procedures
  
  

• FAQ-160:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-159:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-158:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-157:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-156:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Contract , Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-155:
  We are an RFP Bidder that has approved Bids and a fully executed Default Service Program SMA from a previous solicitation. 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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-152:
  Do the solicitation results include or exclude Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax and line losses?
   
  
  The average winning bid prices do not include losses or the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax.
  
   
  
  03/03/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-151:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in General
  
  
• FAQ-150:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-149:
  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.
   
  
  03/03/2010 in Rates
  
  

www.nera.com

www.peco.com

Privacy Policy