Contact Us

FAQ Archives - Winter 2012 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-707:
  Where can I find Customer Counts for 2010?
  
  Customer counts for 2010 are posted in the Data Room under the heading “Current Data”.
  
  01/26/2012 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-706:
  Where can I find details about PECO’s Time of Use RFP?
  
  This web site (www.pecoprocurement.com) is only for PECO's Default Service Program RFP.  For information regarding PECO’s Time of Use RFP, please contact Germaine Dunker (germaine.dunker@exeloncorp.com).
  
  01/17/2012 in General
  
  
• FAQ-705:
  When will the details of the proposed Retail Opt-In Program program be finalized?
  
  The details of the Retail Opt-In program will not be finalized until the PUC’s final approval of PECO’s DSP II Plan.  The filed plan can be found at https://www.peco.com/CustomerService/RatesandPricing/RateInformation/Pages/Filings.aspx.  PECO cannot speculate on the outcome of this plan.
   
  
  01/17/2012 in General
  
  
• FAQ-704:
  Has PJM determined whether it will need Eddystone Unit 2 to stay online beyond May 31, 2012 in order for to maintain reliability within PECO service territory?
  
  
  Questions related to PJM’s analysis and their next steps should be directed to PJM.  The PJM website for generation retirement info is:
  http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-retirements.aspx
  PJM Member Relations can be contacted directly at: (610) 666-8980 or toll free at (866) 400-8980.
  
  
  01/17/2012 in General
  
  
• FAQ-703:
  Will Cromby Unit 2 be retired as scheduled on December 31, 2011?
  
  
  Please see the PJM website at  http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-retirements/gr-summaries.aspx for details about the retirement of Cromby Unit 2.
  
  
  01/17/2012 in General
  
  
• FAQ-702:
  On December 16, 2011, the PAPUC issued a tentative order (Docket I-2011-2237952) regarding an intermediate workplan that would require utilities to conduct opt-in retail auctions for competitive supply beginning on or after June 1, 2013. Has PECO filed a plan to implement this order?
  
  
  PECO’s Default Service Plan 2, which was filed on Friday, January 13, 2012, includes a proposal for a retail opt-in RFP program. This program would enable Electric Generation Suppliers to bid on a one-year fixed price offer that is at least 5% below the filed PECO PTC for June 1, 2013. Fifty percent of non-shopping residential customers would be randomly selected to participate in the opt-in program. PECO cannot speculate on the outcome of this plan.
  
  
  01/17/2012 in General
  
  
• FAQ-701:
  Will PECO post planning year 2012/13 PLCs and/or 2012 NSPLs prior to the Winter 2012 Bid Date?
  
  No.  PECO does not provide projected or forecasted PLCs or NSPLs.
  
  01/12/2012 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-700:
  Is the posting of cash or a Letter of Credit an acceptable form of meeting the Aggregate Buyer’s Exposure under the SMA, even if the RFP Bidder’s parent is a Foreign Entity?
  
  Posting cash or a Letter of Credit is always an acceptable form of meeting the Aggregate Buyer's Exposure under the SMA.  Section 14.9 of the SMA does not apply to RFP Bidders that have not named guarantors for the purposes of the SMA, even if such a bidder has a parent that is a Foreign Entity.  For an entity that does not rely on the financial standing of a guarantor for the purposes of the SMA, cash or a Letter of Credit will be the only acceptable forms of security under the SMA.
  
  01/10/2012 in Contract , Credit , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-699:
  If a Seller under the SMA relies on its own financial standing and cannot provide the required information to determine the Seller’s Tangible Net Worth, will the Seller be in violation of the terms 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.
  
  01/10/2012 in Contract , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-698:
  If a Seller is not granted Unsecured Credit under the SMA, is that Seller required to provide reports from Credit Rating Agencies?
  
  In the event that the Seller is not granted Unsecured Credit under the SMA, the Seller will not be required to provide reports from any of the Credit Rating Agencies. 
  
  01/10/2012 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-697:
  On what volumes are the percentages listed for Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards compliance based?
  
  AEPS quantities are based on electric energy sold by an electric distribution company or electric generation supplier to retail electric customers. AEPS obligations are calculated on the retail load which is delivered energy at the retail meter and do not include marginal losses.
  
  01/05/2012 in General , Data
  
  
• FAQ-696:
  If a PECO Full Requirements RFP bidder that relies on the creditworthiness of a Guarantor submitted a Guaranty in a previous PECO Full Requirements solicitation in an amount equal to the Unsecured Credit Cap applicable to that Guarantor that is still valid, would the amount of a new Guaranty the Bidder needs to submit for the current Full Requirements RFP also equal the Unsecured Credit Cap applicable to the Guarantor irrespective of the number of Tranches the Bidder intends to qualify for in this solicitation?
  
  
  Yes. 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.
  
  
  01/05/2012 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-695:
  If a company qualifies to bid in the Full Requirements RFP, but does not submit a bid in the RFP for which it qualifies, is that company eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent RFPs?
  
  Section I.1.5 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules (available here) state that “suppliers that have completed the Part 1 Proposal or Part 2 Proposal in a previous solicitation under this RFP [are allowed] to take part in an abbreviated qualification process for this solicitation”. The provisions of the RFP that are expected to be updated, as well as the tentative schedule for future solicitations, are provided in Appendix 2 to the rules. Appendix 2 delineates each requirement of the Part 1 Proposal and the Part 2 Proposal, and how each requirement will apply to suppliers who have previously qualified. Appendix 2 also provides a schedule of future solicitations.
  
  An analogous process is available to bidders in the Block Energy RFP, but as the Proposal process for the Block Energy RFP is separate and distinct from the Proposal process for the Full Requirements RFP, suppliers who have qualified to bid only in the Block Energy RFP are not eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of the Full Requirements RFP, and suppliers who have qualified to bid only in the Full Requirements RFP are not eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of the Block Energy RFP.
  
  An entity is eligible for the abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of an RFP if it has qualified to submit a bid in such RFP, regardless of whether or not that entity actually submits a bid in any given solicitation of the RFP in which it qualifies.  
  
  12/19/2011 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-694:
  What is the Expiration Date of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
  
  The Expiration Date of Pre-Bid Letter of Credit is no earlier than eleven (11) business days after the Bid Date, as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Standard Pre-Bid Letter of Credit. The Bid Date is January 19, 2012. Eleven business days after the Bid Date is February 2, 2012. The Expiration Date of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit should be February 2, 2012or later.
  
  12/19/2011 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-693:
  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 in the Part 2 Proposal.  

  VII.1. of the RFP Rules states that “[f]or an RFP Bidder relying on the financial standing of an RFP Guarantor, the Part 2 Proposal also includes two (2) signed originals of the guaranty”.  Furthermore, this guaranty submitted with the Part 2 Proposal must, in accordance with VII.1.27 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules, the Guaranty Amount for RFP Bidders that are neither Default Suppliers nor Block Energy Suppliers must be equal or exceed: 

  • $600,000 per tranche bid on the Fixed-Price products and the SC and MC SpotPrice products; plus
  • $300,000 per tranche bid on the Spot-Price LC&I product.

  The Guaranty Amount for RFP Bidders that are Default Suppliers or Block Energy Suppliers must  be  equal  or  exceed  the  Guaranty  Amount  of  any  current  guaranty  with  PECO  under  a Default Service SMA or a Block Energy SMA, plus an amount equal to:  

  • $600,000 per tranche bid on the Fixed-Price products and the SC and MC SpotPrice products; plus
  • $300,000 per tranche bid on the Spot-Price LC&I product. 

   

  
  12/19/2011 in Credit , Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-692:
  How do I determine the Guaranty Amount?
  
  Please see Section V.3.2 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules for the guaranty requirements in the Full Requirements RFP.  In accordance with Section VII.1.27 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules, the Guaranty Amount for RFP Bidders that are neither Default Suppliers nor Block Energy Suppliers must be equal or exceed:
  • $600,000 per tranche bid on the Fixed-Price products and the SC and MC SpotPrice products; plus
  • $300,000 per tranche bid on the Spot-Price LC&I product.

  The Guaranty Amount for RFP Bidders that are Default Suppliers or Block Energy Suppliers must  be  equal  or  exceed  the  Guaranty  Amount  of  any  current  guaranty  with  PECO  under  a Default Service SMA or a Block Energy SMA, plus an amount equal to:  

  • $600,000 per tranche bid on the Fixed-Price products and the SC and MC SpotPrice products; plus
  • $300,000 per tranche bid on the Spot-Price LC&I product. 

   
  
  12/19/2011 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-691:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-690:
  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.” 
  
  12/15/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-689:
  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:
  
  o    If submitting a Proposal under an Agency Agreement, a copy of the Agency Agreement. [Section 5]
  o    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]
  o    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. 
  
  12/15/2011 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-688:
  When will the list of approved modifications to the Form of Guaranty be made available?
  
  The list of approved modifications to the Form of Guaranty was posted to the Web site on December 9, 2011.  It can be found on the Supplier Information - Documents page.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-687:
  There is a requirement that the Officer of the RFP Bidder who makes the representations in the Part 1 Proposal must be the same Officer of the RFP Bidder that makes the representations in the Part 2 Proposal. What can we do if the Officer who makes the representations in our Part 1 Proposal is unavailable to make the representations in the Part 2 Proposal?
  
  The Officer who makes the representations in the Part 1 Proposal must also to be the one who makes the representations in the Part 2 Proposal, who signs the Default Service SMA, and who signs the Transaction Confirmation(s).  This provision simplifies greatly the administration of the RFP and the contract execution process by ensuring, for example, that the individual who signs the Default Service SMA in the Part 2 Proposal is also the individual who has represented being empowered to enter into such contracts in the Part 1 Proposal.  Please note that this requirement applies to a given solicitation and does not apply from one solicitation to the next (see section III.1.3 of the RFP Rules, available here, which states that “For a given solicitation, all representations and certifications required by this RFP must be made by a single individual... this individual must sign the Default Service SMA and must sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if any of the RFP Bidder’s Bids are approved by the Commission.”).  The time between the submission of the Part 1 Proposal and the execution of the Default Service SMA is approximately three weeks; thus this is the period during which a given Officer would need to be available.  This time period is sufficiently short that we would expect that RFP Bidders could plan ahead for a single individual to satisfy the requirements of the Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals.
  
  Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the Officer of the RFP Bidder who signs the Part 1 Proposal will not be available for the Part 2 Proposal because of illness or for any other reason.  In that case, the RFP Bidder will notify the Independent Evaluator who will ask the RFP Bidder to resubmit the Part 1 Form signed by a second Officer of the RFP Bidder.  This second Officer of the RFP Bidder can also submit the certifications for the Part 2 Proposal.  By this simple procedure the RFP Bidder will then comply with the requirements that all representations and certifications required by this RFP for a given solicitation be made by a single individual.
  
  The Independent Evaluator has the ability, for future solicitations, to make changes to the RFP documents to improve the administration of the solicitations.  Should this provision prove systematically burdensome to a majority of RFP Bidders, the Independent Evaluator will consider at that time whether an alternate provision can be put in place that would be less burdensome and yet provide similar protections. 
  
  12/15/2011 in Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-686:
  Are the materials from the May 5 Bidder Information Session in Philadelphia available online?
  
  Yes, both the presentation and the audio recording made of the event are available online on the Supplier Information – Documents page of the Web site. 
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-685:
  Are the Part 1 & 2 Proposal materials available in Word format?
  
  Yes, the Web site has Word versions of the Part 1 Form and the Part 2 Form. They are located on the Documents page of the Web site. The documents will be locked, and only fields that are to be filled in by applicants are editable.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-684:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-683:
  Will the migration rules for Small Commercial, Medium Commercial, and Large Commercial and Industrial Classes be made available?
  
  Yes, the rules will be made available.
  
  12/15/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-682:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in General , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-681:
  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.  
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-680:
  Is cash an acceptable form of pre-bid security in the Block Energy RFP or the Full Requirements RFP?
  
  No, cash cannot be submitted as pre-bid security. 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 Documents page, describes the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit required to support the RFP Bidder’s Bids.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-679:
  Do the historical data series provided in the Monthly Data page of the Data Room include transmission and distribution losses? Are the data provided before or after the application of PJM de-ration factors? What is a winning bidder responsible for providing?
  
  Historical hourly data series available in the Monthly Data page of the Data Room include distribution and transmission losses both before and after the June 1st, 2007 implementation of PJM's marginal loss methodology, but do not include de-ration factors.  
  
  Page 8 of the “Data Description” document (available here) states: "All values are “fully loaded,” meaning they include applicable distribution and transmission system losses. These hourly load values, post marginal loss implementation are not equivalent to PJM settlement volumes as, post marginal loss implementation, these values will be de-rated by PJM for marginal losses prior to energy settlement.”  
  
  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...”  [emphasis added]
  
  The de-ration factor is used as follows to determine the energy that a winning supplier must supply.   Effective June 1, 2007, PJM de-rates the hourly loss-loaded data using the hourly de-ration factors available in the monthly data room to arrive at the loss-less load and settlement values.  
  
  This means that:
  
  Loss-less load = loss-loaded load - (loss-loaded load * de-ration factor)  
  
  12/15/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-678:
  Who is the load serving entity under the Default Service Supply Master Agreement (“SMA”) for the full requirements service?
  
  The seller, for purposes of transaction under the Default Service SMA for full requirements service, is the load serving entity, as defined in PJM agreements. PECO will work with PJM to assign certain load serving entity responsibilities associated with the seller's slice of the customer load group directly to the seller's PJM bill.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-677:
  How many PECO Solicitations are planned?
  
  The Full Requirements RFP has six solicitations. The Block Energy RFP has eight solicitations. The full schedule can be found in Exhibit B of the Joint Petition to Settlement.  
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-676:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-675:
  We qualified to bid in the RFP, but we did not win, and we received a package back with unexecuted documents. Do we have to submit our Proposal materials again to bid in the next solicitation?
  
  As stated in Section VII.3.4 of the RFP Rules, if the RFP Bidder does not have winning Bids approved by the Commission, the Independent Evaluator will return within three (3) business days of the Bid Date the two (2) signed originals of the SMA, and (if applicable) the two (2) signed originals of the guaranty to the RFP Bidder. 
  
  If you qualified to submit a Bid in an RFP (Full Requirements or Block Energy) but did not have winning Bids approved by the Commission, you will be eligible for an abbreviated qualification process in subsequent solicitations of that RFP. While the process is abbreviated, the requirement to qualify remains, and all RFP Bidders will be required to provide certain certifications and to re-submit the documents required by the Part 2 Proposal.
  
  Section I.1.7 of the Block Energy RFP Rules and Section I.1.5 of the Full Requirements RFP Rules (available here) state that each set of rules will be updated to allow "suppliers that have qualified to bid in one solicitation under this RFP to take part in an abbreviated qualification process for subsequent solicitations under this RFP". The provisions of the RFP that are expected to be updated, as well as the tentative schedule for future solicitations, is provided in Appendix 2 to each set of rules. Appendix 2 delineates each requirement of the Part 1 Proposal and the Part 2 Proposal, and how each requirement will apply to suppliers who have previously qualified.  
  
  12/15/2011 in General , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-674:
  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 on Friday?
  
  The confirmation process is described in section 2.15 of the applicable SMA. If the Officer of the RFP Bidder signs on the faxed partially executed transaction confirmations, PECO requests that the Officer of the RFP Bidder fax to PECO the fully executed transaction confirmations by 2 PM EPT on Friday, and that the Officer of the RFP Bidder execute and send by overnight delivery two (2) original transaction confirmations by Monday. Please note that the Officer of the RFP Bidder has certified in its Part 2 Proposal that if the Commission approves some or all of the RFP Bidder’s Bids, the Officer of the RFP Bidder will execute all Transaction Confirmation(s) required by 2 PM of the fifth business day after the Bid Date (Monday).
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-673:
  Can the Officer of a winning RFP Bidder delegate another Officer of the RFP Bidder to sign the Default Service SMA and the Transaction Confirmation(s)?
  
  The RFP Rules do not provide for such a process. As stated in Section III.1.3. of the RFP Rules, all representations and certifications required by each RFP must be made by a single individual. This individual must sign the Default Service SMA and must sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if any of the RFP Bidder’s Bids are approved by the Commission. Please note that the Officer of the RFP Bidder has certified in its Part 2 Proposal that if the Commission approves some or all of the RFP Bidder’s Bids, that specific Officer of the RFP Bidder will execute all Transaction Confirmation(s) required.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-672:
  The Bidder Information Session presentation mentions administrative costs of the RFP as 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.   
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-671:
  Are suppliers of Full Requirements Service responsible for providing Renewable Energy as required by the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards 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 in the Winter 2012 Solicitation. The amounts per tranche will be provided in the Bidder Information Session Presentation on November 14, 2011, available on the Supplier Information-Documents page of the RFP Web site here.
  
  12/15/2011 in General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-670:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-669:
  Can you clarify why the word “substantially” is used in Paragraph 3 of the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit, in the phrase “a notice executed by you substantially in the form of Annex 1 hereto”?
  
  Annex 1, as included in the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit, is blank. If Annex 1 were to be sent to the bank for drawing, it would be completed with certain information from Paragraph 2. The word "substantially" is thus included in Paragraph 3 because Annex 1 will not be exactly in the form in which it appears in the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit because there will be additional text. Please note that, aside from duly filling out Annex 1, PECO will leave Annex 1 as provided with the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and does not intend to amend Annex 1 in any other way. Annex 1 will remain intact in that sense. However, it will be filled in rather than being blank, and for that reason the word “substantially” is needed.
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-668:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-667:
  On Page 10 of both Part 2 Forms it is stated that two originals of each SMA, including all necessary exhibits, must be signed by the Officer of the RFP Bidder designated in the Part 1 Proposal. Do Exhibits E and H of the Block Energy SMA and Exhibits D, E, H, and I of the Full Requirements SMA have to be signed by the Officer of the RFP Bidder?
  
  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. 39) 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). 
  
  Please consult Paragraph V.3.1 of the RFP Rules.  This paragraph specifies that “The RFP Bidder must include both originals of the Default Service SMA, including all necessary exhibits, with its Part 2 Proposal” and “For the avoidance of doubt, the necessary exhibits are: the sample PJM invoice (Exhibit D); the Mark-to-Market exposure calculation methodology (Exhibit E); the form of Notice (Exhibit H); the Alternate Energy Portfolio Standards obligations (Exhibit I); and the PJM Declaration of Authority (Exhibit J).” 
  
  For the submission of the Default Service Program Block Energy Supply Master Agreement (“Block Energy SMA”) with your Part 2 Proposal for the Block Energy 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). 
  
  Please consult Paragraph V.3.1 of the RFP Rules.  This paragraph specifies that “The RFP Bidder must include both originals of the Default Service SMA, including all necessary exhibits, with its Part 2 Proposal” and “For the avoidance of doubt, the necessary exhibits are: the Mark-to-Market exposure calculation methodology (Exhibit E) and the form of Notice (Exhibit H).” 
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-666:
  If an RFP Bidder submits a Part 2 Proposal in both RFPs, and submits a Guaranty from the same Guarantor, what will be the maximum aggregate liability?
  
  If an RFP Bidder submits a Part 2 Proposal in both RFPs, and submits a Guaranty from the same Guarantor in both of its Part 2 Proposals, then the maximum aggregate liability of the Guarantor will be the sum of the amounts on the Full Requirements Guaranty and the Block Energy Guaranty.
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-665:
  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.”  
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-664:
  Page 26 of the Full Requirements Application 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 4 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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-663:
  Given that according to Section I.4.7, a Supplier will be paid the supplier specific price defined as the average of the approved bids for that RFP Bidder and that product, will a winning bidder receive one or several confirmations for multiple blocks won? As an example, if an RFP Bidder wins 2 Residential full requirement blocks with prices of $200 and $400, will the RFP Bidder receive one confirmation for two blocks with a price of $300, or two confirmations, one for one block with a price of $200 and another for one block 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.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-662:
  Will Microsoft Word versions of the Full Requirements Supplier Master Agreement be provided? What is the procedure for filling out and submitting the Supply Master Agreement?
  
  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 39 of the Full Requirements 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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-661:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-660:
  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.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-659:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-658:
  To what email address should the electronic version of proposed modifications to the Draft Letters of Credits (“LOCs”) be sent?
  
  Please send the electronic copies of proposed modifications to the LOCs to pecoprocurement@nera.com. 
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-657:
  In the Part 1 Form, we must acknowledge that, at this time, we do not envision any impediments to becoming a PJM Load Serving Entity (“LSE”). However, if, as stated in the Supply Master Agreement, Full Requirements Service excludes Network Integration Transmission Service, why are we required to be a PJM LSE?
  
  Section 2.8 of the SMA is clear that "Seller, for the purpose of this agreement and any Transactions, is and shall remain, a load serving entity, as defined in PJM agreements." PECO proposed in its Default Service Plan filing that the Seller would be the LSE, the parties to the case stipulated to that in the settlement, and the Commission approved the settlement. It is not necessary that the entity responsible for NITS be the LSE. Exhibit D to the SMA provides a detailed breakdown of which party is responsible for each line item on the PJM invoice. Hence billing responsibilities and supply responsibilities are clear under the SMA. The Part 1 Proposal requires that the Seller be or have no impediment to being an LSE as the SMA requires the Seller to be the LSE. The SMA was structured that way because, while PECO is retaining NITS responsibilities, most supply responsibilities are assigned to the Seller and designating the Seller as the LSE is more reflective of the nature of the transaction.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-656:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-655:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-654:
  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.”
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-653:
  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. 
  
  12/15/2011 in Rates , Data
  
  
• FAQ-652:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-651:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Data
  
  
• FAQ-650:
  Is there a phone number at which the Independent Evaluator can be reached?
  
  The Independent Evaluator can be reached by telephone at 215-568-0200.
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-649:
  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: Megan McDevitt
  Telephone Number: 215-841-6361
  Fax Number: 215-841-4728 
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-648:
  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: Megan McDevitt, PECO Energy Acquisition
  Phone number: 215-841-6361 
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-647:
  What types of modifications to the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and the Post-Bid Letter of Credit will be considered acceptable to PECO?
  
  All modifications that are non-material in nature or that are advantageous to both PECO and the RFP Bidder will be considered.
  
  To submit modifications for consideration, please submit, with your Part 1 Proposal, a Draft Pre-Bid Letter of Credit with all modifications to the Standard Pre-Bid Letter of Credit shown in tracked changes using Microsoft Word, and/or a Draft Post-Bid Letter of Credit with all modifications to the Standard Post-Bid Letter of Credit shown in tracked changes using Microsoft Word. You may email the Draft Letters of Credit to the Independent Evaluator at IE@pecoprocurement.com.  
  
  12/15/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-646:
  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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Credit
  
  
• FAQ-645:
  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  
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-644:
  Is it possible for an RFP Bidder to request and obtain from PECO the authorization to discuss with another entity potential hedge products that the RFP Bidder would purchase from such entity, if the RFP Bidder were to win at the PECO RFP in the future, and use that authorization as a basis for not making certain required certifications in the application forms?
  
  Section V.1.2 of the RFP Rules states the following: 
  
  “The Officer of the RFP Bidder must 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.  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 discussion for which you request authorization would prevent you from being able to make these certifications as required by the RFP Rules.  The RFP Rules are part of the Settlement that was approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, after being agreed upon by all parties to the regulatory proceeding.  Therefore, PECO cannot and does not authorize you to discuss with any other party potential transactions that would be executed contingent upon you being awarded load through the PECO RFP and make these certifications based on PECO’s authorization of such discussions.  In order to participate in the RFP, you will be required to make these certifications.
  
  We also note that joint bidding arrangements of any kind are not provided for by the RFP Rules, as stated in Section IV.5.2: 
  
  “The Officer of each RFP Bidder…must, in its Part 1 Proposal, 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.”
  
  Notwithstanding the above, it may be possible for you to have a business relationship with a counterparty that is structured in a way that meets your business goals and enables you in good faith to make the required certifications.   While no such a structure is obvious nor would it be appropriate for PECO to recommend business structures to bidders, we cannot categorically rule that this may be possible.  We emphasize that the requirements of the RFP are that you make required certifications as a condition of qualifying and it is ultimately your responsibility to ensure that you do not take actions that would prevent you from making the required certifications.   
  
  Please see FAQs #643, #641 and #642 for information that the RFP Manager has made public via its website (www.pecoprocurement.com) regarding information disclosure that may be useful to you. 
  
  12/15/2011 in Rules
  
  
• FAQ-643:
  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:http://www.eei.org/ourissues/ElectricityGeneration/Pages/MasterContract.aspx
  
  Delivery Point: “PE Zone, as defined within PJM” as used in the Supplier Master Agreement
  
  Delivery Term: June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013
  
  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:
  
  o     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.  
  o    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. 
  o     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. 
  
   
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-642:
  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. 
  
  12/15/2011 in Contract , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-641:
  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: 
  http://www.eei.org/ourissues/ElectricityGeneration/Pages/MasterContract.aspx
  
  Delivery Point: “PE Zone, as defined within PJM” as used in the Supplier Master Agreement
  
  Delivery Term: January 1, 2012 to 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:
  
  o    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.  
  o    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. 
  o    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.
  
  12/15/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-640:
  If an RFP Bidder wins at the PECO RFP, is it permissible to disclose publicly that the RFP Bidder participated in the RFP?
  
  The certifications in the RFP Rules, generally as referenced in FAQ #643, “must be binding and in effect until the Commission has either approved or rejected each of the winning Bids for this solicitation.”  Once the Commission has ruled on the results of a particular solicitation, RFP Bidders who participated in that solicitation are free to disclose the fact that they participated, and information that they received through participation.  
  
  Permission to discuss past participation at the PECO RFP has been requested in the past, and the RFP Manager has made public through the RFP website (www.pecoprocurement.com) its response to such requests.  For your convenience, we have reproduced below the question and answer as it was posted to the website.  Please refer to FAQ #639.
  
  12/15/2011 in Rules
  
  
• FAQ-639:
  Following the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s approval of winning bids in a solicitation, 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 Section V.1.2 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.
  
  12/15/2011 in Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-638:
  Would it violate the terms of the Default Service Program Supply Master Agreement if a winning RFP Bidder provided load data obtained from PECO to a third party for settlement purposes?
  
  Once a bidder has been awarded tranches in the RFP, there is no prohibition on how supply may be arranged or contracted for. Hence, it is conceivable that a need arises to exchange settlement data with a third party with whom a contractual relationship has been established after the solicitation has been concluded. If such information is confidential the release of that information is governed by the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA). The SMA would allow for the sharing of such information provided that agreements are in place that it remains strictly confidential. For example, see Section 16.5.b of the Full Requirements SMA.
  
  12/15/2011 in Rules
  
  
• FAQ-637:
  Where can I find historical load data for customers that take Default Service from PECO?
  
  The historical load data files that are currently posted to the Data Room are broken down into EGS Energy, Default Energy, and Total Energy. The load labeled "Default Energy" is the load of PECO customers who have not migrated to Electric Generation Suppliers (EGSs).
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-636:
  Will PECO accept a Guaranty from a company that does not have an investment grade rating?
  
  No. As stated in Section 14.3 of the Supply Master Agreement, an entity with a credit rating below BBB-/Baa3 would not be granted any Unsecured Credit.
  
  12/09/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-635:
  Will the Independent Evaluator provide executed copies of Appendix 12 to the RFP Rules?
  
  Please send a request to pecoprocurement@nera.com if you require these documents.  
  
  12/09/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-634:
  Does the SMA need to be updated to reflect the recent changes in the PJM Declaration of Authority documentation?
  
  PECO will not change the form of the SMA at this time, but commits to working with suppliers and PJM to update the necessary Declaration of Authority documentation after contracts are signed.
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract , Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-633:
  What are the specific charges stated in section 4.2 of the SMA, and under what circumstances would these charges be incurred?
  
  Please see PJM's "Customer Guide to PJM Billing" located at http://pjm.com/~/media/markets-ops/settlements/custgd.ashx under the heading "Load Response" (page 3) for a summary of these charges. 

  A more detailed explanation of the calculations is available in PJM's Demand Side Response Training, located at http://www.pjm.com/training/~/media/training/core-curriculum/ip-dsr/demand-side-response-training-materials.ashx. Please see page 34. 
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract
  
  

• FAQ-632:
  Why does load look unusually low for some Residential Strata in November and December 2010?
  
  During the period 11/1/2010-12/31/2010, there were customers in the new strata system and customers in the old strata system. Usage for the Residential procurement class in the aggregate during this timeframe is reported correctly in both the historical and current load files on the website.
  
  Because both strata existed during this timeframe, the Residential procurement class usage in any given hour would be calculated as the sum of the reported usages of both the old strata and the new strata.
  
  For example, prior to 11/1/2010, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 41. Between 11/1/2010 and 12/31/2010, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 41, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 122, and 123. From 1/1/2011 forward, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 122, and 123.
  
  To calculate the usage of the customers currently in strata 111 during the period 11/1/2010 – 12/31/2010, you would add the reported usages for strata 11 and 12 to the reported usage for strata 111 during that time.
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-631:
  Why are the Small Commercial PLC and Small Commercial load increasing at different rates since 2006?
  
  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 hour
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-630:
  Why does the Medium Commercial Load appear significantly lower in December 2010 than in previous Decembers?
  
  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 Medium Commercial class have been reviewed and are accurate.
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-629:
  Can I post cash as pre-bid collateral?
  
  No, cash cannot be submitted as pre-bid security. 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 Documents page, describes the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit required to support the RFP Bidder’s Bids.
  
  12/09/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-628:
  Is an original of the Letter of Credit required by the deadline or will a PDF copy suffice?
  
  The original Pre-Bid Letter of Credit is required by the Part 2 Date. However, if you provide a Part 2 Proposal on the Part 2 Date without the original Pre-Bid Letter of Credit, you will be given a Deficiency Notice and allowed until 6pm EPT on the day following the Part 2 Date to submit the original.
  
  12/09/2011 in Credit
  
  
• FAQ-627:
  Why does the hourly load data for some Residential class strata appear unusually low in November and December 2010?
  
  During the period 11/1/2010-12/31/2010, there were customers in the new strata system and customers in the old strata system. Usage for the Residential procurement class in the aggregate during this timeframe is reported correctly in both the historical and current load files on the website.
  
  Because both strata systems existed during this timeframe, the Residential procurement class usage in any given hour would be calculated as the sum of the reported usages of both the old strata and the new strata.
  
  For example, prior to 11/1/2010, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 41. Between 11/1/2010 and 12/31/2010, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 41, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 122, and 123. From 1/1/2011 forward, Residential procurement class usage is the sum of strata 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 122, and 123.
  
  To calculate the usage of the customers currently in strata 111 during the period 11/1/2010 – 12/31/2010, you would add the reported usages for strata 11 and 12 to the reported usage for strata 111 during that time.
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-626:
  Is the Small Commercial group load data correct for 2010 and 2011?
  
  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.
   
  Please also note that all strata were changed to a new model on January 1, 2011, and usage data for new strata may stretch back into the previous year. All current electric strata are 100-200; the old/current strata list can be found on PECO’s SUCCESS website, under the Backcasting folder in the Reports section. 
   
  An estimate of what accounts were in which procurement group was used before 2011 since actual assignments did not start until 2011 in PECO’s billing system. Starting in 2011, customers’ actual assigned procurement classes were used. 
  Supplier Note: The SUCCESS site is password protected, but limited access can be obtained by entering the following username/password combination. The combination is case sensitive.
   
  Username: market
  Password: market08
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-625:
  Will winning Suppliers in the Winter 2012 Full Requirements RFP receive ARRs?
  
  Section 2.3 of the Full Requirements SMA makes it clear that the Seller is responsible for congestion costs incurred to supply the Specified Percentage. Per PJM’s rules, winning Suppliers have the ability to nominate ARRs for the planning periods covered by the Full Requirements SMAs they have executed. PECO does not have ARRs to transfer to Suppliers pursuant to the Winter 2012 Solicitatio
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-624:
  Can we rely on the financial standing of a Foreign Guarantor without providing the required legal opinion of outside counsel regarding the enforceability of the Guaranty?
  
  Please note that a prospective supplier may always qualify for the PECO RFP by relying on its own financial standing; a Guarantor is not required.  As described in Section V.5.2 of the RFP Rules, if the prospective supplier submits a Part 2 Proposal without the documents required of a Foreign Guarantor, the Independent Evaluator provides with the Part 2 Notification a revised creditworthiness assessment stating that the Foreign RFP Bidder is not granted unsecured credit, but this will not in and of itself disqualify the prospective supplier.  A prospective supplier that is not a rated entity would be required to post any security under the SMA in the form of cash or a letter of credit.

  The RFP Rules list certain required executed documents that must be provided in order for a prospective supplier relying on the financial standing of a Foreign Guarantor to be granted unsecured credit.  The RFP Rules were approved by the Commission and PECO cannot make exceptions to these Rules.  However, please note that the legal opinion would state that “the guaranty pursuant to the Default SMA is, or upon the completion of execution formalities will become [emphasis added], the binding obligation of the RFP Guarantor in the jurisdiction in which it has been incorporated or otherwise formed.”  It is our understanding that the Foreign Guarantor’s outside counsel could thus review the form of the Guaranty and provide an opinion on whether the Guaranty would be binding on the Foreign Guarantor if it were to be fully executed.  The Foreign Guarantor’s outside counsel can rely on the fact that you have been provided with the form of the Guaranty that the Foreign Guarantor would sign and submit with the Part 2 Proposal.  PECO cannot make changes to this form of Guaranty and, should you be a winner at the RFP, PECO would counter-sign this same document.

  Please also note that Exhibit G to the SMA includes a sample of such a legal opinion that would be acceptable to PECO.
  
  12/09/2011 in Credit
  
  

• FAQ-623:
  Can we participate in the RFP even if we don’t produce our own financial statements and don’t have a Guarantor? Would we be in violation of Section 14.8 of the SMA that requires financial information?
  
  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.
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract , Credit
  
  
• FAQ-622:
  How do I calculate the retail rate for a class given the RFP prices? The numbers in the “Price to Compare Sample Calculation” don’t match the RFP prices.
  
  The calculations in the document entitled “Price to Compare Sample Calculation” are samples only.  For an explanation of how retail rates are calculated, please see PECO’s actual GSA Rate filings at the PUC:
  May 16 filing (for the rate effective 07/01/2011 through 09/30/2011):http://www.puc.state.pa.us//pcdocs/1132316.pdf
   
  August 15 filing (for the rate effective 10/01/2011 through 12/31/2011):http://www.puc.state.pa.us//pcdocs/1143106.pdf
  
   
  PECO has provided an estimation tool for the Price to Compare on its Web site. Please see:https://www.peco.com/customerservice/ratesandpricing/energychoice/pages/pricetocompare.aspx
  12/09/2011 in Rates
  
  
• FAQ-621:
  Can the named Officer of the RFP bidder delegate signatory authority to another person for the purpose of signing the Transaction Confirmation?
  
  The RFP Rules do not allow the named Officer of the RFP Bidder to delegate signing authority to another person. As stated in Section III.1.3. of the RFP Rules, all representations and certifications required by each RFP must be made by a single individual. This individual must sign the Default Service SMA and must sign the Transaction Confirmation(s) if any of the RFP Bidder’s Bids are approved by the Commission.
  If the Officer named in the Part 1 and Part 2 Proposals will be unavailable to sign the Transaction Confirmations in the event that the RFP Bidder is a winner, the RFP Bidder must name a new Officer by re-submitting the Part 1 Proposal and the Part 2 Proposal.  Three signed originals of each form are required, but any previously submitted additional documents need not be re-submitted.  The RFP Bidder should alert the Independent Evaluator immediately if it will need to name a new Officer, so as not to be in violation of the execution timeline required by the RFP Rules, by sending an email to pecoprocurement@nera.com. 
   
  Please note that the Officer of the RFP Bidder certifies in the Part 2 Proposal that if the Commission approves some or all of the RFP Bidder’s Bids, that specific Officer of the RFP Bidder will execute all Transaction Confirmation(s) required.
  12/09/2011 in Contract , Procedures , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-620:
  Why is there no more data for the SLP street light class after April 2011?
  
  SLP 172 is a retired rate as of January 2011. Some data that was lagging in the billing system for January through March of 2011 appears in the posted dataset as accounts were billed and then converted to rate class SLE.
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-619:
  Can you please explain the large, sudden jump in customer counts for both the TL traffic light counts and usage that begins in 2011?
  
  All strata were changed to a new model on January 1, 2011. Some customers were reassigned to new strata at this time. A new tariff rate was effective 1/1/11, traffic lighting constant load (TLCL). Customers were migrated from small GS to TLCL in January 2011 (they were temporarily moved to GS 100 on exactly 1/1/11).
  
  12/09/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-618:
  Are Full Requirements Suppliers responsible for Reliability Must-Run Charges?
  
  Yes.  Generation Deactivation Charges are the responsibility of the Seller.  Please see Exhibit D (Sample PJM Invoice) of the Full Requirements SMA for a further explanation of cost responsibility.  There is a discussion of RMR charges on slides 20-22 of the Bidder Information Webcast Presentation as well.
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-617:
  Given that portions of these contracts extend beyond May 2013, is there any situation in which a signed Master Agreement would be at risk of abrogation due to the Investigation of Pennsylvania’s Retail Electricity Market (http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/Retail_Electricity_Market.aspx)? Could the PUC rule in such a way and an executed agreement from this PECO Procurement would be abrogated? 
  
  itations on the Commission's legal ability to modify contracts are set forth in Sections 508 and 2807(e)(3.8) of the Public Utility Code. See 66 Pa.C.S. § 508,§ 2807(e)(3
  
  12/09/2011 in Contract
  
  
• FAQ-616:
  Could PECO customers voluntarily or involuntarily be removed from EDC supplied default service after May 2013 due to regulatory changes resulting from the Investigation of Pennsylvania Retail Electricity Market (http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/Retail_Electricity_Market.aspx)?
  
  O cannot speculate on the outcome of an ongoing Commission Investigat
  
  12/09/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-615:
  Where can I find information on the estimation of the Price to Compare?
  
  PECO has provided an estimation tool for the Price to Compare on its Web site. Please see: https://www.peco.com/customerservice/ratesandpricing/energychoice/pages/pricetocompare.aspx 
  
  12/09/2011 in General , Rates
  
  
• FAQ-613:
  Where can I get information about PECO’s tariff filings?
  
  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. 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. 
  
  12/09/2011 in General , Data
  
  
• FAQ-612:
  Section V.5.3 of the RFP Rules states that an RFP Bidder that has not previously qualified must submit a fully executed legal opinion. Is a legal opinion from internal counsel acceptable, or must the opinion be from outside counsel?
  
  
  Please note that a prospective supplier may always qualify for the PECO RFP by relying on its own financial standing; a Guarantor is not required.  As described in Section V.5.2 of the RFP Rules, if the prospective supplier submits a Part 2 Proposal without the documents required of a Foreign Guarantor, the Independent Evaluator provides with the Part 2 Notification a revised creditworthiness assessment stating that the Foreign RFP Bidder is not granted unsecured credit, but this will not in and of itself disqualify the prospective supplier.  A prospective supplier that is not a rated entity would be required to post any security under the SMA in the form of cash or a letter of credit.
   
  As stated in Section IV.7.3 of the RFP Rules, if an RFP Bidder relies on the financial standing of a Foreign Guarantor, in its Part 1 Proposal, the Officer of such RFP Bidder must acknowledge that the following document (among others) is required with the Part 2 Proposal for the Foreign Entity as RFP Guarantor to be granted unsecured credit and for the RFP Bidder to rely on the financial standing of the RFP Guarantor under the terms of the Default Service SMA: “a legal opinion of outside counsel qualified to practice in the foreign jurisdiction in which the RFP Guarantor is incorporated or otherwise formed that the guaranty pursuant to the Default Service SMA is, or upon the completion of execution formalities will become, the binding obligation of the RFP Guarantor in the jurisdiction in which it has been incorporated or otherwise formed” (emphasis added).  This requirement does not apply to such RFP Bidder that has previously qualified.
   
  Such RFP Bidder may, but is not required to, submit with its Part 1 Proposal a draft of this additional document. Exhibit G to the Default Service SMA includes a sample for the legal opinion of outside counsel that is sufficient for a Foreign Entity as RFP Guarantor. If an RFP Bidder submits a draft of the documents for evaluation, the Independent Evaluator will provide this evaluation to the RFP Bidder, including notice of any changes required to the documents, along with the Part 1 Notification.
   
  As stated in Section V.5.3 of the RFP Rules, an RFP Bidder that has not previously qualified must submit the fully executed legal opinion in a form acceptable to PECO for the Independent Evaluator to confirm the creditworthiness assessment provided with the Part 1 Notification. If the RFP Bidder submits all required fully executed documents and these documents are sufficient, the Independent Evaluator includes in the Part 2 Notification a confirmation of the creditworthiness assessment provided with the Part 1 Notification. Exhibit G to the Default Service SMA includes a sample of the legal opinion of outside counsel that is sufficient for the Foreign Entity as RFP Guarantor. If the RFP Bidder does not submit these documents, or if these documents are not sufficient, the Independent Evaluator provides with the Part 2 Notification a revised creditworthiness assessment that states that the Foreign Entity as RFP Guarantor is not granted unsecured credit. The RFP Bidder may not rely on the financial standing of the RFP Guarantor. Any guaranty submitted with the Part 2 Proposal will be removed from consideration and the Independent Evaluator may request additional information regarding the RFP Bidder under Section IV.2.
  
  
  12/08/2011 in Credit , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-611:
  Supplier A identifies its parent as the Guarantor in the Part 1 Proposal, and relies on such Parent Guarantor as the entity upon whose financial standing Supplier A is relying. Then, after the Part 2 Proposal submission, but prior to the Bid Date, Supplier A’s Parent Guarantor consummates a merger transaction, pursuant to which Supplier A has a New Parent and, in turn, a New Parent Guarantor. If Supplier A retains its legal name, continues to exist as a standalone entity after consummation of the merger and conducts business independently, and if the New Parent Guarantor is acceptable to the Independent Evaluator, then will Supplier A continue to be able to participate in the solicitation and submit bids?
  
  
  If it is possible that the parent and Guarantor of Supplier A could cease to exist during the RFP Process, we strongly advise Supplier A to apply to the RFP under its own financial standing. There is no mechanism to update financial information or to change the identity of the Guarantor once a creditworthiness assessment has been made, and once a Guaranty has been issued for execution and submission with the Part 2 Proposal. Although it is possible that the New Parent Guarantor would be acceptable to PECO as well, there are no provisions in the RFP Rules for a re-consideration of the financial qualifications of an RFP Bidder after the RFP Bidder is qualified pursuant to a successful Part 1 Proposal. We note that if instead Supplier A proceeds on its own financial standing as we would advise, Supplier A will be required to submit a pre-bid letter of credit only with its Part 2 Proposal. If Supplier A wins tranches in the solicitation, Supplier A can subsequently request a creditworthiness assessment from PECO for the New Parent Guarantor that would fulfill the creditworthiness requirements of the Agreement.
  
  
  12/08/2011 in General , Credit , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-610:
  
  Though Supplier A may not have knowledge that Supplier B intends to submit a Proposal and participate in the procurement process, in the event that a Supplier A has knowledge that it may become affiliated with Supplier B as a result of a merger transaction that may potentially be consummated after the Part 2 Proposal submission, but prior to the Bid Date, should Supplier A make note of such potential affiliation in Section 8 (Justification of Omissions) or elsewhere in Supplier A’s Part 1 Proposal, and/or in Section 6 (Justification of Omissions) or elsewhere in Supplier A’s Part 2 Proposal?
  
  
  The justification of omissions section is strictly for the purpose of a bidder explaining why the bidder was unable to provide all documents or information required by the form. Please use this section for this purpose only. As part of its duties, the Independent Evaluator is generally aware of proposed transactions that may affect the bidder pool and the Independent Evaluator may, under Paragraph VII.1.15 for example, request additional information to ascertain that the RFP Bidder is bidding independently of other RFP Bidders, and the Independent Evaluator may request additional undertakings on the basis of the information provided. A supplier also remains obligated to inform the Independent evaluator if any certification of its Part 1 or Part 2 proposal is no longer valid.
  
  12/08/2011 in General , Procedures , Rules , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-609:
  
  If two suppliers become affiliates as a result of consummation of a merger transaction after the Part 2 Proposal submission, but prior to the Bid Date, and if “one or both of the entities were to continue to stand alone, conduct business in the same way and independently of each other,” then “it is possible that one or both entities could continue to participate in the solicitation and submit bids,” though the Load Caps would be applied to the two affiliated entities combined.
  
  
  FAQ 605 applies when two suppliers either (1) merge into one legal entity, or, (2) become affiliates as a result of a merger transaction, and such merger occurs during the RFP process (i.e., on a day between the date of submission of the Part 1 forms and the bid date). In particular, it applies after the Part 2 Proposal submission but prior to the Bid Date.
  
  12/08/2011 in Contract , General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-608:
  In the event that two suppliers either (1) merge into one legal entity, or, (2) become affiliates as a result of a merger transaction, and such merger occurs during the RFP Part 1 process (i.e., on a day between the date of submission of the Part 1 forms and the close of the submission window for the Part 2), and one of the newly affiliated suppliers does not proceed in submitting a Part 2 form due to the merger causing the supplier (1) to no longer exist or (2) to become unnecessary to the RFP process since the entities would now be acting as a single company, with full disclosure of such happenings to the Independent Evaluator, and would be subject to a single load cap, would the supplier that did not to proceed be in violation of any certifications required in the Part 1 Form? Would the remaining supplier be in violation of any of its Part 1 certifications if it submitted a Part 2 Form with full disclosure of the merger and related events? Would either of the suppliers be in violation of their Part 1 certifications if, after the merger, neither of them submitted a Part 2 Form? If in any of these cases, a supplier was found to be in violation of a Part 1 certification, would they be subject to any sanctions or penalties and, if so, where could the basis for such sanctions or penalties be found in the RFP documents?
  
  Whether or not a supplier proceeds further in the RFP process, the supplier in its Part 1 Proposal undertakes that if, for any reason or due to any circumstance, any information provided in the Part 1 Proposal changes or any previous certification fails to remain valid before the sixth business day after the Bid Date, the Officer or the Representative will notify the Independent Evaluator of such changes as soon as practicable. The Independent Evaluator would expect each of the newly affiliated suppliers, whether none or one of them proceed in the RFP process, to promptly advise the Independent Evaluator of the change in circumstances. If a supplier intends to proceed in the RFP, it must critically assess whether each of the certifications of the Part 1 Proposal, including the certification that the RFP Bidder is not part of a bidding agreement, remains valid, and to advise the Independent Evaluator should any such certifications not remain valid. RFP Bidders must notify the Independent Evaluator as soon as practicable but in no event later than one (1) day before the Bid Date. The Independent Evaluator may, on the basis of the information provided, change the assessment of an RFP Bidder’s qualifications so that an RFP Bidder may be disqualified from further participation in the RFP process. Further, if one of the suppliers proceeds in the RFP Process and submits the Part 2 Proposal, payment under the Pre-Bid Letter of Credit can be demanded if the RFP Bidder has made (or fails to correct or update) a material omission or misrepresentation in its Part 1 Proposal or in its Part 2 Proposal.
  
  12/08/2011 in General , Procedures , Qualification
  
  
• FAQ-607:
  In the event that two suppliers either (1) merge into one legal entity, or, (2) become affiliates as a result of a merger transaction, and if (1) such a merger occurs after the bid date but prior to the PUC approval and (2) both suppliers provisionally won tranches in the procurement and (3) both suppliers have upheld the certifications, would the suppliers be awarded the combined total tranches provisionally won by both suppliers?
  
  PECO will execute contracts approved by the PUC. PUC approval occurs two days after the bid date. If two bidders win on bid day and merge later that day or the next day, it is not possible to predict whether the PUC will advise PECO that is has approved the contracts for the merged supplier.
  
  12/05/2011 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-606:
  
  In the event that two suppliers either (1) merge into one legal entity, or, (2) become affiliates as a result of a merger transaction, and such merger occurs during the RFP process (i.e., on a day between the date of submission of the Part 1 forms and the bid date), would the merged entity (or one of the two suppliers as applicable) remain eligible to continue to participate in the PECO Default Service Plan (to the extent such participation would not result in a combined/total load share of more than the applicable load cap)?  Would the certifications that were made and upheld by both suppliers in their Part 1 or 2 Proposals be considered violated due to such a merger?
  
  
  
  In the event that two Default Suppliers merge into one legal entity, while a determination would be made on a case-by-case basis, it is possible that the surviving entity would remain eligible to continue to participate in the solicitation and submit bids. The Load Caps would apply to the surviving entity. In addition, as described further below, the surviving entity would need to uphold all required certifications in order to continue to participate in the RFP.
   
  The situation could be different if instead two Default Suppliers became affiliated as a result of a merger of their corporate structures. If one or both of the entities that presented their qualifications (on the basis of which the entity or entities were allowed to continue in the RFP process and present bids) and one or both of the entities were to continue to stand alone, conduct business in the same way and independently of each other, it is possible that one or both entities could continue to participate in the solicitation and submit bids. As noted in response to the previous question, if both entities were now affiliated, the Load Caps would apply to both entities jointly. One entity (if only one entity is continuing in the RFP Process) or both entities would need to uphold all required certifications in order to continue to participate in the RFP, including the following: 
   
  “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;”
   
  And
     
  “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;”
   
  And
   
  “with only the exceptions noted in the immediately previous certification, 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.”
   
  An entity that cannot make the required certifications would not be able to participate in the RFP. If one or both entities can make these certifications, The Independent Evaluator may request additional information to ascertain that one or each of the two entities is bidding independently and the Independent Evaluator may request additional undertakings on the basis of the information provided. 
  
  
  12/05/2011 in Contract , General
  
  
• FAQ-605:
  In the event that two suppliers either (1) merge into one legal entity, or (2) become affiliates as a result of a merger transaction, and the load share of the merged entity, or the combined load share of the two newly affiliated suppliers, results in a load share for a Customer Supply Group that is greater than the 65% load cap, is the newly merged entity (or newly affiliated entities) prohibited from acquiring any additional tranches in any PECO Default Service Plan procurements until such time as so doing would not result in a combined/total load share of more than the applicable load cap?
  
  
  The Load Cap for a Class is set so that the customers of that Class have no more than a 65% exposure to any one Default Supplier at any given time. 
   
  If two Default Suppliers merge into one legal entity (“NewCo”), under the terms of the Default Service Program Supply Master Agreement (“Agreement”), NewCo assumes all rights and obligations under the Agreement once NewCo has obtained all regulatory approvals necessary and once NewCo has provided notice to PECO and obtained its consent. NewCo becomes a Default Service Supplier and as such is subject to the Load Caps of each of PECO’s RFPs. Under the Full Requirements RFP, the Load Caps are set so that a Default Service Supplier holds no more than 65% of the combined Fixed-Price and Spot-Price Tranches used to supply a Class at any one given time. Under the Block Energy RFP, the Load Caps are set so that a Default Service Supplier holds no more than 65% of the blocks used to supply the PECO Share at any one given time. If NewCo exceeds the Load Cap for an RFP in a given solicitation, NewCo would be precluded from submitting bids in that solicitation for that RFP.
   
  The situation is the same if, instead of merging into a single legal entity, two Default Suppliers became affiliated as a result of a merger of their corporate structures. The function of the Load Cap is to limit exposure of a Class to the viability or creditworthiness of a given entity. If two Default Suppliers are affiliated, the viability and creditworthiness of the suppliers become linked and thus the Load Caps would be applied to the affiliated entities combined.  
  
  
  12/05/2011 in Contract , General , Rules
  
  
• FAQ-604:
  If the name of the entity on whose financial standing the RFP Bidder relies has changed, can the Short Part  1 Form be used?
  
  If the entity has undergone a simple legal name change, but remains unchanged in all other respects, the Short Part 1 Form may be used.  However, if the entity has undergone any change in corporate structure, it is no longer the same entity, and the Standard Part 1 Form must be used.
  
  12/02/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-603:
  Where can I find information about the PUC's investigation of Pennsylvania's Retail Electricity Market?
  
  The PUC has posted information about its retail market investigation to http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/Retail_Electricity_Market.aspx.
  
  11/16/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-602:
  The historical load file for the Small Commercial procurement class is missing the GS 101 and GS 107 class usage for the period 12/1/2010 – 12/31/2010.
  
  Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  The historical load file for the Small Commercial procurement class previously posted to the website was missing GS 101 and GS 107 class usage for the period 12/1/2010 – 12/31/2010.  The correct file has been posted to the website and is now available for download.  We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
  
  11/16/2011 in Data
  
  
• FAQ-601:
  Will winners at the Winter 2012 Solicitation be informed of the results of the solicitation in time to nominate Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs) for the relevant supply periods?
  
  Yes.  This solicitation is being held early enough for winning bidders to have sufficient time to nominate ARRs with PJM, and PECO is committed to working with suppliers and PJM to ensure a smooth process.
  
  11/16/2011 in Contract , General , Procedures
  
  
• FAQ-600:
  When will final block energy quantities for the Spring 2012 Solicitation be announced?
  
  The final block energy quantities for the Spring 2012 Solicitation will be announced shortly after the conclusion of this Winter 2012 solicitation.
  
  11/16/2011 in General
  
  
• FAQ-599:
  How can I calculate the total hourly load for November and December of 2010?
  
  During the period 11/1/2010-12/31/2010, there were customers in the new strata system and customers in the old strata system. Usage for the GS rate class in the aggregate during December 2010 is reported in the historical load files on the website.  Because both sets of strata existed during this timeframe, the GS rate class usage in any given hour would be calculated as the sum of the reported usages of both the old strata and the new strata.
  For example, prior to 11/1/2010, GS rate class usage is the sum of strata 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Between 11/1/2010 and 12/31/2010, GS 101 rate class usage is the sum of strata 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 101, and 107. From 1/1/2011 forward, GS rate class usage is the sum of strata 100, 101, and 107.  To calculate the usage of the customers currently in strata 101 during the period 11/1/2010 – 12/31/2010, you would add the reported usages for strata 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the reported usage for strata 101 during that time.
   
  It has come to our attention that the historical load file for the Medium Commercial procurement class previously posted to the website was missing GS 101 class usage for the period 12/1/2010 – 12/30/2010.  The correct file has been uploaded to the website and is now available for download.  We apologize for any inconvenience caused.

   
  
  10/17/2011 in Data
  
  

• FAQ-598:
  Instead of cancelling our Pre-Bid Letter of Credit and issuing a new one for each solicitation, can we reduce the amount of our existing Pre-Bid LOC to a low nominal amount in between solicitations and amend it up before each new solicitation?
  
  Yes.  Please make sure to note this request your Part 2 Form send all amendment requests to the Independent Evaluator Office at the following address:
   
  NERA - Independent Evaluator
  PECO Default Service Program RFPs
  1835 Market Street, Suite 1205
  Philadelphia, PA 19103
  Phone: (215) 568-0200
  Fax: (215) 568-9358

   
  
  10/17/2011 in Credit
  
  

www.nera.com

www.peco.com

Privacy Policy