RFP Clarification or Corrections
8/7 – Bid timing and format update
Bidders have been notified that bids should be submitted on Thursday 8/10 through the Transparent Energy Platform. Bidding will be “blind” rather than auction format.
8/7 NYS Mandated price cap for Standard supply offerings changed with new Con Edison averages
With the issuance of the Q2 Con Edison trailing 12 month averages, the maximum allowable price for Standard supply has come down. The gap between this is such that it is possible that no bidder can meet this target. In this case the Standard supply would be dropped from the program offering for this round. If the bid does turn out this way, bidders must plan to mail anyway to the approximately 370 customers who are now in the Standard supply, alerting them to this, and offering them the opportunity to opt-in to the default 50% Renewable product.
|
12 mo avg |
+5% |
Round up |
| Residential |
9.863 |
10.35615 |
10.356 |
| Standard |
9.745 |
10.23225 |
10.232 |
Contract Execution
The commitment by all parties is still at award, and bidders should plan on same-day hedging. Execution just refers to the physical act of getting the municipalities’ to sign the ESA. This is not a huge task with Yonkers, but still we are allowing a few days. There is no deviation from previous bids in this regard.
Trailing average cap on Standard product pricing
As bidders may be aware, CCAs are now subject to the same rules that had already been in place for individual ESCO contracts, of which the rule that a Standard supply product offering should be no more than 5% over the trailing utility average. That means in effect that there is a second “price-not-to-exceed”, set by the State, applying to a Standard offering only.
For Yonkers, the trailing average, and resulting cap on that price is, rounded up to significant digits:
[SUPERCEDED – SEE ABOVE]
|
12 mo avg |
+5% |
Round up |
| Residential |
10.438 |
10.9599 |
10.960 |
| Standard |
10.401 |
10.92105 |
10.922 |
In Yonkers we have currently about 350 customers that have switched to the Standard supply. If we do not secure a compliant price with the winning bid, the contract would have to exclude these customers.
Newly Eligible refresh at new contract launch
We are organizing the next refresh mailing under the current contract (the utility list is about 4669 accounts) for a start date of Sept 1. The ESA template calls for refreshes for April, August and December, so bidders should anticipate including the next batch of newly eligible customers in the contract launch mailing for starts on meter reads on or after December 1 of this year.
ESA Section 7.2
We were asked what the intent was in 7.2
“The Parties acknowledge that on May 19, 2023, DPS issued a Proposal for Modification to Outreach and Education Requirements in PSC Case 14-M-0224 (the “DPS Outreach and Education Proposal”). In the event that the DPS Outreach and Education Proposal is finalized or other changes are made to the CCA Orders after the Effective Date that materially increase Program Manager’s expenses in administering the Program during the Term, such changes shall be deemed a Regulatory Event a defined herein, such that Program Manager may recover such increased costs in the form of an increased Program Manager Fee that may be allocated to and collected from Participating Customers on a per kWh basis through applicable monthly invoice(s).
The reason for this addition to the ESA is because at this time there are proposals from the DPS which are yet to go through SAPA and may yet change, but include significant additional outreach requirements that would result in increased costs to SW as administrator which we would need to recover. These could include advertising, mailings and/or additional in-person meetings. For us to call on this, the change should be identifiable as a discrete change from previous requirements.
CCA Framework Modification Order Section 18.12
We were asked about whether motivation for the highlighted addition to the original Advertising clause was coming from the January CCA order.
18.12 ADVERTISING LIMITATIONS
Competitive Supplier and Municipality agree not to use, whether directly or through any of its Associated Entities, the name of the other Party, or make any reference to the other Party in any advertising or other information to be distributed publicly for marketing or educational purposes, unless the other Party expressly agrees to such usage; provided, however, that this prohibition shall not prevent Competitive Supplier or Municipality from identifying the other Party as required under the CCA Orders. Any proposed use of the name of a Party must be submitted in writing for agreement and prior written approval which may be withdrawn through a notice in writing at any time. The Municipality acknowledges that the Competitive Supplier’s corporate affiliates own the exclusive right to the trademarked logo and trade name used by Competitive Supplier. No right, license or interest in this trademark and/or
Answer: Clearly there are times when we have to say who the supplier is, even under the original orders – in the opt-out letter, when we do information sessions about the contract etc. The clause as written did not acknowledge that (or worse, wants us to check in every time we head out the door to present). The new orders have been helpful in clarifying a number of things, but, having clarified, they also imply that we need to take additional care to adhere to the guidelines, and that would include those instances where we are obliged to be sharing the name of the supplier. We understand the original intent of this clause to be to prohibit us from using the supplier name/brand widely for things outside of these normal contract operations, piggy-backing on it for non-related, claiming partnership, associating the supplier with things that they have not agreed to or have some contractual relation to etc.
