|
OPC is Advocating for Consumers in the
Following Cases:
Formal Case No. 1167: Implementation of the Climate Business Plan.
On July 25, OPC filed Comments on the Notice of Inquiry. In the comments, OPC asked about best practices by regulators and jurisdictions and asked DOEE questions.
Formal Case No. 1180, The Washington Gas Light Company Rate Case Application
On July 25, OPC filed Conformed Direct Testimony and Exhibits, Conformed Rebuttal Testimony, and Conformed Surrebuttal Testimony and Exhibits.
On July 29, OPC filed a List of the Parties’ Stipulation, the Number of Witnesses, and the Nature of their Testimony in a Joint Witness Cross-Examination Matrix, Admissions, and a List of Authenticated Documents.
On August 13, OPC filed Data Response Exhibits for Admission into the Record for the Evidentiary Hearing.
On August 14, OPC filed Cross-Examination Exhibits for the Evidentiary Hearing.
Formal Case No. 1183: Investigation into The Impact of The PJM Capacity Auction and the Establishment of the PJM Capacity Auction Task Force.
On July 31, OPC filed the Phase 1 PJM Capacity Auction Task Force Report.
Formal Case No. 1119: The Joint Application of Exelon Corporation, Pepco Holdings, Inc., Potomac Electric Power Company, Exelon Energy Delivery Company, LLC, and New Special Purpose Entity, LLC for Authorization and Approval of Proposed Merger Transaction.
On July 31, OPC filed initial comments on Pepco’s 2025 Annual Consolidated Report.
PEPRADR2025: Potomac Electric Power Company Residential Aid Compliance Reports and Filings
On August 11, OPC filed Comments in Response to the Public Service Commission’s Notice of Proposed Tariff for Pepco's Compliance Filing and Proposal regarding its Residential Aid Discount Surcharge. OPC requests that the PSC reject the filing so that Pepco can clarify its calculation methodologies.
Formal Case No. 1176: Pepco’s Application for Approval to Increase Rates, through the Implementation of a Multiyear Rate Plan
On August 13, OPC filed its opening brief at the DC Court of Appeals in response to the Commission’s decision in the Pepco rate increase case.
| 
