Service Base rates in Zone 1 will not be increased. OSBA 2, 3. OSBA’s concerns pertaining to commercial consumption charges have been addressed by increasing each block by the same percentage. OSBA at 4. With respect to the customer charge, the current customer charge of $12.00 will be increased to $13.00 instead of $13.75 for customers with 5/8 inch meters. OTS at 5. OCA mentioned that the industrial customers’ customer charge will not be increased. OCA at 3. Since the Settlement also provides for: a substantial increase (from $150,000 to $250,000 per year) in PAWC’s shareholder contribution to the Dollar Energy Fund to assist payment troubled customers (Joint Petition ¶ 8.h.); the extension of water mains, at the Company’s sole investment, in areas where the quantity or quality of homeowners’ existing wells is not adequate (Joint Petition ¶ 8.j.) and a number of actions and commitments to address issues and concerns raised by witnesses at the public input hearings (Joint Petition ¶ 8.k. and Appendix D.), the parties maintain that the Settlement is in the public interest. PAWC at 2, 3; OCA at 4 - 6; OTS at 3, 4 In the Petition the parties have provided information about the Company’s responses to questions and problems mentioned by the witnesses during the public input hearings. This is certainly in the public interest. The stay out provision benefits ratepayers by providing rate stability. The proposed rate design, rate structure and the distribution of the increase are in the public interest because they balance the needs and concerns of the Company and the ratepayers. Furthermore, the Settlement allows the parties to conserve resources, incur less expense, and avoid the uncertainties associated with a fully litigated case. After considering the Joint Petition for Settlement of Rate Investigation, including the reduction in the proposed rates, the stay out provision, the Company’s additional contribution to the hardship grant program, the Company’s agreement to install mains with Company investment, the Company’s responses to the problems in the Camp Hill Borough, the changes in rate design and structure, and the savings achieved by not litigating the case fully, it is my opinion that the Settlement is fair, just, reasonable and in the public interest. Accordingly, I recommend that the Joint Petition for Settlement of Rate Investigation be approved.
Service Base rates in Zone 1 will not be increased. OSBA 2, 3. OSBA’s concerns pertaining to commercial consumption charges have been addressed by increasing each block by the same percentage. OSBA at 4. With respect to the customer charge, the current customer charge of $12.00 will be increased to $13.00 instead of $13.75 for customers with 5/8 inch meters. OTS at 5. OCA mentioned that the industrial customers’ customer charge will not be increased. OCA at 3. Since the Settlement also provides for: a substantial increase (from $150,000 to $250,000 per year) in PAWC’s shareholder contribution to the Dollar Energy Fund to assist payment troubled customers (Joint Petition ¶ 8.h.); the extension of water mains, at the Company’s sole investment, in areas where the quantity or quality of homeowners’ existing wells is not adequate (Joint Petition ¶ 8.j.) and a number of actions and commitments to address issues and concerns raised by witnesses at the public input hearings (Joint Petition ¶ 8.k. and Appendix D.), the parties maintain that the Settlement is in the public interest. PAWC at 2, 3; OCA at 4 - 6; OTS at 3, 4 In the Petition the parties have provided information about the Company’s responses to questions and problems mentioned by the witnesses during the public input hearings. This is certainly in the public interest. The stay out provision benefits ratepayers by providing rate stability. The proposed rate design, rate structure and the distribution of the increase are in the public interest because they balance the needs and concerns of the Company and the ratepayers. Furthermore, the Settlement allows the parties to conserve resources, incur less expense, and avoid the uncertainties associated with a fully litigated case. After considering the Joint Petition for Settlement of Rate Investigation, including the reduction in the proposed rates, the stay out provision, the Company’s additional contribution to the hardship grant program, the Company’s agreement to install mains with Company investment, the Company’s responses to the problems in the Camp Hill Borough, the changes in rate design and structure, and the savings achieved by not litigating the case fully, it is my opinion that the Settlement is fair, just, reasonable and in the public interest. Accordingly, I recommend that the Joint Petition for Settlement of Rate Investigation be approved.