customers and to include this information in the Companies’ annual report to the Commission. at 38. October 2009 Order The stated that the Commission would form a working October 2009 Order group to identify the standardized data to be used in determining the proper proportion for low-income households and clarify other matters affecting the annual reconciliation process. The Companies are required to participate in the working group. October 2009 at 37-38 and 132-133. Order Finally, the found that the energy savings from the October 2009 Order Companies’ existing low-income usage program (the WARM program) funds are not derived from Act 129 programs and should not be attributed to the Companies’ energy efficiency and demand reduction obligations under Act 129. The Commission consequently rejected the calculations in the Plans and ordered the Companies to revise and resubmit the Plans with updated calculations. October 2009 at 38. Order b. Positions of the Parties The Revised state that the Companies will track instances in which low-income customers participate in programs that are not specifically directed toward low-income customers, including: appliance turn-in programs, direct load control programs, and in-home and online energy audits. This information will be included in the Companies’ annual reports to the Commission. Met Ed’s Revised Plan at 16, Penelec’s Revised Plan at 16, and Penn Power’s Revised Plan at 15. The meeting of the Working Group was held on January 6, 2010. Representatives of the Companies attended.
customers and to include this information in the Companies’ annual report to the Commission. October 2009 Order at 38. The October 2009 Order stated that the Commission would form a working group to identify the standardized data to be used in determining the proper proportion for low-income households and clarify other matters affecting the annual reconciliation process. The Companies are required to participate in the working group. October 2009 Order at 37-38 and 132-133. Finally, the October 2009 Order found that the energy savings from the Companies’ existing low-income usage program (the WARM program) funds are not derived from Act 129 programs and should not be attributed to the Companies’ energy efficiency and demand reduction obligations under Act 129. The Commission consequently rejected the calculations in the Plans and ordered the Companies to revise and resubmit the Plans with updated calculations. October 2009 Order at 38. b. Positions of the Parties The Revised state that the Companies will track instances in which low-income customers participate in programs that are not specifically directed toward low-income customers, including: appliance turn-in programs, direct load control programs, and in-home and online energy audits. This information will be included in the Companies’ annual reports to the Commission. Met Ed’s Revised Plan at 16, Penelec’s Revised Plan at 16, and Penn Power’s Revised Plan at 15. The meeting of the Working Group was held on January 6, 2010. Representatives of the Companies attended.