CAP Plus charge. It is not clear how these additional charges ability impact customers’ to afford their monthly OnTrack bill. The 2014 APPRISE Evaluation impact on energy burden examined OnTrack’s levels for customers enrolled in 2012. The Evaluation found that 85% of non-heating customer and 46% of heating customers with incomes at or below 50% of the FPIG still had energy burden levels exceeding the CAP Policy Statement guidelines after participating in the OnTrack program for a year. Table 3 reflects the change in energy burden levels for full-year OnTrack participants: Table 3 Energy Burden Levels for Full-Year OnTrack Participants Non-Electric Heating Poverty Mean Energy Burden PUC Energy Percent with Burden Level Burden Target Above PUC Target Pre Post Non-Heating Pre Post 50% 22% 11% 2%-5% 99% 85% ≥ 10% 5% 4%-6% 80% 38% 7% 4% 6%-7% 36% 2% Electric Heating Poverty Mean Energy Burden PUC Energy Percent with Burden Level Burden Target Above PUC Target Pre Post Heating Pre Post 50% 37% 17% 7%-13% 94% 46% ≥ 15% 8% 11%-16% 36% 3% 10% 6% 15%-17% 9% 0% 2014 APPRISE Evaluation at 169 Source: proposed change to its CAP credit limits which offers the highest amount PPL’s – of CAP credits to its lowest income customers may help to reduce the energy burden – levels for OnTrack participants with incomes at or below 50% of the FPIG. However, the APPRISE study does not identify how much of the customer’s “post-OnTrack” energy burden level is made up of the $5 co-payment and CAP Plus charge. A program’s
CAP Plus charge. It is not clear how these additional charges impact customers’ ability to afford their monthly OnTrack bill. The 2014 APPRISE Evaluation examined OnTrack’s impact on energy burden levels for customers enrolled in 2012. The Evaluation found that 85% of non-heating customer and 46% of heating customers with incomes at or below 50% of the FPIG still had energy burden levels exceeding the CAP Policy Statement guidelines after participating in the OnTrack program for a year. Table 3 reflects the change in energy burden levels for full-year OnTrack participants: Table 3 Energy Burden Levels for Full-Year OnTrack Participants Non-Electric Heating Poverty Level Mean Energy Burden PUC Energy Burden Target Percent with Burden Above PUC Target Pre Post Non-Heating Pre Post ≥ 50% 22% 11% 2%-5% 99% 85% 10% 5% 4%-6% 80% 38% 7% 4% 6%-7% 36% 2% Electric Heating Poverty Level Mean Energy Burden PUC Energy Burden Target Percent with Burden Above PUC Target Pre Post Heating Pre Post ≥ 50% 37% 17% 7%-13% 94% 46% 15% 8% 11%-16% 36% 3% 10% 6% 15%-17% 9% 0% Source: 2014 APPRISE Evaluation at 169 PPL’s proposed change to its CAP credit limits – which offers the highest amount of CAP credits to its lowest income customers – may help to reduce the energy burden levels for OnTrack participants with incomes at or below 50% of the FPIG. However, the APPRISE study does not identify how much of the customer’s “post-OnTrack” energy burden level is made up of the program’s $5 co-payment and CAP Plus charge. A