application process more convenient and allow a faster exchange of information between OnTrack agencies and PPL customers. At least one utility is planning to offer online applications for its CAP. In its latest USECP filing, Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) reports it is developing an online CAP application that will allow customers to apply for the program through the its website, check the status of their application, and receive electronic correspondence. PGW See Amended Proposed 2017-2020 Plan at 13 and PGW 2017-2020 USECP Tentative Order at 17, Docket No. M-2016-2542415. PPL customers could benefit from a similar application process. In its response to this Tentative Order, PPL should explain whether Proposed Resolution: it is developing or exploring the use of web-based applications and electronic documentation process for OnTrack. If so, PPL should explain how customer education will be handled during this process. Clarification c. OnTrack to Pay and Energy Burden Levels Customer’s Ability – Requested In explaining use of three possible payment options in OnTrack (i.e., PPL’s Minimum Payment, Percent of Bill, and Agency Selected), the Company explains that it chooses the payment most closely matches the ability to option “that customer’s pay.” Proposed 2017-2019 Plan at 6. However, the Plan does not explain how PPL determines what OnTrack customers can afford to pay for electricity when assigning their payment option. Claiming that a OnTrack payment is based on the customer’s customer’s “ability to that the monthly bill reflects what the household can afford. However, pay” suggests PPL also charges OnTrack participants a $5 co-payment for pre-program arrears and a
application process more convenient and allow a faster exchange of information between OnTrack agencies and PPL customers. At least one utility is planning to offer online applications for its CAP. In its latest USECP filing, Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) reports it is developing an online CAP application that will allow customers to apply for the program through the its website, check the status of their application, and receive electronic correspondence. See PGW Amended Proposed 2017-2020 Plan at 13 and PGW 2017-2020 USECP Tentative Order at 17, Docket No. M-2016-2542415. PPL customers could benefit from a similar application process. Proposed Resolution: In its response to this Tentative Order, PPL should explain whether it is developing or exploring the use of web-based applications and electronic documentation process for OnTrack. If so, PPL should explain how customer education will be handled during this process. c. OnTrack Customer’s Ability to Pay and Energy Burden Levels – Clarification Requested In explaining PPL’s use of three possible payment options in OnTrack (i.e., Minimum Payment, Percent of Bill, and Agency Selected), the Company explains that it chooses the payment option “that most closely matches the customer’s ability to pay.” Proposed 2017-2019 Plan at 6. However, the Plan does not explain how PPL determines what OnTrack customers can afford to pay for electricity when assigning their payment option. Claiming that a customer’s OnTrack payment is based on the customer’s “ability to pay” suggests that the monthly bill reflects what the household can afford. However, PPL also charges OnTrack participants a $5 co-payment for pre-program arrears and a