OCA M.B. at 43. (Italics represent proposed language); OCA R.B., pp. 31-32. OCA’s 1. Position Columbia’s As stated above, in its Main Brief, Columbia proposed that the final language on competitive customers in the tariff should provide as follows: Company’s The DSIC shall be applied equally to all customer classes, except that the Company shall not apply the Rider DSIC to any customer with competitive alternatives, or potential competitive alternatives, who is taking service at flexed or discounted rates and to customers having negotiated contracts with the Company. Columbia M.B., p. 26. Columbia asserts that this proposal would incorporate additional language that the parties have agreed upon, would allow Columbia to address all customers with the ability to exercise competitive alternatives, whether they had been constructed yet, and would clearly exclude those identified customers from being charged the DSIC. Thus, Columbia argues that this language would provide the best solution. Penn State proposed alternative language on page 3 of its Main Brief. According to Columbia the language in Penn Main Brief State’s achieves the same purposes as proposal, and Columbia does not object to Penn Columbia’s proposed language. Columbia St. No. 1-RJ, pp. 4-5; Columbia R.B., p. 27. State’s Columbia asserts that to competitive from the delete “potential alternatives” proposal and group those customers into the larger category of customers with competitive alternatives only serves to make the language of the DSIC less clear. Columbia argues that the proposal to competitive should be rejected. Columbia OCA’s delete “potential alternatives” R.B., pp. 27-28. Columbia believes it should not try to charge competitive customers the DSIC. Columbia notes that its proposal for the DSIC is identical to the treatment of competitive customers in other riders, which the Commission has found to be reasonable. Columbia St. No. 1-R, p. 7. Columbia contends it is already charging the maximum negotiated amount
OCA M.B. at 43. (Italics represent OCA’s proposed language); OCA R.B., pp. 31-32. 1. Columbia’s Position As stated above, in its Main Brief, Columbia proposed that the final language on competitive customers in the Company’s tariff should provide as follows: The DSIC shall be applied equally to all customer classes, except that the Company shall not apply the Rider DSIC to any customer with competitive alternatives, or potential competitive alternatives, who is taking service at flexed or discounted rates and to customers having negotiated contracts with the Company. Columbia M.B., p. 26. Columbia asserts that this proposal would incorporate additional language that the parties have agreed upon, would allow Columbia to address all customers with the ability to exercise competitive alternatives, whether they had been constructed yet, and would clearly exclude those identified customers from being charged the DSIC. Thus, Columbia argues that this language would provide the best solution. Penn State proposed alternative language on page 3 of its Main Brief. According to Columbia the language in Penn State’s Main Brief achieves the same purposes as Columbia’s proposal, and Columbia does not object to Penn State’s proposed language. Columbia St. No. 1-RJ, pp. 4-5; Columbia R.B., p. 27. Columbia asserts that to delete “potential competitive alternatives” from the proposal and group those customers into the larger category of customers with competitive alternatives only serves to make the language of the DSIC less clear. Columbia argues that the OCA’s proposal to delete “potential competitive alternatives” should be rejected. Columbia R.B., pp. 27-28. Columbia believes it should not try to charge competitive customers the DSIC. Columbia notes that its proposal for the DSIC is identical to the treatment of competitive customers in other riders, which the Commission has found to be reasonable. Columbia St. No. 1-R, p. 7. Columbia contends it is already charging the maximum negotiated amount
1271923.docx