calendar-year basis, to provide consumer education programs and competitive retail electricity market enhancement initiatives for all customers who receive distribution service from PPL. According to PPL, the CER will be a Section 1307(e), 66 Pa. C.S. § 1307(e), cost recovery mechanism developed to recover the education and Company’s retail market enhancement (RME) related costs. PPL St. 8 at 30-32; PPL Exh. DAK 2; PPL M.B. at 180. PPL argued that the Commission and the appellate courts have held that an automatic adjustment clause is appropriate when the expenses to be recovered are substantial, subject to variation and beyond the control of the utility. PPL M.B. at 206 (citing 869 A.2d 1144, 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, Pennsylvania 653 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); Industrial Energy Coalition v. Pa. PUC, Pa. PUC v. Docket No. R-2009-2117550 (Order entered April 15, Newtown Artesian Water Co., 2010); 1991 Pa. PUC Lexis 80). Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Thermal Energy Corp., According to PPL, its competitive enhancement expenses meet each of these standards. PPL M.B. at 206. The Company estimated that the costs of the mandates in the RMI and other proceedings will be more than $6 million annually, at least at the beginning, but will depend on the direction and are not within the control of the Commission’s Company. PPL M.B. at 206. The OCA, the OSBA, and Direct Energy have raised various issues and concerns regarding the proposed CER. The OCA cautioned that care must be taken to prevent double recovery of these costs. In addition, the OCA noted that the Commission had recently held that the competitive enhancement costs should not be collected from ratepayers but from the EGSs. OCA M.B. at 125 (citing Docket No. P-2011-2273650, at Petition of FirstEnergy,
calendar-year basis, to provide consumer education programs and competitive retail electricity market enhancement initiatives for all customers who receive distribution service from PPL. According to PPL, the CER will be a Section 1307(e), 66 Pa. C.S. § 1307(e), cost recovery mechanism developed to recover the Company’s education and retail market enhancement (RME) related costs. PPL St. 8 at 30-32; PPL Exh. DAK 2; PPL M.B. at 180. PPL argued that the Commission and the appellate courts have held that an automatic adjustment clause is appropriate when the expenses to be recovered are substantial, subject to variation and beyond the control of the utility. PPL M.B. at 206 (citing Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 869 A.2d 1144, 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Pennsylvania Industrial Energy Coalition v. Pa. PUC, 653 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); Pa. PUC v. Newtown Artesian Water Co., Docket No. R-2009-2117550 (Order entered April 15, 2010); Pa. PUC v. Philadelphia Thermal Energy Corp., 1991 Pa. PUC Lexis 80). According to PPL, its competitive enhancement expenses meet each of these standards. PPL M.B. at 206. The Company estimated that the costs of the mandates in the RMI and other proceedings will be more than $6 million annually, at least at the beginning, but will depend on the Commission’s direction and are not within the control of the Company. PPL M.B. at 206. The OCA, the OSBA, and Direct Energy have raised various issues and concerns regarding the proposed CER. The OCA cautioned that care must be taken to prevent double recovery of these costs. In addition, the OCA noted that the Commission had recently held that the competitive enhancement costs should not be collected from ratepayers but from the EGSs. OCA M.B. at 125 (citing Petition of FirstEnergy, Docket No. P-2011-2273650, at
1206360.docx