offer support for its own interpretation of the Namely, Columbia points USECP Order. out that I&E fails to explain why its interpretation of the word necessarily “address” means that Columbia must immediately abstain from its current hardship funding mechanism. Columbia reiterates that if the Commission had set forth its USECP Order as I&E interprets it, it would not have instructed the Parties to address the Hardship Fund issue in the matter before us. Columbia R. Exc. at 3. Columbia next argues that although I&E depicts the $375,000 Hardship Fund contribution as a small it fails to consider the negative effects “relatively amount,” on low-income customers that would result if the present Hardship Fund contribution were removed from the USP Rider immediately with no alternative funding mechanism in place. According to Columbia, the ALJ correctly rejected position because the I&E’s record demonstrates that low-income customers could be harmed if position were I&E’s adopted. Citing its own Reply Briefs at 3-6, Columbia also points out that, contrary to suggestion, it cannot be directed to provide $375,000 in Hardship Funding I&E’s voluntarily in the interim while it seeks additional voluntary funding. Columbia submits that in accordance with existing case law, utilities are permitted to recover expenses that are prudently incurred for general policy reasons. Therefore, Columbia reasons that it must be permitted to recover any contribution to the Hardship Fund that it is required to provide. Columbia R. Exc. at 3-5. Additionally, Columbia rebuts assertion that its search for additional I&E’s voluntary funding could continue for an indefinite period, to the detriment of ratepayers. Columbia acknowledges that beyond its use of voluntary funding used to supplement the $375,000 it receives for the Hardship Fund via its USP Rider, it has not yet replaced funding for the Hardship Fund with additional voluntary sources in the three years since the settlement of its 2012 base rate case. However, Columbia points out that it was under no previous obligation to do so. Columbia R. Exc. at 5-6. Columbia submits that the above reasoning by I&E cannot be used as a basis to conclude that it will not now
offer support for its own interpretation of the USECP Order. Namely, Columbia points out that I&E fails to explain why its interpretation of the word “address” necessarily means that Columbia must immediately abstain from its current hardship funding mechanism. Columbia reiterates that if the Commission had set forth its USECP Order as I&E interprets it, it would not have instructed the Parties to address the Hardship Fund issue in the matter before us. Columbia R. Exc. at 3. Columbia next argues that although I&E depicts the $375,000 Hardship Fund contribution as a “relatively small amount,” it fails to consider the negative effects on low-income customers that would result if the present Hardship Fund contribution were removed from the USP Rider immediately with no alternative funding mechanism in place. According to Columbia, the ALJ correctly rejected I&E’s position because the record demonstrates that low-income customers could be harmed if I&E’s position were adopted. Citing its own Reply Briefs at 3-6, Columbia also points out that, contrary to I&E’s suggestion, it cannot be directed to provide $375,000 in Hardship Funding voluntarily in the interim while it seeks additional voluntary funding. Columbia submits that in accordance with existing case law, utilities are permitted to recover expenses that are prudently incurred for general policy reasons. Therefore, Columbia reasons that it must be permitted to recover any contribution to the Hardship Fund that it is required to provide. Columbia R. Exc. at 3-5. Additionally, Columbia rebuts I&E’s assertion that its search for additional voluntary funding could continue for an indefinite period, to the detriment of ratepayers. Columbia acknowledges that beyond its use of voluntary funding used to supplement the $375,000 it receives for the Hardship Fund via its USP Rider, it has not yet replaced funding for the Hardship Fund with additional voluntary sources in the three years since the settlement of its 2012 base rate case. However, Columbia points out that it was under no previous obligation to do so. Columbia R. Exc. at 5-6. Columbia submits that the above reasoning by I&E cannot be used as a basis to conclude that it will not now
1398643.docx