Hardship Fund issue in the matter before us. I&E M.B. at 4. Similarly, I&E argued that CAUSE-PA’s concern regarding the negative effect that immediate cessation of recovery of funds through the USP Rider could have on low-income residential customers is irrelevant. In view, the real concern is that present recovery I&E’s Columbia’s mechanism makes contributions to the Hardship Fund compulsory, and not voluntary. I&E R.B. at 12. On the other hand, I&E contended that its own recommendation satisfies the directive the Commission expressed. Specifically, I&E took the position that the Commission, in its clearly directed Columbia to immediately abstain USECP Order, from utilizing its USP Rider to fund the Hardship Fund and to immediately begin funding the Hardship Fund solely through voluntary donations. According to I&E, this is the only way to interpret the plain language of the I&E M.B. at 4-7. USECP Order. Recommendation ALJ’s In her Recommended Decision, the ALJ accepted the position of the OCA, as endorsed by Columbia and CAUSE-PA, that the Commission did not mandate the immediate removal of the $375,000 funding of the Hardship Fund from the USP Rider, but instead instructed the Parties to this issue in the instant case. R.D. at 56. “address” The ALJ noted that in the the Commission indicated that it was not Tentative Order, presently seeking to amend funding mechanism for its Hardship Fund. Id. Columbia‘s (citing at 28). The ALJ ruled that when read in conjunction with the Tentative Order it is clear that the Commission was simply instructing the Parties to USECP Order, discuss other ways for Columbia to obtain funding for the Hardship Fund and to develop a plan for Columbia to cease recovery through its USP Rider in a timely manner. Additionally, the ALJ pointed out that although the Commission, via its USECP Order, directed Columbia to make several amendments to its USECP, it did not direct Columbia to remove the hardship funding from its USP Rider. R.D. at 56.
Hardship Fund issue in the matter before us. I&E M.B. at 4. Similarly, I&E argued that CAUSE-PA’s concern regarding the negative effect that immediate cessation of recovery of funds through the USP Rider could have on low-income residential customers is irrelevant. In I&E’s view, the real concern is that Columbia’s present recovery mechanism makes contributions to the Hardship Fund compulsory, and not voluntary. I&E R.B. at 12. On the other hand, I&E contended that its own recommendation satisfies the directive the Commission expressed. Specifically, I&E took the position that the Commission, in its USECP Order, clearly directed Columbia to immediately abstain from utilizing its USP Rider to fund the Hardship Fund and to immediately begin funding the Hardship Fund solely through voluntary donations. According to I&E, this is the only way to interpret the plain language of the USECP Order. I&E M.B. at 4-7. ALJ’s Recommendation In her Recommended Decision, the ALJ accepted the position of the OCA, as endorsed by Columbia and CAUSE-PA, that the Commission did not mandate the immediate removal of the $375,000 funding of the Hardship Fund from the USP Rider, but instead instructed the Parties to “address” this issue in the instant case. R.D. at 56. The ALJ noted that in the Tentative Order, the Commission indicated that it was not presently seeking to amend Columbia‘s funding mechanism for its Hardship Fund. Id. (citing Tentative Order at 28). The ALJ ruled that when read in conjunction with the USECP Order, it is clear that the Commission was simply instructing the Parties to discuss other ways for Columbia to obtain funding for the Hardship Fund and to develop a plan for Columbia to cease recovery through its USP Rider in a timely manner. Additionally, the ALJ pointed out that although the Commission, via its USECP Order, directed Columbia to make several amendments to its USECP, it did not direct Columbia to remove the hardship funding from its USP Rider. R.D. at 56.
1398643.docx