CAUSE-PA also opposed proposed OBR for residential PGW’s PGW’s customers. CAUSE-PA noted that PGW would implement a final OBR model developed through the discussions of the proposed working group if critical PGW criteria are “all CAUSE-PA is concerned that PGW has not defined which criteria it considers to met.” be critical and under what circumstances it would utilize its to not pursue the OBR “veto” proposed by the working group. CAUSE-PA urged rejection of this proposal, in part because it is contingent upon CAM approval, and in part because the proposal does not define the PGW would use in its decision making. CAUSE-PA M.B. “critical criteria” at 12-13; CAUSE-PA R.B. at 7. b. Recommendation ALJs’ In their Recommended Decision, the ALJs stated that while they understood the opposing concerns that there are a variety of issues that must be Parties’ resolved before an OBR program can be implemented, they believed that a collaborative process would be a positive start to pursuing an OBR proposal that all Parties might find agreeable and beneficial to ratepayers. The ALJs asserted that they would be PGW’s inclined to recommend the direction of such a collaborative process. However, the ALJs concluded that as PGW had specifically stated that its OBR proposal is contingent upon approval of the CAM, and since they recommended that proposed CAM be PGW’s denied, the OBR issue is moot. R.D. at 127. c. Disposition No Party filed Exceptions regarding the recommendation on this ALJs’ issue. Finding the recommendation to be reasonable, we adopt it without further ALJs’ comment. As we have previously denied the implementation of the CAM, we conclude that this issue is moot.
CAUSE-PA also opposed PGW’s proposed OBR for PGW’s residential customers. CAUSE-PA noted that PGW would implement a final OBR model developed through the discussions of the proposed working group if “all critical PGW criteria are met.” CAUSE-PA is concerned that PGW has not defined which criteria it considers to be critical and under what circumstances it would utilize its “veto” to not pursue the OBR proposed by the working group. CAUSE-PA urged rejection of this proposal, in part because it is contingent upon CAM approval, and in part because the proposal does not define the “critical criteria” PGW would use in its decision making. CAUSE-PA M.B. at 12-13; CAUSE-PA R.B. at 7. b. ALJs’ Recommendation In their Recommended Decision, the ALJs stated that while they understood the opposing Parties’ concerns that there are a variety of issues that must be resolved before an OBR program can be implemented, they believed that a collaborative process would be a positive start to pursuing an OBR proposal that all Parties might find agreeable and beneficial to PGW’s ratepayers. The ALJs asserted that they would be inclined to recommend the direction of such a collaborative process. However, the ALJs concluded that as PGW had specifically stated that its OBR proposal is contingent upon approval of the CAM, and since they recommended that PGW’s proposed CAM be denied, the OBR issue is moot. R.D. at 127. c. Disposition No Party filed Exceptions regarding the ALJs’ recommendation on this issue. Finding the ALJs’ recommendation to be reasonable, we adopt it without further comment. As we have previously denied the implementation of the CAM, we conclude that this issue is moot.
1464440.docx