Program/Portfolio Base Expanded OCA Recommendations (Millions $) Plan Plan CRP HOME COMFORT $10.15 $13.96 $38.00 (LIURP) Residential Equipment Rebates $3.80 $4.17 $4.17 Efficient Building Grants $1.99 $1.99 $1.99 Commercial Equipment Rebates $1.763 $2.63 $2.63 Efficient Building Grants $1.02 $1.08 $1.08 Home Rebates $0.213 $3.82 $3.82 Portfolio Wide Costs $3.784 $4.53 $4.53 Five-Year Total $22.70 $32.2 $56.20 The OCA argued that its proposed recommended budget provides significant TRC benefits, and as a total package including the CRP Home Comfort budget of $7.6 million, the recommended budget provides even more benefits to OCA’s the system. The OCA noted that its recommended budget would still be less than the Phase I budget of $63.7 million for the period of 2011 through 2015. OCA M.B. at 63. PGW argued that the proposal that the budget for the non-LIURP OCA’s programs should be consistent with expanded scenario without simultaneous PGW’s approval of CAM was untenable. PGW R.B. at 48-49. PGW’s I&E, the OSBA, CAUSE-PA and TURN took no position on et al. PGW’s proposed budgets for its non-LIURP DSM programs. I&E M.B. at 14; I&E R.B. at 18; CAUSE-PA M.B. at 18; CAUSE-PA R.B. at 9; and TURN M.B. at 11. et al. b. Recommendation ALJs’ In their Recommended Decision, the ALJs recommended the approval of the PGW proposed budget for Non-LIURP programs, with the exception of the Efficient Fuel-Switching program which they stated would be discussed later in their
Program/Portfolio (Millions $) Base Plan Expanded Plan OCA Recommendations CRP HOME COMFORT (LIURP) $10.15 $13.96 $38.00 Residential Equipment Rebates $3.80 $4.17 $4.17 Efficient Building Grants $1.99 $1.99 $1.99 Commercial Equipment Rebates $1.763 $2.63 $2.63 Efficient Building Grants $1.02 $1.08 $1.08 Home Rebates $0.213 $3.82 $3.82 Portfolio Wide Costs $3.784 $4.53 $4.53 Five-Year Total $22.70 $32.2 $56.20 The OCA argued that its proposed recommended budget provides significant TRC benefits, and as a total package including the CRP Home Comfort budget of $7.6 million, the OCA’s recommended budget provides even more benefits to the system. The OCA noted that its recommended budget would still be less than the Phase I budget of $63.7 million for the period of 2011 through 2015. OCA M.B. at 63. PGW argued that the OCA’s proposal that the budget for the non-LIURP programs should be consistent with PGW’s expanded scenario without simultaneous approval of PGW’s CAM was untenable. PGW R.B. at 48-49. I&E, the OSBA, CAUSE-PA and TURN et al. took no position on PGW’s proposed budgets for its non-LIURP DSM programs. I&E M.B. at 14; I&E R.B. at 18; CAUSE-PA M.B. at 18; CAUSE-PA R.B. at 9; and TURN et al. M.B. at 11. b. ALJs’ Recommendation In their Recommended Decision, the ALJs recommended the approval of the PGW proposed budget for Non-LIURP programs, with the exception of the Efficient Fuel-Switching program which they stated would be discussed later in their
1464440.docx