further opined that prioritization based on arrearages and income deficit would help PGW meet its universal service objectives. The ALJs, therefore, denied request for a PGW’s waiver of Section 58.10 of the Regulations. Id. Commission’s c. Exceptions and Replies In its Exceptions, PGW disagrees with the recommendation. PGW ALJs’ questions the denial of its waiver request despite their recognition of the fact that ALJs’ the receipt of LIURP treatment generally does not have a financial impact on the CRP customer who receives the treatment. PGW argues that the suggested ALJs’ prioritization should be rejected because adopting such a recommendation would erode the effectiveness of its LIURP and would produce no greater financial benefit for the CRP customers receiving the LIURP services. PGW Exc. at 39-40. First, PGW asserts that its current prioritization strategy for LIURP weatherization treatment fully satisfies its universal service objectives. PGW states that while the ALJs focused on universal service objectives in support of their PGW’s recommendation, they failed to explain their interpretation of the specific requirements of the objectives. According to PGW, the ALJs failed to address the fact that the Commission had already acknowledged that and costly “performing extensive weatherization services on a premise with questionable bill payment history is likely “not a prudent investment of at 40, citing at 55. PGW Id. USECP 2014-2016 Order funds.” asserts that its program complies with the stated LIURP goals and the mandated universal service objectives by; (1) assisting low income customers to conserve energy and providing them LIURP services that results in improved health, safety and comfort levels; and, (2) ensuring that its LIURP is managed in a cost-effective manner in order to provide the greatest financial benefit to its non-CRP low income customers, and customers who pay for the LIURP treatments and subsidize CRP usage. Id. customers’ at 40-41. Further, PGW questions why the incorrectly stated that CRP customer ALJs’
further opined that prioritization based on arrearages and income deficit would help PGW meet its universal service objectives. The ALJs, therefore, denied PGW’s request for a waiver of Section 58.10 of the Commission’s Regulations. Id. c. Exceptions and Replies In its Exceptions, PGW disagrees with the ALJs’ recommendation. PGW questions the ALJs’ denial of its waiver request despite their recognition of the fact that the receipt of LIURP treatment generally does not have a financial impact on the CRP customer who receives the treatment. PGW argues that the ALJs’ suggested prioritization should be rejected because adopting such a recommendation would erode the effectiveness of its LIURP and would produce no greater financial benefit for the CRP customers receiving the LIURP services. PGW Exc. at 39-40. First, PGW asserts that its current prioritization strategy for LIURP weatherization treatment fully satisfies its universal service objectives. PGW states that while the ALJs focused on PGW’s universal service objectives in support of their recommendation, they failed to explain their interpretation of the specific requirements of the objectives. According to PGW, the ALJs failed to address the fact that the Commission had already acknowledged that “performing extensive and costly weatherization services on a premise with questionable bill payment history is likely “not a prudent investment of funds.” Id. at 40, citing USECP 2014-2016 Order at 55. PGW asserts that its program complies with the stated LIURP goals and the mandated universal service objectives by; (1) assisting low income customers to conserve energy and providing them LIURP services that results in improved health, safety and comfort levels; and, (2) ensuring that its LIURP is managed in a cost-effective manner in order to provide the greatest financial benefit to its non-CRP low income customers, and customers who pay for the LIURP treatments and subsidize CRP customers’ usage. Id. at 40-41. Further, PGW questions why the ALJs’ incorrectly stated that CRP customer
1464440.docx