would deprive the public from having a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on the adequacy of LIURP budget and the appropriateness of a budget reduction. PGW’s TURN agreed with CAUSE-PA that arguments for a waiver of Section et al. PGW’s 58.4(a) are unpersuasive and amount to circular reasoning. TURN M.B. at 15-16. et al. According to TURN even if the Commission agrees that the LIURP budget must et al., be approved before the requirements of Section 58.4(a) become applicable, PGW has failed to provide a persuasive explanation to justify granting a waiver of this provision of Section 58.4(a). at 16. Id. The CAC noted that PGW has agreed to work with BCS regarding an appropriate public notice consistent with 52 Pa. Code § 58.4(a). The CAC strongly supported public notice and participation in all forms. CAC R.B. at 8. b. Recommendation ALJs’ The ALJs found merit with the argument that the public needs to be OCA’s notified and should be given an opportunity to comment on the reduction in PGW’s program funding. R.D. at 173-174. Although PGW argued that it filed its Petition more than a year ago, and the public advocates could have requested a public input hearing during the period of this proceeding, the ALJs disagreed. According to the ALJs, public notice and due process are fundamental requirements of Section 58.4(a), and PGW has not established any that warrants a waiver of this section. The “special circumstances” ALJs, therefore, denied request for a waiver of Section 58.4(a) of the PGW’s Regulations. Id. Commission’s c. Exceptions and Replies In its Exceptions, PGW disagrees with the recommendation ALJs’ regarding its waiver request of 52 Pa. Code § 58.4(a). PGW requests that the
would deprive the public from having a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on the adequacy of PGW’s LIURP budget and the appropriateness of a budget reduction. TURN et al. agreed with CAUSE-PA that PGW’s arguments for a waiver of Section 58.4(a) are unpersuasive and amount to circular reasoning. TURN et al. M.B. at 15-16. According to TURN et al., even if the Commission agrees that the LIURP budget must be approved before the requirements of Section 58.4(a) become applicable, PGW has failed to provide a persuasive explanation to justify granting a waiver of this provision of Section 58.4(a). Id. at 16. The CAC noted that PGW has agreed to work with BCS regarding an appropriate public notice consistent with 52 Pa. Code § 58.4(a). The CAC strongly supported public notice and participation in all forms. CAC R.B. at 8. b. ALJs’ Recommendation The ALJs found merit with the OCA’s argument that the public needs to be notified and should be given an opportunity to comment on the reduction in PGW’s program funding. R.D. at 173-174. Although PGW argued that it filed its Petition more than a year ago, and the public advocates could have requested a public input hearing during the period of this proceeding, the ALJs disagreed. According to the ALJs, public notice and due process are fundamental requirements of Section 58.4(a), and PGW has not established any “special circumstances” that warrants a waiver of this section. The ALJs, therefore, denied PGW’s request for a waiver of Section 58.4(a) of the Commission’s Regulations. Id. c. Exceptions and Replies In its Exceptions, PGW disagrees with the ALJs’ recommendation regarding its waiver request of 52 Pa. Code § 58.4(a). PGW requests that the
1464440.docx