CRP enrollment and encouraged PGW to focus its efforts to increase CRP on PGW’s those off customers. at 37. Id. TURN supported CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. TURN et al. et averred that PGW should establish the Restore Service program in conjunction with al. its LIURP because it would address termination crisis, reduce PGW’s PGW’s uncollectible expenses, and increase public health and safety. TURN in support of et al., the proposal, reiterated most of the arguments put forth by CAUSE-PA and requested that the Commission direct PGW to establish CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. TURN M.B. at 22-24. et al. PGW opposed CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. PGW contended that although CAUSE-PA argued that its proposal would remediate high number PGW’s of involuntary residential service terminations, the proposal failed to address how the customer arrearages would be paid. According to PGW, the cost of the program does not qualify as a PGW LIURP cost because the Restore Service program would be offered to non-PGW customers. PGW further argued that there is no statutory or any other obligation for PGW to offer non-LIURP conservation programs, especially, since the proposal has the potential to unreasonably increase PGW and its costs. PGW ratepayers’ M.B. at 82. PGW also contended that weatherization services do not change the CRP asked-to-pay amount, there is, therefore, no proof that customers receiving customer’s weatherized services are shut off less frequently than those who do not. PGW also dismissed CAUSE-PA and TURN claim that the Company is in a et al.’s “termination noting that PGW has the highest proportionate number of low customers crisis” of all the electric and gas utilities in the state, yet its average termination rate is lower than every other gas and electric utility in the state. PGW does not believe the Restore Service program would address its declining CRP enrollment because customers enroll in
PGW’s CRP enrollment and encouraged PGW to focus its efforts to increase CRP on those off customers. Id. at 37. TURN et al. supported CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. TURN et al. averred that PGW should establish the Restore Service program in conjunction with its LIURP because it would address PGW’s termination crisis, reduce PGW’s uncollectible expenses, and increase public health and safety. TURN et al., in support of the proposal, reiterated most of the arguments put forth by CAUSE-PA and requested that the Commission direct PGW to establish CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. TURN et al. M.B. at 22-24. PGW opposed CAUSE-PA’s Restore Service proposal. PGW contended that although CAUSE-PA argued that its proposal would remediate PGW’s high number of involuntary residential service terminations, the proposal failed to address how the customer arrearages would be paid. According to PGW, the cost of the program does not qualify as a PGW LIURP cost because the Restore Service program would be offered to non-PGW customers. PGW further argued that there is no statutory or any other obligation for PGW to offer non-LIURP conservation programs, especially, since the proposal has the potential to unreasonably increase PGW and its ratepayers’ costs. PGW M.B. at 82. PGW also contended that weatherization services do not change the CRP customer’s asked-to-pay amount, there is, therefore, no proof that customers receiving weatherized services are shut off less frequently than those who do not. PGW also dismissed CAUSE-PA and TURN et al.’s claim that the Company is in a “termination crisis” noting that PGW has the highest proportionate number of low customers of all the electric and gas utilities in the state, yet its average termination rate is lower than every other gas and electric utility in the state. PGW does not believe the Restore Service program would address its declining CRP enrollment because customers enroll in
1464440.docx