The OCA argued that proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism PGW’s should be denied and should be considered only in the context of a base rate proceeding. The OCA reasoned that because PGW is not an investor owned utility (IOU) who must answer to its shareholders, it does not have the same profit motive and does not need an incentive to implement energy efficiency services which encourage customers to reduce the wasteful use of natural gas. The OCA opined that, while promoting energy efficiency is in the best interest of ratepayers, proposed Performance Incentive PGW’s PGW’s Mechanism runs contrary to this interest because it would add to the costs of PGW’s DSM programs without ratepayers realizing any corresponding benefits. Further, PGW’s the OCA submitted that with respect to CRP Home Comfort Program, PGW PGW’s should not be permitted to collect an for offering a universal service program “incentive” that it is obligated to provide. OCA M.B. at 54-61. Similar to its position regarding proposed CAM, the OSBA PGW’s submitted that proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism should be considered PGW’s only in the context of a base rate proceeding, and not an EE&C petition. In addition, the OSBA contended that Act 129 expressly states that the proper incentive mechanism to encourage utilities to meet their EE&C program benchmarks is a penalty for Accordingly, the OSBA posited that in lieu of permitting PGW to include a Performance Incentive Mechanism in its Phase II DSM Plan, the Commission should impose a penalty structure on PGW consistent with the provisions set forth in Act 129. OSBA M.B. at 9; OSBA R.B. at 2. PICGUG submitted that proposed Performance Incentive PGW’s Mechanism should be rejected because it would generate unnecessary revenue at the expense of ratepayers. PICGUG M.B. at 6. I&E argued that PGW should not be permitted to implement a Performance Incentive Mechanism for offering energy efficiency programs that, aside from its
The OCA argued that PGW’s proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism should be denied and should be considered only in the context of a base rate proceeding. The OCA reasoned that because PGW is not an investor owned utility (IOU) who must answer to its shareholders, it does not have the same profit motive and does not need an incentive to implement energy efficiency services which encourage customers to reduce the wasteful use of natural gas. The OCA opined that, while promoting energy efficiency is in the best interest of PGW’s ratepayers, PGW’s proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism runs contrary to this interest because it would add to the costs of PGW’s DSM programs without PGW’s ratepayers realizing any corresponding benefits. Further, the OCA submitted that with respect to PGW’s CRP Home Comfort Program, PGW should not be permitted to collect an “incentive” for offering a universal service program that it is obligated to provide. OCA M.B. at 54-61. Similar to its position regarding PGW’s proposed CAM, the OSBA submitted that PGW’s proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism should be considered only in the context of a base rate proceeding, and not an EE&C petition. In addition, the OSBA contended that Act 129 expressly states that the proper incentive mechanism to encourage utilities to meet their EE&C program benchmarks is a penalty for Accordingly, the OSBA posited that in lieu of permitting PGW to include a Performance Incentive Mechanism in its Phase II DSM Plan, the Commission should impose a penalty structure on PGW consistent with the provisions set forth in Act 129. OSBA M.B. at 9; OSBA R.B. at 2. PICGUG submitted that PGW’s proposed Performance Incentive Mechanism should be rejected because it would generate unnecessary revenue at the expense of ratepayers. PICGUG M.B. at 6. I&E argued that PGW should not be permitted to implement a Performance Incentive Mechanism for offering energy efficiency programs that, aside from its
1464440.docx