exclude CRP customers with program arrearages greater than two months from CRP Home Comfort eligibility. PGW M.B. at 70. The OCA argued that current policy to limit eligibility to CRP PGW’s participants excludes a substantial portion of the confirmed low-income customer population in the service territory. The position is that the LIURP Company’s OCA’s budget should include a specific set-aside so that up to twenty percent of the total budget is available for, and targeted toward, confirmed low-income customers who are not CRP participants. The OCA stated that existing program is directed exclusively to PGW’s low-income customers who participate in the CRP program. The OCA Company’s alleged that there is a significant unmet need for energy efficiency measures for the low-income population within Philadelphia. According to the OCA, the opportunities for energy efficiency measures for low-income customers should be driven primarily by the usage levels and need. As such, the OCA proposed that the customer’s program be structured so that usage levels are within the top thirty to fifty percent of the target population eligible to participate. OCA M.B. at 72-73. TURN maintained that there should be an expansion of the CRP et al. Home Comfort program to include electric heating customers and former CRP de facto customers. TURN M.B. at 14. et al. Similar to TURN CAUSE-PA argued for the expansion of the CRP et al., Home Comfort program to include heating customers and former CRP de facto customers. CAUSE-PA asserted that and former CRP customers are currently de facto ineligible for LIURP, despite strong evidence that these programs are capable of PGW’s producing deep savings for low-income customers and residential ratepayers alike, and could resolve significant public health and safety issues which persist in vulnerable, income communities. CAUSE-PA M.B. at 23-24.
exclude CRP customers with program arrearages greater than two months from CRP Home Comfort eligibility. PGW M.B. at 70. The OCA argued that PGW’s current policy to limit eligibility to CRP participants excludes a substantial portion of the confirmed low-income customer population in the Company’s service territory. The OCA’s position is that the LIURP budget should include a specific set-aside so that up to twenty percent of the total budget is available for, and targeted toward, confirmed low-income customers who are not CRP participants. The OCA stated that PGW’s existing program is directed exclusively to low-income customers who participate in the Company’s CRP program. The OCA alleged that there is a significant unmet need for energy efficiency measures for the low-income population within Philadelphia. According to the OCA, the opportunities for energy efficiency measures for low-income customers should be driven primarily by the customer’s usage levels and need. As such, the OCA proposed that the program be structured so that usage levels are within the top thirty to fifty percent of the target population eligible to participate. OCA M.B. at 72-73. TURN et al. maintained that there should be an expansion of the CRP Home Comfort program to include de facto electric heating customers and former CRP customers. TURN et al. M.B. at 14. Similar to TURN et al., CAUSE-PA argued for the expansion of the CRP Home Comfort program to include de facto heating customers and former CRP customers. CAUSE-PA asserted that de facto and former CRP customers are currently ineligible for PGW’s LIURP, despite strong evidence that these programs are capable of producing deep savings for low-income customers and residential ratepayers alike, and could resolve significant public health and safety issues which persist in vulnerable, communities. CAUSE-PA M.B. at 23-24. income
1464440.docx