Furthermore, Section 2806.1(k)(1) states that each EDC shall recover all reasonable and prudent costs incurred in the provision or management of its EE&C plan on a full and current basis through a reconcilable surcharge. Therefore, the cost recovery of the statewide evaluator should be included in the reconcilable surcharge that will be used to recover those costs of the individual EE&C plans. We conclude that the expense related to the statewide evaluator is not a cost component of the EDCs’ individual Rather, it is a cost component of the overall program instituted by the Commission. Accordingly, we find that Duquesne’s cost recovery for its respective share of the cost for the statewide evaluator will not be subject to the 2% cap on the cost of its Plan. Duquesne properly excluded these costs from their EE&C Plan. 2. Cost Effectiveness/Cost-Benefit Issues Two areas that require review and analysis relate to the cost effectiveness of Duquesne’s Plan. First, it is important to verify that Duquesne follows the methodology set forth in the in preparing its cost-benefit analysis. Second, TRC Test Order verification is required that Duquesne’s Plan passes the TRC Test with a total plan benefit ratio of greater than 1.0. a. Positions of the Parties No parties offered comments on the overall TRC or disputed the analysis. b. Disposition Performing a cost effectiveness analysis the Commission-approved TRC required the use of many assumptions regarding current and future energy prices.
Furthermore, Section 2806.1(k)(1) states that each EDC shall recover all reasonable and prudent costs incurred in the provision or management of its EE&C plan on a full and current basis through a reconcilable surcharge. Therefore, the cost recovery of the statewide evaluator should be included in the reconcilable surcharge that will be used to recover those costs of the individual EE&C plans. We conclude that the expense related to the statewide evaluator is not a cost component of the EDCs’ individual Rather, it is a cost component of the overall program instituted by the Commission. Accordingly, we find that Duquesne’s cost recovery for its respective share of the cost for the statewide evaluator will not be subject to the 2% cap on the cost of its Plan. Duquesne properly excluded these costs from their EE&C Plan. 2. Cost Effectiveness/Cost-Benefit Issues Two areas that require review and analysis relate to the cost effectiveness of Duquesne’s Plan. First, it is important to verify that Duquesne follows the methodology set forth in the TRC Test Order in preparing its cost-benefit analysis. Second, verification is required that Duquesne’s Plan passes the TRC Test with a total plan ratio of greater than 1.0. a. Positions of the Parties No parties offered comments on the overall TRC or disputed the analysis. b. Disposition Performing a cost effectiveness analysis the Commission-approved TRC required the use of many assumptions regarding current and future energy prices. benefit
1058256.docx