do not have an incentive to interrupt during an emergency. Accordingly, PPL Electric has proposed a new $25.00 per kW penalty for load that exceeds the interruptible requirement during the period of the requested interruption. PPL Electric also has proposed the elimination of the Time of Day provisions of Rate Schedule IS-1. Instead, the customer’s demand will be the maximum 15-minute demand in the month without Time of Day considerations. Finally, PPL Electric has proposed to decrease the customer charge from $840.00 per month to $40.00 per month, the same as that proposed for Rate Schedule GS-3, and to introduce a demand charge of $2.75 per kW. PPL Electric St. 5, pp. 18-19. This proposal was unopposed and should be approved. Commercial space Heating Rate Schedules GH-1 and – GH-2: All GH-1 customers currently are paying more for distribution service than they would pay on comparable rate schedules. PPL Electric has proposed to eliminate Rate Schedule GH-1 and transfer the remaining customers to Rate Schedules GS-3, or GS-1, depending on the service voltage and number of phases supplied by the Company. For Rate Schedule GH-2, the Company proposes to increase the customer charge from $14.00 per month to $16.00 per month. PPL Electric St. 5, pp. 19-20; PPL Electric Exs. DAK 1, DAK 2; PPL Electric Ex. No. 1, Exhibits Regs., § 53.53, Part IV, Questions C through E. This proposal was unopposed and should be approved. PPL Electric MB at 157-162 (emphasis added). i. Residential The residential distribution schedules are Residential Service (RS), Residential Thermal Storage (RTS), and Residential Time-of-Day (RTD). The Company proposes raising the Rate Schedule RS customer charge from its present $8.75 per month to $16.00 per month. The Company points out that its COSS supports a charge of $36.70, and this increase moves the rate schedule closer to the cost of serving it. PPL Electric MB at 162-163. OCA opposes the increase to residential customers because it is based on the COSS which it also opposes. This issue was disposed of earlier, and the OCA alternative to the
do not have an incentive to interrupt during an emergency. Accordingly, PPL Electric has proposed a new $25.00 per kW penalty for load that exceeds the interruptible requirement during the period of the requested interruption. PPL Electric also has proposed the elimination of the Time of Day provisions of Rate Schedule IS-1. Instead, the customer’s demand will be the maximum 15-minute demand in the month without Time of Day considerations. Finally, PPL Electric has proposed to decrease the customer charge from $840.00 per month to $40.00 per month, the same as that proposed for Rate Schedule GS-3, and to introduce a demand charge of $2.75 per kW. PPL Electric St. 5, pp. 18-19. This proposal was unopposed and should be approved. Commercial space Heating – Rate Schedules GH-1 and GH-2: All GH-1 customers currently are paying more for distribution service than they would pay on comparable rate schedules. PPL Electric has proposed to eliminate Rate Schedule GH-1 and transfer the remaining customers to Rate Schedules GS-3, or GS-1, depending on the service voltage and number of phases supplied by the Company. For Rate Schedule GH-2, the Company proposes to increase the customer charge from $14.00 per month to $16.00 per month. PPL Electric St. 5, pp. 19-20; PPL Electric Exs. DAK 1, DAK 2; PPL Electric Ex. No. 1, Exhibits Regs., § 53.53, Part IV, Questions C through E. This proposal was unopposed and should be approved. PPL Electric MB at 157-162 (emphasis added). i. Residential The residential distribution schedules are Residential Service (RS), Residential Thermal Storage (RTS), and Residential Time-of-Day (RTD). The Company proposes raising the Rate Schedule RS customer charge from its present $8.75 per month to $16.00 per month. The Company points out that its COSS supports a charge of $36.70, and this increase moves the rate schedule closer to the cost of serving it. PPL Electric MB at 162-163. OCA opposes the increase to residential customers because it is based on the COSS which it also opposes. This issue was disposed of earlier, and the OCA alternative to the
1195941.docx