RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 52--PUBLIC UTILITIES
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
[52 PA. CODE CH. 58]
Residential Low Income Usage Reduction Programs
[28 Pa.B. 25]
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission), on August 28, 1997, adopted a final rulemaking to amend relevant sections of Title 52 regarding residential low income usage reduction programs. The final rulemaking addresses tenant eligibility, landlord contributions and permits a covered utility to spend up to 20% of its annual budget on eligible special needs customers as defined in § 58.2 (relating to definitions). The contact persons are David Mick, Bureau of Consumer Services, (717) 783-3232 and Rhonda Daviston, Assistant Counsel, Law Bureau, (717) 787-6166.
At the public meeting held August 28, 1997, the Commission adopted an order to promulgate a final rulemaking regarding continuation of the existing residential low income usage reduction programs. The final rulemaking addresses tenant eligibility, landlord contributions and permits a covered utility spending up to 20% of its annual budget on eligible special needs customers as defined in § 58.2. The program is intended to assist low income customers to conserve energy and reduce their residential energy bills. The continuation of the program without a sunset date, is consistent with the legislative intent of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2801--2813.
The Commission recognizes the Low Income Usage Reduction Program's (LIURP) weatherization and conversation services have achieved significant benefits for utilities and low income customers. Analyses revealed that the program has achieved, among other goals, its initial goal of reducing energy usage, utility bills and arrearages for residential low income households.
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), the Commission submitted a copy of the final rulemaking, which was published as proposed at 27 Pa.B. 1165, and served on February 20, 1997, to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairpersons of House Committee Consumer Affairs and the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure for review and comment. In compliance with section 5(b.1) of the Regulatory Review Act, the Commission also provided IRRC and the Committees with copies of the comments received, as well as other documentation.
In preparing these final-form regulations, the Commission has considered the comments received from IRRC, the Committees and the public.
These final-form regulations were deemed approved by the House Committee on Consumer Affairs and were approved on October 28, 1997, by the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, and were approved by IRRC on November 6, 1997, in accordance with section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act.
Public Meeting held
August 28, 1997
Commissioners Present: John M. Quain, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice-Chairperson; John Hanger, Statement attached; David W. Rolka, Concurring in result; Nora Mead Brownell
Final Rulemaking Order
By order adopted September 19, 1996, and entered on September 20, 1996, at L-00960118, we initiated a proposed rulemaking to extend the LIURP, §§ 58.1--58.18, which is scheduled to expire on or before January 28, 1998. In that order, we recognized that LIURP's weatherization, usage reduction and conservation services had achieved significant benefits for both utilities and low income customers.
Analyses reveal that the LIURP has achieved its initial goal of reducing energy usage, utility bills and arrearages for residential low income households. We believe that the LIURP produces both load management and energy conservation benefits. Assisting low income customers to reduce energy demand has benefits associated with load management, avoided cost of future generation and fuel purchasing, as well as diminished environmental impacts related to energy production and transmission.
Since its inception in 1988, the LIURP, §§ 58.1--58.18, has provided conservation services to more than 115,000 low income households. Services may have included full weatherization conservation treatments, furnace repair and replacement, water heating measures and electric baseload measures.
In addition to the benefits discussed previously, the LIURP benefits can be viewed from a broader perspective. LIURP services engender improved community relations for utility companies as they become partners in addressing critical housing needs in their service territories. Because of the labor intensive nature of providing usage reduction services, the LIURP is also producing economic development benefits. At the same time, LIURP is improving the condition of the Commonwealth's existing, aging housing stock.
From the perspective of low income LIURP recipients, the program has several worthwhile benefits. These include increased comfort levels, safer living conditions through improved furnace safety and reduction in the use of secondary heating devices, and more moderate and manageable utility bills. Furthermore, reduced energy bills contribute to the availability of more affordable housing for low income families.
On October 25, 1996, the Office of Attorney General issued its approval of the proposed regulations as to form and legality. On February 20, 1997, the Commission submitted a copy of these proposed amendments to IRRC and to the Chairpersons of the House Committee on Consumer Affairs and the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure. The proposed rulemaking was published for comment at 27 Pa.B. 1165 (March 8, 1997) with a 30-day comment period that ended April 7, 1997. On May 7, 1997, we received comments from IRRC on the proposed regulations. We also received written comments from the following parties:
Commission on Economic Opportunity (CEO)
Energy Coordinating Agency of Philadelphia, Inc. (ECA)
GPU Energy (GPU)
Northern Tier Community Action Corporation (Northern Tier CAC)
Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA)
PECO Energy (PECO)
Peoples Natural Gas Company (Peoples)
UGI Utilities, Inc. - Gas Division (UGI)
Pennsylvania Gas Association (PGA)
Subsequent to review of comments received, we made one modification to our proposed regulations in response to the concerns raised by IRRC and other commentators. Specifically, we deleted language at § 58.2 at IRRC's request.
The current regulations have been modified to reflect certain changes in the program and prospective changes in the utility markets. The applicability of the definitions has been clarified. The definition of ''covered utility'' has been amended to confine the program's parameters to local distribution utilities to ensure that the utility that has direct customer access will continue to provide the LIURP.
Refrigerator replacement has been specified in the regulations so as to allow the electric utility more leeway in its program implementation. Next, a section has been added to allow for landlord contributions. Finally, the special needs customer program has been expanded to allow for spending as much as 20% of the utility's LIURP budget on customers with special needs. This will give the covered utility greater flexibility in administering its program by slightly expanding customer eligibility requirements.
We shall discuss the comments received and the modifications made as a result of these comments, section by section.
In the definition of the term ''covered utility'' we added ''local distribution'' to confine the program's parameters to local distribution utilities to ensure that the utility that has direct customer access will continue to provide the LIURP. Both the OCA and PECO endorsed this modification.
The ECA commented that the Commission should broaden the LIURP to include water utilities as well as electric and gas companies. Making such a change to these regulations would expand the scope of the regulations and require us to resubmit them as proposed regulations. Consequently, the Commission does not believe that it is appropriate to expand these provisions to water utilities within the boundaries of these regulations.
Establishment of Residential Low Income Usage Reduction Program
We have revised the regulations by eliminating a specified sunset date for the LIURP. As Northern Tier CAC pointed out in its comments, the elimination of the soon to be outdated time frame is consistent with the legislative intent of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2801--2813. Other commentators including the OCA, ECA, GPU and PECO endorsed the elimination of a sunset date in these regulations.
Peoples suggested that the LIURP be reviewed after 5 years, to offer recommendations for improvements. We agree that the LIURP must provide a means for program review as well as a process for making improvements. Historically, we have used a two-part process for making ongoing enhancements to the LIURP, apart from the regulation process. First, the utilities perform an annual process evaluation as part of the annual program evaluation that is submitted to the Commission. Second, the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services has performed three or four operational reviews of each company's LIURP program thus far. We believe that this system has worked effectively and we will continue this system in the future.
The PGA commented that the sunset provisions should remain in place, particularly given the continued lack of convincing evidence that the LIURP is cost effective under applicable sections of the Public Utility Code. The PGA also offered that the LIURP, if it is to be continued, should have a sunset date of January 1, 2001, to coincide with full direct access to competitive electric generation.
Initially, we point to IRRC's comments in response to the PGA's contention that there is a lack of convincing evidence that the LIURP is cost-effective and satisfies the requirements under the Public Utility Code at 66 Pa.C.S. § 1505(b) (relating to proper service and facilities established on complaint). IRRC stated that the commentators who believe that the LIURP is not cost-effective have not presented any evidence for their claim. IRRC believed that LIURP was proven to be cost-beneficial in 1992, when it commented as such at that time as the LIURP regulations were recommended for continuance by IRRC. Since then, we have released two reports to the public that we have shared with IRRC as well. The program years in these reports were for 1991 and 1992. The results of these two reports showed improvement over the early years of the LIURP. Our evaluation of the LIURP program has continued on an annual basis and we have shared our analysis of the 1993 and 1994 program years with each of the 15 covered utilities in the past 2 years. Overall, the results from these more current program years have shown a pattern of continued improvement by most utilities. We have also discussed these results with IRRC. In summation, the LIURP has shown better results since the continuance of the program in 1992. If the results of the early years of the LIURP were conclusive enough to warrant continuation in 1992, we are now even more convinced that LIURP is cost-effective in view of the improvements as indicated by the analysis of the most current program data.
IRRC also directed us to provide the public with an opportunity to review the data and Commission findings as to whether the LIURP is cost-effective. At this time, we are evaluating the 1995 program year and we will be issuing a report to the public upon its completion. Thereafter, we are committed to releasing an evaluation report of the LIURP every 2 years.
The PGA and UGI-Gas challenged the statutory basis for the LIURP and argued that the LIURP is anticompetitive and a burden for local distribution electric and gas utilities in the era of deregulation and competition. These same commentators pointed to the act and the fact that similar Legislation is now being considered by the General Assembly to deregulate portions of the natural gas industry and its utilities.
IRRC refutes these commentators by stating that although the recent Legislation places greater emphasis on competition and deregulation, the act also secures a place for the LIURP. The act specifically mentions the LIURP in the definition of ''universal service and energy conservation'' at 66 Pa.C.S. § 2803 (relating to definitions). IRRC then quotes the act at 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2802(17) and 2804(9) (relating to declaration of policy; and standards for restructuring of electric industry) to further demonstrate the Legislative intent in support of the LIURP. IRRC concludes that in consideration of the review criteria in section 5(d) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(d)), these LIURP regulations are firmly within the Commission's statutory authority and match the intent of the General Assembly in the enactment of the enabling statute. We concur with IRRC and we will not include a sunset date for the LIURP.
We did not propose any changes to program funding in the proposed regulations. Nevertheless, program funding sparked the most debate among the commentors. We will briefly summarize the positions of the commentators below and follow the comments with excerpts from the Commission's Final Order Re: Guidelines for Universal Service and Energy Conservation at Docket No. M-00960890F0010 (order entered July 11, 1997). It is our intent to, at a minimum, maintain current funding levels for both electric and gas utilities in this regulation. However, we must point out that each electric distribution company will be using its electric restructuring filing to establish the LIURP funding level within its Universal Service Funding Mechanism. Since the act has invoked a process for establishing the funding level for LIURP which supersedes this regulation in this regard, we will defer the electric funding levels to the electric restructuring filings.
Northern Tier CAC recommended that the LIURP funding levels be set within a range of 0.2% to 0.3% of operating expenses. The OCA asked for a minimum requirement of at least 0.2% of revenues. The ECA proposed an increase to 0.25% of revenues and added that funding levels may be adjusted down if the utility can prove that the need does not exist in the territory. PECO remarked that the LIURP is adequately funded at its current levels. The CEO made a distinction in the funding levels between the two industries; electric at 0.25% of revenues and gas between a range of 0.25% and 0.4% of revenues. The PGA commented that the current funding floor of 0.2% of revenues for natural gas utilities is inequitable and anticompetitive in that gas is placed at a competitive disadvantage to electricity and unregulated fuels. Also, the sole regulatory standard for the LIURP funding should be a ceiling, with specific funding beneath that ceiling determined on a utility-by-utility basis. Peoples cautioned that if natural gas unbundling and deregulation continue to change the gas industry, the unbundling of services could potentially reduce the public utilities' revenue on which the LIURP funding is based. Lastly, the PGA believed that deposits into community development banks and other expenditures meeting the LIURP objectives should be eligible for crediting against the LIURP requirements. IRRC commented that the Commission not consider any of these proposals in the final-form rulemaking. Instead, the Commission should pursue implementation of substsantive changes like the LIURP funding level through a new and separate proposed rulemaking.
For the local electric distribution companies (EDCs), the Guidelines for Universal Service And Energy Conservation Programs Made Pursuant to 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2803; 2802(17); 2804(8) and 2804(9) at Docket No. M-00960890F0010 (the Guidelines), is the new and separate proposed rulemaking that IRRC suggested the Commission pursue for making changes to the LIURP funding level. The following are excerpts from the Guidelines that both generically and specifically discuss the LIURP funding and provide the Commission's position on the LIURP funding:
* The primary mandate before the EDCs, the parties and the Commission as restructuring plans are adopted is to lay the groundwork for a fully competitive market for generation within a total level of rates that are capped as of January 1, 1997. Spending levels for universal service and energy conservation must be appropriate considering other spending priorities and the fundamental necessity of complying with all other aspects of the code as it now has been amended by the act. The challenge before the EDC's, the parties and the Commission is to do so with an appropriate balance that maintains funding for other aspects of safe and reliable local distribution services at least at current levels.
* The EDCs, other parties and the Commission must acknowledge that the Public Utility Code (code), as now amended by the act, for the first time imposes a mandate for universal service and energy conservation policies, programs and protections that are ''appropriately funded and available in each electric distribution territory.'' The Commission can and will meet this mandate while meeting the other requirements of the code.
* In particular we note that neither the act nor these guidelines define ''appropriately funded and available'' nor specify any particular spending level for universal service and energy conservation as a whole. No inherent increase or decrease in spending is mandated, provided that the level of resources directed to universal service and energy conservation is ''appropriate'' and the benefits are made ''available.'' This mandate neither can supersede nor take a back seat to the other requirements of the code as amended by the act.
* We have found that the LIURP is a cost effective program for affordable energy. Since 1988, the electric utilities have managed their programs within a fixed dollar allowance. Within this process, they have expanded the range of services to include baseload customers who are neither heating nor water heating customers. This is an example of the type of flexible process that is expected over time to make a program cost effective in its availability and delivery.
* We recognize that the electric utilities have never had a goal of 0.2% of revenues contained within their LIURP regulations at § 58.4(b) (relating to program funding). To adopt such a standard would require us to modify our regulations which would not be timely for the restructuring filings. We, therefore, decline to fix an expenditure goal at this time. Nevertheless, we believe it valuable to explore in the context of each company's restructuring proceeding, the manner in which existing funding levels will be used to meet the needs of the EDC's territory. Nothing in these guidelines prevents an EDC from voluntarily proposing a funding commitment that enhances the universal service offerings in its territory.
* The development of renewable technologies, the development of energy efficiency technologies, and the introduction of enhanced (smart) meters or net metering into the market place may add new cost-effective program measures for use in the LIURP. These new technologies and advancements may add to the total costs for individual LIURP jobs in a cost effective manner.
* We must emphasize that nothing in these guidelines mandates an increase in total expenditures directed to meet universal service and energy conservation goals. To the contrary, these guidelines emphasize improving the cost effectiveness of existing efforts by shifting expenditures from less productive efforts to more effective programs.
We believe that the guidelines contain the protocols for determining the LIURP funding levels of the EDCs through the individual electric restructuring filings. The electric restructuring filing process by the EDCs is required in the act and, as such, supersedes these final-form regulations on the issue of the funding levels for the required EDCs. However, since there is no gas industry restructuring legislation at this time, it is our intent to maintain current funding levels for the required gas distribution utilities. We also appreciate Peoples' forewarning regarding the potential impact of further gas unbundling and deregulation on gas companies' LIURP funding levels.
Both the ECA and CEO commented about ways to better coordinate program service with existing resources in the community. The ECA asked for much closer linkage to energy and housing programs. The CEO recommended that the LIURP piggyback on to Federally funded weatherization programs. We respond to both parties by pointing to § 58.7(a) (relating to integration), which already addresses the kind of coordination that is recommended. We have tried such linkages at every opportunity since the inception of the program and our efforts have produced varying results. We recognize that the utilities have not always been successful in their efforts at coordinating with existing resources. There have been some valid reasons for the mixed results. Nevertheless, we strongly encourage the required utilities to continue to explore each opportunity to coordinate with existing resources.
The CEO also commented that we should actively encourage the use of community-based organizations and prohibit the utility or its affiliate from delivering the LIURP services. We respond by reiterating that our intent at § 58.7(c) is to ensure that qualified, independent agencies provide program services. However, in the absence of qualified independent agencies a covered utility may provide services directly or solicit for-profit providers. We have not proposed any changes to this section at this time and offer this clarification that, we note, is consistent with our comments during the last revisions to the LIURP regulations at Docket No. L-920065 on January 16, 1993.
IRRC viewed the comments of both the ECA and CEO as having a basis in the act at 66 Pa.C.S. § 2804(9) and not in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Due to the fact that these proposals were not included in the notice of proposed rulemaking, IRRC recommended that the Commission not include the proposals in the final-form rulemaking. We concur and again point out that it is our intent that qualified independent agencies will provide the LIURP services.
In § 58.8(a) (relating to tenant eligibility) we added language that clarifies our position on the issue of the raising of rents by landlords based on the installation of usage reduction measures in a rental property using the LIURP funds. A rent increase may not be based on the installation of the LIURP measures. All parties that commented agreed with this clarification and the commentors are Northern Tier CAC, OCA, GPU and PECO.
We added a new section, § 58.8(b), which allows a utility to seek landlord contributions without affecting a tenant's ability to receive program services. Landlord contributions are to be treated as supplemental to the Commission-approved LIURP annual budgets by the LDCs and gas utilities. All commentators favored this addition and the list of commentators includes Northern Tier CAC, OCA, GPU, Peoples and PGA.
Northern Tier CAC suggested that additional outreach efforts need to be considered to educate consumers as to the availability of the LIURP as well as the potential benefits of the LIURP. This comment is directed at § 58.9 (relating to program announcement) which we have not proposed to change. We believe that the utilities have done an effective job of educating customers about the availability of the LIURP over the past 9 years as evidenced by the fact that the required spending levels have been met. Through the Commission's operational reviews of the individual utility programs, we have made a concerted attempt to recommend that program benefits be incorporated into the program solicitation process.
Priority of Program Services
We proposed an increase from 10% to 20% of a utility's annual program budget in the allowance to spend on special needs customers as defined in § 58.2. All of the comments supported this change and the list of commentators includes Northern Tier CAC, OCA, GPU, PECO, Peoples and PGA.
Although we did not propose any changes to § 58.10(a) (relating to priority of program services), the CEO recommended that we offer programs to all low income, electric customers, not just electric heat customers. We should link spending to low income demographics in a utility's service area. Finally, we should require the EDC's to develop comprehensive baseload programs.
In response to the CEO, we offer the following explanation of the eligibility criteria, targeting strategy and prioritization for the receipt of program services for electric customers, who appear to be the target of the CEO's comments. First, income must be at or below 150% of the Federal poverty guidelines. There is an exception to this rule. Up to 20% of the LIURP budget may be spent on customers with an income level in the range 150% to 200% of the Federal poverty level. Second, the LIURP experience over the past 9 years has shown that high usage is the strongest predictor of high energy savings. Consequently, each of the major electric companies has established company specific minimum usage requirements for each of the three job types for electric customers: heating, water heating and baseload. The bottom line is that all income eligible customers do not have a usage profile that warrants the provision of the LIURP services.
Prioritization for the receipt of program services is as follows. Most importantly, high usage is the driver. Once again, we emphasize that in the actual delivery of the LIURP services, each electric company has established minimum usage guidelines for each of the three electric job types. It is only after the usage requirement is met that the prioritization scheme is applied. The prioritization process then follows two steps. First, usage levels are further prioritized from highest arrearage to no arrearage. Second, a further prioritization is done to further delineate equal usage and equal arrearage candidates. This is done by prioritizing from lowest to highest income.
The program measure refrigerator replacement has been specified in these regulations so as to allow the electric utilities more leeway in its program implementation. We have included refrigerator replacement among the list of program measures that are allowable under a 12-year simple payback criterion as long as the expected lifetime of the measure exceeds the payback period. Each of the four commentators, including Northern Tier CAC, OCA, GPU and PECO, endorsed the addition of refrigerator replacement to the extended payback list.
Program Measure Installation
The CEO commented that comprehensive baseload programs for electric utilities can be piggybacked on to gas utility the LIURP jobs in order to improve the cost effectiveness of LIURP. Section 58.14(c) (relating to program measure installation) was designed in a way that promotes the concept of inter-utility coordination while providing the utilities from the two industries enough flexibility to mutually resolve coordination logistics. We recognize that there are differences in the extent of the coordination efforts among the utilities. These coordination efforts have been unprecedented. Nevertheless, we have continually stressed the importance of expanding inter-utility coordination efforts where there is an opportunity for significant enough energy savings and bill reductions to warrant more comprehensive coordination. Overall, we are satisfied with the level of coordination among the required utilities.
The ECA recommended that the utilities contract with qualified, independent evaluators to perform evaluations in three instances: whenever major changes are made in the program design; whenever a new program is initiated; and at least every 3 years. Currently, the utilities are required to evaluate their LIURPs on an annual basis and provide such an evaluation to the Commission. For example, the most current evaluation focused on the program years 1995 and 1996. This evaluation was due on April 30, 1997. The 1995 evaluation contained a data analysis of program results as well as a process evaluation. This is the most current program year for which post-installation data is available. In addition, a less extensive process evaluation was provided for the program year 1996. We believe that this reporting system is satisfactory, particularly in view of the maturity of the LIURP program.
IRRC commented that the Commission should provide the public with an opportunity to review the LIURP data and the Commission's findings as to whether the LIURP is cost effective. In the Guidelines at Docket No. M-00960890F0010, the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services is required to report to the Commission biennially on the status of each EDC's universal service and energy conservation programs. Although those guidelines only pertain to electric utility evaluations, we intend to include the gas utilities in the LIURP evaluations. The first LIURP report will focus on the 1994 and 1995 program years and will be made public upon its completion.
The ECA recommended that the Commission should establish a Statewide advisory committee. We believe that IRRC's assessment of this request offers the appropriate response. IRRC viewed this comment as having a basis in 66 Pa.C.S. § 2804(9) and not in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Due to the fact that this proposal was not included in the notice of proposed rulemaking, IRRC recommended that we do not include the proposal in the final-form rulemaking and we concur.
Based on the Commission's consideration of all of the comments received regarding the LIURP, including the comments by IRRC, the Commission adopts the final-form regulations. Accordingly, under 66 Pa.C.S. § 501, sections 201 and 202 of the Commonwealth Documents Law (45 P. S. §§ 1202 and 1202) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1--7.5, we amend our regulations at §§ 58.1--58.18 to read as set forth at 27 Pa.B. 1165; Therefore,
It Is Ordered that:
1. The regulations of the Commission, 52 Pa. Code Chapter 56, are amended by amending §§ 58.2, 58.3, 58.8, 58.10 and 58.11 to read as set forth at 27 Pa.B. 1165.
2. The Secretary shall submit a copy of this order and 27 Pa.B. 1165 to the Office of Attorney General for review as to form and legality.
3. The Secretary shall submit a copy of this order and 27 Pa.B. 1165 to the Governor's Budget Office for review of fiscal impact.
4. The Secretary shall submit this order and 27 Pa.B. 1165 for formal review by the designated standing committees of both houses of the General Assembly, and for formal review and approval by IRRC.
5. The Secretary shall duly certify this order and 27 Pa.B. 1165 and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
6. These regulations shall become effective immediately upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
7. A copy of this order shall be served upon all persons that submitted comments in this rulemaking proceeding and upon the major jurisdictional electric and gas companies.
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 27 Pa.B. 6128 (November 22, 1997).)
Statement of Commissioner John Hanger
Today, this Commission votes to adopt the final-form regulations pertaining to Low Income Usage Reduction Programs (LIURP). We initiated a proposed rulemaking to extend LIURP by order adopted September 19, 1996. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on March 8, 1997, and comments were solicited. Comments were received from many parties.
Since its inception in 1988, the 15 major electric and gas companies that are required to participate in the LIURP program have spent $123.5 million to provide weatherization/usage reduction treatments to 115,659 low-income households. LIURP has been successful in achieving its goal by producing benefits in the area of demand side management, bill reduction, arrearage reduction and avoided collection costs. Specifically, according to the Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS), the energy savings and bill reductions for 1994 are as follows:
1994 Average Estimated Energy Annual Job Type Savings Bill Reduction Electric Heating 11% $157 Electric Water Heating 7.7% $ 86 Electric Baseload 11.4% $121 Gas Heating 21.6% $310
I am happy to support this measure which will continue LIURP. LIURP provides low-income customers with increased comfort levels, safer living conditions and more manageable utility bills.
Fiscal Note: Fiscal Note 57-179 remains valid for the final adoption of the subject regulations.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 98-12. Filed for public inspection January 2, 1998, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.