UTILITY BILL 

AFFORDABILITY 

IN COLORADO 

REFORMS TO PROTECT 

LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS 

FROM INCREASING RATES 

By John Howat, Karen Lusson, 

and Olivia Wein 

National Consumer Law Center® 

October 2020
i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii

Authors and Disclaimer ................................................................................................................. vi

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Utility Bill Affordability Challenges in Colorado .......................................................................... 2

Income and Poverty .................................................................................................................... 2

Self-Sufficiency Standard ........................................................................................................... 3

Employment ................................................................................................................................ 6

Colorado Electric Utility Arrearage Scenarios ........................................................................... 7

Summary of Affordability Challenge Findings .......................................................................... 8

The Need for Utility Reporting of Key Credit and Collections Data ............................................. 9

SB 20-30 Data Reporting Provisions ........................................................................................ 10

Key Data Points ........................................................................................................................ 10

Utility Reaction to Requests for Data Reporting ...................................................................... 11

Why Zip Code Level Reporting? .............................................................................................. 11

Affordability Program Design ...................................................................................................... 12

Critical Program Design Features ............................................................................................. 12

Program Eligibility Guidelines, Participation and Enrollment ............................................. 13

Program Benefits .................................................................................................................. 13

Incorporation of Arrearage Management into an Affordable Current Bill Program ............ 13

Program Funding .................................................................................................................. 14

Program Administration........................................................................................................ 14

Predominant Program Models .................................................................................................. 15

PIPP....................................................................................................................................... 15

Straight Percentage Discount ................................................................................................ 15

Tiered Discount ..................................................................................................................... 16

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 16

Quantification of Affordability Program Costs and Benefits ................................................... 16

The Colorado PIPPs ...................................................................................................................... 17

Program Eligibility Guidelines ................................................................................................. 18
ii 

Program Bill Payment Benefits ................................................................................................ 18

Treatment of Arrearages ........................................................................................................... 18

Program Outreach and Administration ..................................................................................... 19

Program Participation ............................................................................................................... 19

Program Funding ...................................................................................................................... 20

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 22

Analysis of Program Participation under Expanded PIPP Funding ............................................. 23

Program Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................................... 23

Burden Reductions .................................................................................................................... 24

Bill Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 26

Colorado Case and Statutory Law Impacting the Establishment of Low-Income Rates .............. 30

Recent State Actions to Protect Consumers during the Covid-19 Pandemic – California and 

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Illinois Settlement Summary..................................................................................................... 32

California Settlement Summary ................................................................................................ 33

Procedural Background ......................................................................................................... 34

Summary of the Protections in the CPUC Phase I Decision 20-06-003 ............................... 34
iii 

Executive Summary 

This report focuses on the utility bill affordability challenges faced by low-income Colorado 

residents and the enhancements to bill payment assistance program design that are needed to 

reach more struggling customers. These improvements are necessary to ensure secure access to 

affordable home energy services in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and in light of current and 

planned utility capital initiatives, which will likely exert upward pressure on electric rates in the 

short- and middle-terms. 

The report examines income, poverty, employment, and cost of living dynamic, concluding that 

over 17% of Colorado families lived at or below 200% of the federal poverty level in 2019. 

“Self-sufficiency” budget review demonstrates that for many of these households, this income is 

simply insufficient to pay regular monthly bills without incurring debt or foregoing necessities. 

For example, a single parent with a preschool aged child needs an income of 337% of the federal 

poverty guidelines to pay for the most basic necessities. 

Further, the heightened level of unemployment experienced due to the Covid-19 pandemic is 

placing even more Colorado households in economic distress, which will likely persist for some 

time, making utility bill affordability challenges even more daunting for many. In the spring of 

2020 as the Covid-19 crisis struck, the unemployment rate in Colorado spiked 388%, from 2.5% 

to 12.2%. While unemployment moderated somewhat after the initial spike, the rate in August, 

2020 was 6.7%, 168% higher than the February, 2020 baseline of 2.5%. 

NCLC examined different electric utility arrearage scenarios, and flagged the potential for major 

utility debt problems should the current economic downturn persist. Under a fairly modest 

scenario where 20% of Colorado’s residential electric utility customers have accounts 60 days 

past due, over 465,000 customers will carry arrearage values at just over $77 million. Under a 

more extreme scenario where 40% of customers have 60-day overdue accounts, nearly 931,000 

customers will owe a total of about $154 million. 

The challenges posed by the Covid-19 crisis have highlighted not only the importance of 

sustained, affordable access to essential home energy service for all households, but also the 

necessity to collect customer, billing, credit and collections data in order to properly assess the 

effectiveness of this service. Yet, in most states there is currently only limited capacity to gain a 

clear, data-driven understanding of the number of households that lose access to home energy 

services or otherwise struggle with utility affordability and security. Without the data, home 

energy affordability challenges and their often-dire consequences remain invisible, and the 

effectiveness of utility credit and collections practices cannot be assessed. 

However, understanding affordability and the home energy security challenges that stem not 

only from utility bills, but also from credit and collection protocols, requires more than raw 

service disconnection numbers. Getting a clearer picture requires obtaining monthly data at the 
iv 

zip code level for both general residential customers and identified low-income residential 

customers. 

Following is a list of data points that regulators can and should request: 

 number of customers; 

 dollar amount billed; 

 number of customers charged a late payment fee; 

 dollar value of late fees collected; 

 number of customers with an arrearage balance by vintage 

o 60 – 90 days1

o 90+ days; 

 dollar value of arrearages by vintage 

o 60 – 90 days 

o 90+ days; 

 number of disconnection notices sent; 

 number of deferred payment agreements entered into; 

 average repayment term of new deferred payment agreements; 

 number of successfully completed deferred payment agreements; 

 number of failed deferred payment agreements; 

 number of disconnections for nonpayment; 

 number of service restorations after disconnection for nonpayment; 

 average duration of disconnection; 

 number of security deposits collected; and 

 dollar value of security deposits collected. 

Collecting this data is imperative to be able to assess whether low-income bill assistance 

programs are meeting the goal of ensuring home energy security for low-income residents. In 

order to meet this goal, utility affordability programs should meet the following key objectives: 

 serve residential electricity customers who are income-eligible to participate in HEAP; 

 lower program participants’ energy burdens to an affordable level; 

 promote regular, timely payment of utility bills by program participants; 

 comprehensively address payment problems associated with participants’ current and 

past-due bills; 

 be funded through a mechanism that is reliable while providing sufficient resources to 

serve all income-eligible customers and meet policy objectives over an extended 

timeframe; and 

 be administered efficiently and effectively. 

A well-designed and implemented percentage of income payment plan (PIPP) is the ideal “hold 

harmless” mechanism for meeting these objectives and protecting low-income energy consumers 

 

1

 Information regarding arrearage aged less than 60 days may not be a valid indicator of serious affordability 

problems. 
v 

from the rate impacts associated with new capital investments or other initiatives. Since PIPP 

payments are capped at a predetermined percentage of participants’ household income, home 

energy burdens do not increase as rates increase. The existing Colorado PIPPs include laudable 

features, including valuable bill reduction benefits, treatment of participants’ debt, and wellcoordinated administrative functions. PIPPs operating in Colorado lower participating 

households’ electricity expenditures and burdens, making them far more affordable for families 

and households struggling to get by. 

However, Colorado PIPPs are under-funded and lack the capacity to serve much of the incomeeligible population. Residential ratepayer contributions to the Colorado PIPPs are capped at 31 

cents/month. This report recommends raising that contribution to $1/month, which would 

greatly expand participation in Colorado PIPPs. 

This report also provides a legal rationale for a low-income utility rate in Colorado, and 

concludes with case studies from Illinois and California in order to highlight regulatory actions 

that have been implemented to protect consumers through the Covid-19 public health emergency 

and resulting economic crisis. 
vi 

Authors and Disclaimer 

John Howat has been involved with energy programs and policy issues since 1981. Areas of 

expertise include: design and analysis of low income energy affordability and efficiency 

programs, utility rate design, low-income utility consumer protections, energy expenditure and 

burden analysis, prepayment and advanced metering, utility credit reporting, development and 

analysis of utility arrearage and customer service data, and analysis of program participation and 

outreach efforts. At National Consumer Law Center over the past 21 years, John has managed a 

range of projects across the country in support of low-income consumers’ access to affordable 

utility and energy-related services and testified in over 60 regulatory proceedings in 22 states. 

He is a contributing author of NCLC’s Access to Utility Service. He is primary author of 

“Reversing Energy System Inequity: Urgency and Opportunity during the Clean Energy 

Transition” “Home Energy Costs: The New Threat to Independent Living for the Nation’s LowIncome Elderly,” “Rethinking Prepaid Utility Service: Customers at Risk,” “Tracking the Home 

Energy Needs of Low-Income Households through Trend Data on Arrearages and 

Disconnections,” and “Public Service Commission Consumer Protection Rules and Regulations: 

A Resource Guide.” 

Karen Lusson is a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, who focuses on energy 

and utility issues that affect low-income customers. Previously she was the assistant bureau chief 

in the Public Utilities Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. Her duties included 

representing Illinois residential ratepayers in litigation involving utility rate increase requests, 

rate design, ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs, mergers, rulemakings and low income 

customer affordability issues. Prior to that, Karen was a staff attorney at the Illinois Citizens 

Utility Board and an assistant public counsel at the Illinois Office of Public Counsel. She 

received her degree in Journalism and Political Science from Indiana University and her law 

degree from DePaul University College of Law. 

Olivia B. Wein has been a staff attorney in the Washington office of the National Consumer Law 

Center since December 1999. Olivia represents the interests of low-income clients at the federal 

and state level on energy and utility issues. She regularly submits testimony to Congress on the 

importance of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), as well as 

comments to various federal agencies and state public utility commissions on behalf of lowincome consumers. Olivia is on the board of the National Low-Income Energy Consortium, and 

co-chairs the LIHEAP Coalition, which is comprised of a broad array of national, regional and 

local groups and organizations. She was a member of the National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council’s Small Systems Affordability Work Group and serves on the steering committee for the 

Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water. Olivia co-edits NCLC’s quarterly Energy & 

Utility Update newsletter as well as co-authors NCLC’s Access to Utility Service and is a 

contributing author to several other NCLC publications including Unfair and Deceptive Acts and 

Practices. 
vii 

Disclaimer 

This report was prepared by the National Consumer Law Center under contract with the 

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies. The views and opinions of the authors expressed 

herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Colorado Department of Regulatory 

Agencies. 
1 

Introduction 

This report begins with the premise that all residential electric utility customers, including those 

with low incomes, should have access to reliable and secure sources of electricity. This must 

remain true even while the electric power sector is in the midst of a sweeping shift away from 

fossil fuel usage. This transition entails rapid changes in the economics and technologies of 

electric generation and storage. Utility grid and infrastructure capital investments, along with 

pollution reduction and de-carbonization imperatives, can increase the rate and expenditure 

burdens on residential customers, particularly those with low incomes. Without affordable, 

reliable electricity service, residents cannot participate effectively in present-day society or be 

secure from threats to health and safety. 

The bulk of this report focuses on assessment of home energy affordability challenges in 

Colorado and bill payment assistance program design and the enhancements needed to 

effectively address these. Improvements are needed in the face of current and planned clean 

energy and grid modernization initiatives – including those related to building end-use 

electrification, transportation electrification, deployment of advanced metering infrastructure 

and other distribution system investments – as they will likely exert upward pressure on electric 

rates, at least in the short- and middle-terms. 

Identification of short-term rate and bill impacts of such initiatives is not to question the 

advisability of and urgency behind decarbonizing the electric power, building, and transportation 

sectors. Rather, it is required to assess the need for and inform the design of programs and 

policies that effectively mitigate harms from bill increases for those who can least afford them. 

The costs and benefits of the electric power grid and distribution systems are currently not 

evenly distributed. As illustrated in this report, low-income households in Colorado devote a 

relatively high proportion of income to maintain essential electric service, and because of 

insufficient income to pay for basic necessities, they face elevated risk of involuntary 

disconnection of essential service. 

Adoption and implementation of enhancements to affordability programs and consumer 

protections would be appropriate in light of these transitional initiatives alone, but are now even 

more critical with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the resulting economic and financial 

fallout, and heightened health and safety concerns. 

Secure, affordable access to home energy services for low-income households requires 

comprehensive program design, policy development, and an efficient implementation approach. 

Programs must ensure that monthly bills are reduced to an affordable level and that non-punitive 

regulatory consumer protections, which minimize involuntary service disconnections while 

providing reasonable opportunities to pay down debt, are in place. In addition, programs must 

include low-income energy efficiency programming that provides whole-house, deep retrofit 

improvements in order to secure low-income access to affordable service. High-quality lowincome energy efficiency programs, while reducing energy usage, carbon emissions and 
2 

pollution, provide financially-strapped households with reduced bills, enhanced cash flow, and 

improved indoor comfort. While National Consumer Law Center has long advocated for lowincome energy efficiency program models that do not require upfront expenditures or financing 

repayments, the scope of this report is limited to discussion of bill assistance programs and debt 

management. 

Utility Bill Affordability Challenges in Colorado 

This section provides income, poverty, employment and cost of living context for the report’s 

recommendations regarding the utilities’ reporting of key credit and collections data, the 

expansion of bill affordability programming. In addition, a range of electric utility arrearage 

scenarios will be presented to highlight the dire nature of the Covid-19 economic downturn and 

the need for enhanced low-income programs and policies. 

Income and Poverty 

The tables below reflect family income and poverty in Colorado. American Community Survey 

statistics show that of the 1.42 million family households in Colorado, nearly 116,000 lived at or 

below 125% of the federal poverty level in 2019. Family households living at or below 185% of 

the poverty level numbered well over 212,000, and those below 300% of poverty numbered 

nearly 424,000, about 30% of all family households in the state. 

Table 1 

Table 2 

Survey/Program: American Community Survey 

Table ID: S1702 

2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Subject Tables 

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

34,806 2.4% 81,104 5.7% 39,526 2.8% 57,137 4.0% 31,278 2.2% 180,136 12.7% 997,857 70.2% 1,421,844 100.0%

34,806 2.4% 81,104 5.7% 39,526 2.8% 57,137 4.0% 31,278 2.2% 180,136 12.7% 997,857 70.2% 1,421,844 100.0%

Over 300% All Families

POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF COLORADO FAMILIES

< / = 50% > 50% - 125%> 125% - 150%> 150% - 185%> 185% - 200%> 200% - 300%

34,806 2.4% 115,910 8.2% 155,436 10.9% 212,573 15.0% 243,851 17.2% 423,987 29.8% 1,421,844 100.0%

> 200% - 300% Over 300%

POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF COLORADO FAMILIES - CUMULATIVE COUNTS

< / = 50% > 50% - 125% > 125% - 150% > 150% - 185% > 185% - 200%
3 

Self-Sufficiency Standard 

Over the past 20 years, a number of alternatives to the traditional poverty measurements have 

been developed by analysts interested in overcoming shortcomings of the traditional, federal 

poverty measurement. These shortcomings include the inability to account for locational price 

differences, family or household composition, and the true cost of a basic necessity “basket of 

goods.” One alternative measure is the “Self-sufficiency Standard,” developed primarily by 

Diana Pearce of the University of Washington. 

The Self-sufficiency Standard entails a calculation of the amount of income required to meet 

basic needs. Self-sufficiency budgets are calculated for a range of family compositions, from one 

adult with no children, to one adult with one infant, to one adult with one preschooler, up to twoadult families with six teenagers. 

The self-sufficiency budget includes the cost of only the most basic necessities, including food, 

housing (including home energy service), health care, childcare, transportation, and clothing. 

There is nothing for entertainment, vacations, or other “non-essential” items. The Standard is 

calculated county-wide using publicly-available data sources, including HUD Fair Market Rents, 

USDA Low Cost Food Plan, the National Household Travel Survey and other sources. The Selfsufficiency Standard has thus far been calculated for counties in 39 states. Calculations of the 

Standard incorporate geographic variations in costs and cost variation by family composition. 

A Self-sufficiency Standard report was prepared for the Colorado Center on Law and Policy in 

2018.2 The report author updated report tables in 2020.3 The following table, based on the 2020 

cost updates, reflects the income needed by various family types in Colorado counties in 2020.4 

 

2

 Diana M. Pearce, “The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado,” December 2018. 

http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/sites/default/files/selfsuff/docs/CO18_SSS_Web.pdf. 

3

 http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/node/45. 

4

 Calculated by National Consumer Law Center using 2020 Self-sufficiency Budgets and U.S. Health and Human 

Service Poverty Guidelines by household size. https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. 
4 

Table 3 

Table 3 illustrates that the amount of income needed for a range of family and household types to 

pay for basic necessities far exceeds 2- to 3-times the federal poverty guidelines. While there are 

considerable cost-of-living disparities across Colorado counties, the table indicates that for a 

single adult, the statewide average income needed to make ends meet for a single adult is 238% 

of poverty. A single adult with a preschool-aged child needs income of 337% of the poverty 

guidelines to get by. 

It should be reiterated that, based on data from Table 2, nearly 30% of Colorado families live 

below 300% of the poverty level. Thus, for many family types, particularly those with young 

children, basic economic survival presents a great challenge. For these families and households, 

enhanced programming to limit home energy bills would be a welcome relief. 

It should further be noted that 60% of the FY 2021 State Median Income (SMI) for a family of 2 

in Colorado is $41,410, equal to 238% of the federal poverty guidelines. Sixty percent SMI is 

County Single Adult 1 Adult, 1 

Preschooler

1 Adult, 1 

Teenager

2 Adults, 1 

Preschooler, 1 

School-aged

2 Adults, 1 

Infant, 1 

Preschooler

Adams 249% 348% 241% 305% 346%

Arapahoe 260% 360% 255% 318% 359%

Boulder 287% 401% 279% 370% 398%

Broomfield 275% 383% 272% 334% 380%

Denver 237% 346% 233% 304% 352%

Douglas 303% 411% 295% 356% 397%

El Paso 206% 305% 194% 277% 306%

Jefferson 257% 363% 254% 322% 363%

Larimer 226% 324% 217% 286% 328%

Mesa 193% 274% 195% 246% 265%

Pueblo 168% 243% 153% 226% 245%

Weld 202% 292% 189% 267% 300%

Arapahoe 260% 360% 255% 318% 359%

Boulder 287% 401% 279% 370% 398%

Broomfield 275% 383% 272% 334% 380%

Denver 237% 346% 233% 304% 352%

Douglas 303% 411% 295% 356% 397%

El Paso 206% 305% 194% 277% 306%

Jefferson 257% 363% 254% 322% 363%

Larimer 226% 324% 217% 286% 328%

Mesa 193% 274% 195% 246% 265%

Pueblo 168% 243% 153% 226% 245%

Weld 202% 292% 189% 267% 300%

Average 238% 337% 231% 301% 336%

% of Poverty Income Needed to Make Ends Meet in Colorado Counties

by Selected Family Composition
5 

the income-eligibility ceiling for participation in the federal Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (HEAP), as delivered in Colorado. However, participation in the state’s 

ratepayer-funded energy assistance programs is currently capped in statute and the PUC’s rules 

at 185% of the federal poverty level.5 (Colorado percentage of income payment plan programs, 

and recommendations for program reforms, are discussed in greater detail below.) Tables 

reflecting current federal poverty guidelines, Colorado SMI, and the Colorado minimum wage 

are attached below. 

Table 4 

Table 5 

 

5

 C.R.S.A. § 40-3-106(1)(d)(II)(A), 4 CCR 723-3:3412(c), 4 CCR 723-4:4412(c). 

Household 

Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%

1 $6,380 $9,570 $12,760 $15,950 $19,140 

2 $8,620 $12,930 $17,240 $21,550 $25,860 

3 $10,860 $16,290 $21,720 $27,150 $32,580 

4 $13,100 $19,650 $26,200 $32,750 $39,300 

5 $15,340 $23,010 $30,680 $38,350 $46,020 

6 $17,580 $26,370 $35,160 $43,950 $52,740 

7 $19,820 $29,730 $39,640 $49,550 $59,460 

8 $22,060 $33,090 $44,120 $55,150 $66,180 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

Ratio of Income to Poverty

FY 2020 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Hourly $12.00

Annual (40 hours/week x 52 weeks) $24,960

Source: https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

CO Minimum Wage
6 

Table 6 

Employment 

It is likely that poverty in Colorado has increased since 2019, as the unemployment rate spiked 

beginning in March, 2020 during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and economic downturn. 

Figure 1 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the Colorado unemployment rate increased from 2.5% 

in February 2020 to 12.2% in just 2 months. This 388% increase preceded a moderation in the 

unemployment rate over the following four months, but the rate of 6.7% in August, 2020 

remained 168% higher than unemployment in February, 2020. 

Household 

Size

60% 80% 100%

1-Person $31,437.12 $41,916.16 $52,395.20

2-person $41,110.08 $54,813.44 $68,516.80

3-Person $50,783.04 $67,710.72 $84,638.40

4-Person $60,456.00 $80,608.00 $100,760.00

5-person $70,128.96 $93,505.28 $116,881.60

6-Person $79,801.92 $106,402.56 $133,003.20

7-Person $81,615.60 $108,820.80 $136,026.00

8-Person $83,429.28 $111,239.04 $139,048.80

9-Person $85,242.96 $113,657.28 $142,071.60

10-person $87,056.64 $116,075.52 $145,094.40

11-person $88,870.32 $118,493.76 $148,117.20

12-person $90,684.00 $120,912.00 $151,140.00

Source:

FY 2021 CO STATE MEDIAN INCOME

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/comm_liheap_

smiimattachment_1_fy2019.pdf

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14% Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20

Colorado Unemployment Rate
7 

While the drop in the Colorado unemployment rate between April and August, 2020 was 

encouraging, a great deal of economic uncertainty remains. In remarks before the National 

Association for Business Economics on October 6, 2020, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell 

stated as follows: 

There is a risk that the rapid initial gains from reopening may transition to a 

longer than expected slog back to full recovery as some segments struggle with 

the pandemic's continued fallout. The pace of economic improvement has 

moderated since the outsize gains of May and June, as is evident in employment, 

income, and spending data. The increase in permanent job loss, as well as recent 

layoffs, are also notable. 

A second risk is that a prolonged slowing in the pace of improvement over time 

could trigger typical recessionary dynamics, as weakness feeds on weakness. A 

long period of unnecessarily slow progress could continue to exacerbate existing 

disparities in our economy.6

Utility bill payment challenges existed prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. These challenges, 

magnified by the economic uncertainty going forward as well as the upward pressure on rates 

from the capital investment initiatives noted above, provide rationale for implementing programs 

and policies that will effectively minimize threats to the retention of affordable home energy 

services for low-income households. 

Colorado Electric Utility Arrearage Scenarios 

A great deal of uncertainty remains with respect to the depth and duration of economic upheaval 

associated with controlling the spread of Covid-19. Without knowing how long it will take for 

full economic recovery even after the virus is under control, or the extent to which meaningful 

federal utility bill assistance will be forthcoming, there is increased risk that the number and 

dollar value of past due residential utility accounts will continue to elevate in the coming months 

during the post-disconnection-moratorium period. Rather than attempt to forecast the precise 

number and dollar value of residential arrearages in the midst of great uncertainty, what follows 

is a presentation of a range of Colorado utility residential arrearage scenarios drawing from 

actual revenue, sales and customer data provided by electric utilities to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. 

The data in Table 7, below, is a compilation of information filed in 2018 by Colorado’s two 

investor-owned utilities, as well as 27 cooperatively-owned and 11 municipally-owned electric 

utilities. This data was then used to calculate arrearage scenarios encompassing ranges of 

numbers of customers with past due accounts and the average vintage of those past due accounts. 

 

6

 Jerome H. Powell, “Recent Economic Developments and the Challenges Ahead,” At the National Association for 

Business Economics Virtual Annual Meeting, October 6, 2020. 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20201006a.htm. 
8 

The scenarios depicted in Table 8 range from 20% of residential customers with accounts past 

due by an average of 60 days to a more extreme 40% of customers with account balances 90 

days past due. 

Table 7 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018 Form 861 

Table 8 

Calculated by National Consumer Law Center from U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019 Form 861 

In the event that 20% of residential electric service customers carry average arrearages of 60 

days, the dollar value of those past due accounts will be about $77 million. If 30% of residential 

customer accounts are 60 days past due, the revenue of those accounts will exceed $115.5 

million. Under more dire circumstances where 40% of Colorado’s residential electricity 

customers have accounts 60 days past due, the total past due balance will be about $154 million. 

Even under the most “moderate” arrearage scenarios, the heightened levels of debt pose extreme 

disconnection risk to those low-income customers lacking means to pay off their past due 

balances. At the same time, they add financial risk to utility companies, potentially impeding 

their ability to deliver reliable, reasonably-priced service. Thus, effective, systematized 

approaches to debt management – through “arrearage management programs” and a revamped 

deferred payment agreement structure – are needed to secure the home energy security of 

vulnerable customers as well as the financial security of utilities charged with providing reliable 

service to all customers. Descriptions of and recommendations regarding effective debt 

management structures are addressed later in this report. 

Summary of Affordability Challenge Findings 

U.S. Census Bureau data confirms that over 17% of Colorado families lived at or below 200% of 

the federal poverty level in 2019. Nearly 30% had income at or below 300% of poverty. Self2018 Revenue from 

Sales ($ x 1,000,000)

2018 Daily Revenue 

from Sales ($ x 

1,000,000)

2018 Number of 

Residential Customers

2018 Residential Price 

per kWh

2018 Usage per 

Residential Cusomter 

(kWh)

2018 Electricity 

Expenditure per 

Customer

2,343 $6.42 2,326,974 $0.1215 8,288 $1,007

Colorado Electric Utility Residential Sales, Revenues, and Customers

20% of 

Customers

60 Days 

Past Due

30% of 

Customers

60 Days 

Past Due

20% of 

Customers

90 Days 

Past Due

30% of 

Customers

90 Days 

Past Due

40% of 

Customers

60 Days 

Past Due

40% of 

Customers

90 Days 

Past Due

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

# of 

Customers

$ of 

Arrears

465,395 $77,030,137 698,092 $115,545,205 465,395 $115,545,205 698,092 $173,317,808 930,790 $154,060,274 930,790 $231,090,411

Colorado Electric Utility Residential Arrearage Scenarios (% of Customers, Average Vintage in Days)
9 

sufficiency budget calculations demonstrate that for many of these households, income is simply 

insufficient to pay regular monthly bills without incurring debt or foregoing necessities. For 

example, a single mother with a preschool aged child needs an income level of 337% of the 

federal poverty guidelines to pay for the most basic necessities. 

Further, with heightened levels of unemployment that may persist for some time, utility bill 

affordability challenges for many have become even more daunting. In the spring of 2020 as the 

Covid-19 crisis struck, the unemployment rate in Colorado spiked 388%, from 2.5% to 12.2%. 

While unemployment moderated somewhat after the initial spike, the rate in August, 2020 was 

6.7%, 168% higher than the February, 2020 baseline of 2.5%. 

Finally, while numerous uncertainties make it unfeasible to reliably assess the number of past 

due residential electric utility customer accounts or the dollar value of such accounts that will be 

outstanding in the months to come, scenario analysis based on historical utility customer, sales 

and revenue data may be used to construct a range of arrearage scenarios. Under a fairly modest 

scenario where 20% of Colorado’s residential electric utility customers have accounts 60 days 

past due, over 465,000 customers will carry arrearages values at just over $77 million. Under a 

more extreme scenario where 40% of customers have 60-day overdue accounts, nearly 931,000 

customers will owe a total of about $154 million. 

Based on these income, poverty, and cost of living findings, it is not surprising that many lowerincome utility consumers fall behind on their payments. The data presented above highlights the 

extent to which many late-paying utility customers fall behind on their bills not because of any 

lack of financial management skills or to “game the system,” but simply because household 

income is insufficient to pay for all necessities. The Covid-19 crisis has already exacerbated 

utility affordability challenges as employment income has fallen. A protracted economic 

downturn threatens to bring utility arrearage scenarios that will be untenable for customers and 

utilities alike. 

To address these challenges, as well as those posed by new initiatives likely to exert upward 

pressure on bills, it is appropriate to rethink existing affordability programs and low-income debt 

management tools to ensure that essential home energy services are available to all Colorado 

residents. 

The Need for Utility Reporting of Key Credit and Collections Data 

In addition to tracking federal data sets, gaining a clear understanding of the extent to which 

customers face threats to maintaining basic service requires utility-specific reporting of key 

credit and collection metrics. This section is devoted to a discussion of such reporting. 

The challenges posed by the Covid-19 crisis have heightened the importance of sustained, 

affordable access to essential home energy service for all households in Colorado and across the 

nation. Yet, in most states there is currently only limited capacity to obtain and track data 
10 

pertaining to the number of households that lose access to home energy services and otherwise 

struggle with utility affordability and security. Without the data, home energy affordability 

challenges and their often-dire consequences remain invisible, and the effectiveness of utility 

credit and collections practices cannot be assessed. Questions regarding trends in average 

customer bills, the number, dollar value, and vintage of past due accounts, the number and 

effectiveness of deferred payment agreements, the level of late payment fees paid by customers, 

the number, and the duration of service disconnections for non-payment can only be answered 

through regular, systematic reporting of key customer, billing, credit, and collections 

information. Similarly, development and implementation of effective programs and policies to 

address service access and affordability challenges is thwarted by lack of data. There is a 

pressing need to step up utility collection and public reporting of data reflecting service 

disconnections and restorations, as well as other measures of home energy security.7 

SB 20-30 Data Reporting Provisions 

Unfortunately, most states do not require electric or gas service providers to report the key data 

points needed to determine the extent to which residential customers are affordably accessing 

and retaining essential utility service. However, Colorado Senate Bill 20-030, amending Title 40 

of Colorado Revised Statutes, was signed into law on June 29, 2020. Among other things, the 

legislation adds new language directing the PUC to adopt standard practices regarding utility 

reporting of service disconnections and delinquencies information. 

Understanding affordability and home energy security challenges that stem not only from utility 

bills, but also from credit and collection protocols, requires more than raw service disconnection 

numbers. Getting a clearer picture requires obtaining monthly data – separately for both general 

residential customers and identified low-income residential customers – at the zip code level. 

Key Data Points 

Following is a list of data points that regulators can request: 

 number of customers; 

 dollar amount billed; 

 number of customers charged a late payment fee; 

 dollar value of late fees collected; 

 number of customers with an arrearage balance by vintage 

o 60 – 90 days8

o 90+ days; 

 dollar value of arrearages by vintage 

 

7

 “Home energy security” as used here refers to sustained, affordable access to necessary service without foregoing 

(1) other necessities such as food and medicine, (2) maintenance of healthy indoor temperatures, (3) lighting and 

refrigeration necessary for health, safety well-being, or (4) access to and operation of essential communications 

services. 

8

 Information regarding arrearage aged less than 60 days may not be a valid indicator of serious affordability 

problems. 
11 

o 60 – 90 days 

o 90+ days; 

 number of disconnection notices sent; 

 number of deferred payment agreements enter into; 

 average repayment term of new deferred payment agreements; 

 number of successfully completed deferred payment agreements; 

 number of failed deferred payment agreements; 

 number of disconnections for nonpayment; 

 number of service restorations after disconnection for nonpayment; 

 average duration of disconnection; 

 number of security deposits collected; and 

 dollar value of level of security deposits collected; 

Utility Reaction to Requests for Data Reporting 

Utilities are generally not thrilled when advocates, regulators, or policymakers propose that 

comprehensive credit and collections data be collected and reported. They are perhaps 

understandably reticent about initiating a process whereby they broadcast not only the number of 

their customers they disconnect, but that their franchised service is unaffordable to some. 

Often, when faced with a request to collect and report — either regularly on an ongoing basis, or 

through response to discovery requests — utilities state that their information technology 

systems cannot accommodate the task, the cost is too high, they don't track the requested 

information, or and that the request is unduly burdensome. But the fact is, utilities know which 

customers are behind on their bills, receive disconnection notices, have service disconnected or 

restored, and enter into deferred payment agreements. There are sufficient examples of 

successful reporting that demonstrate the potential for implementation.9

Why Zip Code Level Reporting? 

Some national and regional data sets show disparities by race in disconnections and other 

important energy security metrics — even after controlling for income. These disparities raise 

profound racial justice concerns, and highlight the importance of obtaining utility-specific credit 

and collections data at the zip code, or even census tract level. Geographically granular data is 

needed to flag any disparities, but also to inform targeted and effective energy efficiency and 

other affordable energy programming. Until recently, there have been no utilities that report 

regularly on a geographically granular level. However, as discussed later in this report, Illinois 

utilities began reporting zip code level data as part of a stipulation agreement with consumer 

advocates and other stakeholders. 

 

9

 States that have long received detailed credit and collections data from investor-owned utilities include Iowa, 

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, California, and New York. 
12 

Affordability Program Design 

Ratepayer-funded utility bill assistance programs currently operate in at least 30 states in the 

U.S.10 Programs vary widely in funding and benefit levels, eligibility criteria, administrative 

structures and number of customers served. Programs range in scope from a modest customer 

charge discount for Supplemental Security Income or Medicaid participants in Alabama, to 

comprehensive electric and gas percentage of income payment plan with arrearage management 

offerings in Ohio funded at over $300 million annually.11 

To help ensure home energy security for low-income residents, utility affordability programs 

should meet the following key objectives: 

 Serve residential electricity customers who are income-eligible to participate in HEAP; 

 lower program participants’ energy burdens to an affordable level; 

 promote regular, timely payment of utility bills by program participants; 

 comprehensively address payment problems associated with participants’ current and 

past-due bills; 

 be funded through a mechanism that is reliable while providing sufficient resources to 

both serve all income-eligible customers and to meet policy objectives over an extended 

timeframe; and 

 be administered efficiently and effectively. 

This section outlines affordability program design features and elements needed to best meet 

these objectives. It also provides a comparison of the predominant affordability program types 

operating in the U.S., and concludes with a brief discussion regarding quantification of 

affordability program costs and benefits. 

Critical Program Design Features 

As noted above, design features that determine the extent to which identified program objectives 

will be achieved include eligibility guidelines and enrollment protocols, benefit levels, 

comprehensive treatment of arrearages and current bills, the program funding mechanism, and 

administrative structures. Each of these design elements is discussed below. 

 

10 See, LIHEAP Clearinghouse, “2014 State-by-state Ratepayer Funded Low-income Energy Assistance and Energy 

Efficiency,” https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/Supplements/2014/supplement14.htm. 

11 LIHEAP Clearinghouse, “Ohio Ratepayer Funded Programs,” 

https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/dereg/states/ohsnapshot.htm. 
13 

Program Eligibility Guidelines, Participation and Enrollment 

Unless statutorily prohibited, income eligibility for participation in a ratepayer-funded 

affordability program should be capped at no less than state-specific HEAP income-eligibility 

guidelines. All households receiving or eligible for benefits through the federal HEAP should be 

automatically enrolled in an electric affordability program. In addition, consenting households 

receiving benefits from other means-tested benefit programs (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid) should also 

be automatically enrolled in the electricity affordability program. New Jersey is a state with 

successful automatic enrollment experience.12

Program Benefits 

Participants in a low-income affordability program should receive benefits in the form of 

discounted rates or fixed credits on their bills. Benefit levels should be set such that the home 

energy burden of low-income participants is reduced substantially, ideally as close as possible to 

the energy burden of a median-income household. The Nevada percentage of income payment 

plan programs are required by statute to reduce participants’ electric and gas burdens to the same 

percentage as that of a median income household.13

Incorporation of Arrearage Management into an Affordable Current Bill Program 

To sustain participants’ affordability and home energy security, program design must be 

comprehensive in its approach to dealing with both current bills and arrearage balances. A 

program that is intended to promote regular, timely payments through the reduction of home 

energy burdens to an affordable level is rendered less effective by a requirement that participants 

pay off an arrearage in addition to the affordable current bill. Simultaneous payment of preexisting arrears and the discounted electric bill therefore runs counter to the policy objectives of 

promoting affordable, regular, timely payments by program participants.14

There are two basic models of low-income utility arrearage management that have been 

implemented in the United States. One entails the write-down of customer arrears over time 

after a series of timely payments on current bills. The other model entails the retirement of 

arrearage balances in full on a one-time basis. The one-time “forgiveness” model is 

 

12 In New Jersey, some applicants for SNAP, Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled (“PAAD”), 

Lifeline Energy Assistance, and Medicare Part D are automatically screened for Universal Service Fund (“USF”) 

benefits and do not have to fill out a separate application. In general, this is done for applicants who pay for heat, 

and who live in a household that includes only members who are considered in determining eligibility for the USF 

program. https://www.lsnjlaw.org/Utilities/Help-with-Utility/Pages/NJ-EA-Programs.aspx. 

13 NRS 702.250(7) provides as follows: “... if a household is eligible to receive assistance pursuant to this section, 

the Division: (a) Shall, to the extent practicable, determine the amount of assistance that the household will receive 

by determining the amount of assistance that is sufficient to reduce the percentage of the household’s income that is 

spent on natural gas and electricity to the median percentage of household income spent on natural gas and 

electricity statewide.” 

14 Colorado, Ohio and Massachusetts provide 3 examples of states that comprehensively provide benefits that 

include reduction of current bills and opportunities for low-income utility customers to have past due balances 

reduced through timely payment of current bills over a predetermined number of months. 
14 

administratively straightforward, but entails a large initial outlay of program cash resources.15

More gradual write-downs over a period of months may provide customers with an enhanced 

incentive to keep up with current bills (as long as they are affordable), while placing less strain 

on program cash flow. For states with a protracted arrearage write-down period, such as 

Colorado which allows retirement over 24-months, it is essential to provide considerable 

flexibility in allowing participants to make up for missed payments. For households lacking 

income sufficient to pay for all monthly necessities, it is unrealistic to assume that there will be 

24 consecutive timely payments, even if current bills are reduced. 

Program Funding 

Funding for an affordability program needs to be sufficient and reliable. Program funding 

should be sufficient to provide meaningful energy burden reduction and energy security for all 

HEAP-eligible utility customers. In addition to participant benefits, program administration 

costs of 3% to 7% of program benefits are required to ensure effective program intake and 

outreach, and to cover utility billing and information technology systems costs. 

A sustainable affordability program with set benefit levels and participation rates also requires 

funding that is predictable and reliable. A uniform volumetric charge to all customer classes, 

approved prior to program implementation, is the optimal funding source for an effective 

program. However, in most states with extensive, high-participation program offerings, the 

largest commercial and industrial customers pay less on a volumetric basis than residential 

ratepayers.16

Program Administration 

Affordability program design should foster efficient, streamlined administrative procedures. 

With limited program resources available, funds should be devoted to participant benefits rather 

than administrative costs to the greatest extent feasible. Minimizing administrative costs while 

delivering an effective affordability program requires that agencies, organizations and 

individuals work together cooperatively and efficiently. 

Non-profit and community-based organizations with sufficient support from program 

administrative funds are ideally suited to conduct program intake and outreach functions. The 

agencies that certify HEAP eligibility could then simultaneously certify low-income rate and 

arrearage management eligibility using the same procedures that currently apply to HEAP. In 

addition, “auto-enrollment” of participants in other means-tested benefit programs can 

dramatically increase affordability participation while minimizing added administrative cost. 

 

15 In New Hampshire, the Energy Assistance Program has from time to time provided a full, one-time arrearage 

forgiveness to participants. 

16 For example, AEP Ohio customers using less than 833,000 kWh/month pay a volumetric charge of $0.0036634 

through a Universal Service Rider. The volumetric charge for usage over 833,000 kWh is $0.0001756. Ohio 

Electric Distribution Utility Universal Service Fund riders from Stipulation Agreement approved by the Ohio Public 

Utilities Commission in Case No. 19-1270-EL-USF. 
15 

Utilities should be responsible for collecting program-related charges, assigning qualified 

customers to a tariffed, low-income rate, tracking arrearage write-down for participating 

customers with pre-program arrears, and reporting program activities and financial transactions. 

All program costs, including bill credits or discounts, approved startup and ongoing 

administrative expenses, and approved arrearage retirement amounts should be recoverable 

through volumetric charges, as described above. 

Predominant Program Models 

There are three predominant ratepayer-funded utility affordability program types currently 

operating in the U.S. These are percentage of income payment plans (PIPPs), flat percentage 

discounts, and tiered discounts. Each of these program types is described below. 

PIPP 

A PIPP entails participating customers paying a predetermined, "affordable" percentage of 

income for natural gas or electric service. PIPPs therefore target benefit levels to a household’s 

particular income circumstances based on a predetermined affordability goal. However, since a 

separate billing and payment arrangements must be developed for each participating customer, 

PIPPs may entail a somewhat higher level of administrative complexity than straight discount 

rates. In addition to the Colorado program, utilities have implemented a PIPPs in Ohio, Illinois, 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Nevada and Maine.17

A well-designed and implemented PIPP is the ideal “hold harmless” mechanism for protecting 

low-income energy consumers from rate impacts associated with new capital investments or 

other initiatives. Since PIPP payments are capped at a predetermined percentage of 

participants’ household income, home energy burdens do not increase as rates increase.

Straight Percentage Discount 

A straight discount entails reducing the total utility bill by a specified percentage or dollar 

amount. Under this model, the discount may be achieved through a set customer charge 

reduction and/or a usage charge reduction. California and Massachusetts are two states that have 

adopted straight discount rates that are available to utility customers who participate in HEAP. 

The straight discount model reduces the energy burden of participants at a relatively low 

administrative cost. However, this model does not differentiate the benefit level within the broad 

participant group. The benefit level is the same for a household living at 50% of the federal 

poverty level as it is for a household living at the upper limit of the income eligibility guideline. 

Further, barring adjustment of the percentage discount each time residential rates increase, utility 

 

17 National Consumer Law Center, Access to Utility Service (6th ed. 2018), pp. 159 – 176. 
16 

customers participating in a straight discount are not held harmless from the financial impacts of 

those rate increases.18

Tiered Discount 

A tiered discount represents a hybrid of PIPP and straight discount design elements. In a tiered 

discount, a series of income tiers is established (e.g., 0 – 75% of the federal poverty guidelines, 

76% - 125%, 126% - 150%, 151% - program income eligibility ceiling) and a distinct discount 

rate is applied to each tier. Tier-specific discounts are set to achieve a predetermined target 

burden level (e.g., 5% of household income) at the income tier midpoint. Like a PIPP, the tiered 

discount is designed to reduce a customer’s bill to a predetermined, affordable level. Households 

in the lower income tiers receive a steeper discount than those in higher tiers. Thus, benefits are 

targeted according to a household’s income circumstances, but determination of each 

participant’s monthly bill or fixed credit is not required. A tiered discount entails somewhat 

higher administrative cost than a straight discount, but less than a PIPP. The tiered discount 

model provides more precise targeting of benefits than a straight discount, but less precise than a 

PIPP. Tiered discount programs currently operate in New Hampshire and Indiana.19 

Summary 

If well-designed and adequately-funded, each of the program models referenced above hold the 

potential to achieve key program objectives, including those related to burden reduction, broad 

participation, comprehensiveness in treating current bills and past due balances, utilization of 

adequate and reliable funding sources, and application of administrative efficiency measures. 

However, among the three models, despite somewhat higher administrative complexity, PIPPs 

are best suited to protecting low-income households from the ill-effects of increasing rates. 

Quantification of Affordability Program Costs and Benefits 

Utility regulation often entails inquiry into the quantifiable costs and benefits of investments and 

expenditures that have bearing on customers’ rates. In many instances such quantification is 

limited to reduction of all costs and benefits to dollar terms. As discussed below, projection and 

quantification of affordability program costs, particularly for a mature program, is a relatively 

straightforward endeavor. However, similar to quantifying and incorporating non-energy 

benefits in review of energy efficiency program cost-effectiveness, affordability program 

benefits are generally more challenging to ascertain and quantify. 

Most prospective low-income assistance program costs may be readily identified and quantified 

by multiplying the projected number of program participants by the sum of the value of the 

average monthly discount (or revenue loss) per customer and the average arrearage per customer 

that is retired. Program administration costs must then be added to the value of discounts and 

retired arrearages to obtain an estimate of total program costs.

 

18 Id., pp. 152 – 156. 

19 Id., pp. 157 – 158. 
17 

Quantifying the entire range of affordability program benefits presents a greater analytical 

challenge. For example, effective bill payment assistance programming may bring the benefit of 

reduced uncollectible account write-offs. The extent to which this objective may be achieved is 

contingent on a number of existing conditions and key program design/implementation elements, 

including the following: 

 The company’s existing bad debt profile and the extent to which uncollectible account 

write-offs are currently concentrated among low-income customers, 

 the income and expense circumstances of individual program participants, 

 the program benefit levels and reduction of participants’ utility burden, 

 the effectiveness of outreach and targeting of “payment troubled” customers for 

participation, 

 the extent to which the program incorporates reduction of current bills with effective 

management of pre-program arrears, and 

 the effectiveness of ongoing contact with program participants. 

In addition to challenges to quantifying bad debt reduction, the broad range of societal and 

participant benefits that accrue through effective low-income bill affordability programming – 

considerations often outside traditional cost-of-service regulatory review – are also challenging 

to quantify with precision. The value of enhanced home energy security and reduced service 

disconnections, improved health and safety, and housing security for participants are benefits of 

utility affordability programs that are difficult to quantify in precise dollar terms. Similarly, 

societal benefits of reduced public health expenditures and the need for other transfer payments 

are far more difficult to quantify than direct affordability program costs. 

Nonetheless, quantification challenges do not appropriately lead to the conclusion that benefits 

simply do not exist. Rather, they suggest that decisions regarding adoption and implementation 

of low-income payment assistance programs should not hinge entirely on the results of overly 

simplified cost-benefit analysis. 

The Colorado PIPPs 

Colorado investor-owned electric and gas utilities, including Atmos Energy, Colorado Natural 

Gas, Black Hills Energy, and Xcel have implemented PIPPs pursuant to Colorado PUC 

regulations.20 Key program design and implementation features of the programs are reviewed 

below, along with recommendations for reforms of some of the features under the PUC’s control. 

 

20 PIPP rules pertaining to investor-owned utilities delivering residential electricity service are at 4 CCR 723-

3:3412(c). Parallel rules pertaining to investor-owned utilities delivering residential natural gas service are at 4 CCR 

723-4:4412(c). 
18 

Program Eligibility Guidelines 

Access to the Colorado PIPP programs is limited to customers of investor-owned utilities with 

annual household income of 185% of the federal poverty guidelines or less. This income ceiling 

was initially set in statute and later adopted by the PUC in its program implementation rules. 

The statutory provision was adopted in 200721 followed by a PUC rule in 2011.22

Ideally, PIPP income-eligibility should mirror that of the state’s HEAP program, currently set at 

60% of the SMI. As shown earlier in this report, 60% SMI for a 2-person household is equal to 

238% of the federal poverty guidelines. Thus, expanding PIPP eligibility to the HEAP income 

ceiling would expand the pool of potential PIPP applicants and bring the potential to increase 

participation levels. It would also bring the administrative efficiency of being able to 

automatically enroll most or all HEAP participants served by an investor-owned utility directly 

into the PIPP. 

However, it should be noted that the 185% of poverty ceiling is expansive relative to other states 

with major PIPP offerings.23 Further, the current Colorado income ceiling is set in statute, 

perhaps limiting the PUC’s ability to permanently raise the guideline. 

Program Bill Payment Benefits 

The Colorado regulation limits participant bill payments for utility customers with electric heat 

at 3% - 6% of household income. For non-heat electric service customers, participant payments 

may range between 2% - 3% of income.24 For participants with natural gas service, payments 

are limited to between 2% - 3% of household income.25 

These payment guidelines provide meaningful burden reduction benefits to participants, 

especially those with very low incomes. When combined with the arrearage credit component, 

the burden reduction benefits are even more substantial. Analysis of burden impacts under 

existing Colorado PIPP benefit guidelines is included in the next section of this report. 

Treatment of Arrearages 

In addition to the benefit of current bill reductions for participants whose bill payment would 

otherwise exceed the payment guidelines outlined above, Colorado regulations provide that 

participants receive the added benefit of arrearage reduction through regular, consecutive 

monthly PIPP payments.26 The regulations further provide that arrearage reduction may occur 

over a period of up to 24 months. 

 

21 Ch. 78 (S.B. 07–022), Sixty-Sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session amending C.R.S.A. § 40-3-106. 

22 4 CCR 723-3:3412(c) (Electric Service Low-Income Program.) 

23 For example, PIPPs in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania cap income-eligibility at 150% of the federal poverty 

guidelines. 

24 4 CCR 723-3:3412(e)(I)(A) - (B). 

25 4 CCR 723-4:4412(e)(I). 

26 4 CCR 723-3:3412(e)(VII)(A) – (F), 4 CCR 723-4:4412(e)(VII)(A) – (F). 
19 

The arrearage management feature of the Colorado PIPPs is consistent with the affordability 

program objectives lowering program participants’ energy burdens to an affordable level, 

promoting regular, timely payment of utility bills by program participants, and comprehensively 

addressing payment problems associated with participants’ current and past-due bills. 

It should be noted, however, that most PIPP participants lack sufficient income to pay for all 

monthly necessities, even with reduced home energy bills and payments. It is therefore to be 

expected that some customers may be unable to make 24 consecutive, timely payments and may 

from time to time be late in making a PIPP payment. Under such circumstances, flexibility in 

providing participants the opportunity to make up missed payments is required. Reduction of the 

arrearage retirement period to 12 months or less is another approach to increasing the likelihood 

that participants with pre-existing arrears will complete the retirement process successfully. 

Direct communication with customers who are behind on their payments, and allowance of up to 

2 months to make up those payments can also be instrumental in assuring program success. 

Program Outreach and Administration 

A recent evaluation of the Colorado PIPPs found that program enrollment and outreach are 

closely coordinated with administration of the Colorado Low-Income Energy Assistance 

Program (LEAP). The evaluation further found that many LEAP participants are automatically 

enrolled in the PIPP, if available. Finally, the evaluation found that affordability program 

outreach materials are printed in English and Spanish, and that the LEAP office and its nonprofit 

partners conduct outreach efforts.27

The findings of close coordination between LEAP and PIPP administrative functions are 

consistent with affordability program policy objectives regarding efficient and streamlined 

administration. 

Program Participation 

Participation in the Colorado PIPP programs is currently limited to a relatively low number of 

customers. For example, in Program Year 2018/2019, only 1,106 Black Hills Energy electric 

service customers were enrolled in the PIPP. During the same program year, only 10,063 Xcel 

electric service customers were enrolled.28 For Xcel, less than 1% of its reported electric service 

customers were enrolled in PIPP.29 For Black Hills, 1.3% of reported electric service customers 

were enrolled in PIPP.30 As discussed below, participation in the Colorado PIPP programs is 

tightly restricted by constraints on program funding. While participation enhancement measures 

 

27 Offenstein, et al., ADM Energy Research and Evaluation, “Evaluation of the Percentage of Income Payment 

Plans,” October, 2020, p. 8. 

28 Id., at 97. 

29 Calculated from Public Service Company of Colorado 2019 FERC Form 1, p. 304. 

30 Calculated from Black Hills Electric 2019 FERC Form 1, p. 304. 
20 

such as expanded auto-enrollment may be effective in increasing participation levels, it is first 

necessary to increase available program funds before implementing such measures. 

Program Funding 

Colorado rules state that PIPP cost recovery is to be based on a fixed monthly fee on customer 

bills. The maximum residential bill impact is not to exceed $0.31 per month.31

While the Colorado PIPPs include several laudable program design and implementation features, 

the existing funding restriction severely limits the capacity of the program to serve large numbers 

of eligible customers. Further, the $0.31 residential bill impact limit is far less than the 

residential bill impacts in states with large-scale, comprehensive bill affordability programs. For 

example, in Ohio, the average residential monthly electric utility universal service fund charge is 

$2.25 per month.32 Ohio residential charges for PIPP program funding are reflected in the table 

below. 

 

31 4 CCR 723-3:3412(g)(II)(B), 4 CCR 723-4:4412(g)(II)(B). 

32 Calculated using Ohio Electric Distribution Utility Universal Service Fund riders from Stipulation Agreement 

approved by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission in Case No. 19-1270-EL-USF and U.S. Energy Information 

Administration electric utility consumption data. 
21 

Table 9 

In Massachusetts, where eligible low-income electric and gas service customers participate in 

straight discount and arrearage write-down programs, program funding comes from volumetric 

charges on monthly bills through a “Residential Assistance Adjustment Factor.” The table below 

depicts monthly RAAF electric bill impacts for residential customers of Eversource.33 

 

33 NCLC estimated RAAF bill impacts using class-specific assessments as proposed by Eversource in D.P.U. 19-122 

and usage as reported by the Company in the 2018 FERC Form 1. 

Electric Distribution 

Utility

First 833.000 

kWh

Above 833,000 

kWh

Monthly 

Usage/Customer 

(kWh)

Monthly 

Universal 

Service Charge

AEP $0.0036634 $0.0001756 872 $3.19

DPL $0.0019585 $0.0005700 872 $1.71

Duke $0.0009847 $0.0004690 872 $0.86

CEI $0.0023743 $0.0005680 872 $2.07

OE $0.0032881 $0.0010461 872 $2.87

TE $0.0031912 $0.0005610 872 $2.78

Average $0.0025767 $0.0005650 872 $2.25

2019 Residential 

Usaage (Million 

kWh)252,372

2019 Residential 

Customers25,007,479

2019 Average 

Monthly Usage per 

Customer (kWh) 872

2 U.S. Energy Information Administration

https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/states/oh/data/dashboard/consumption

Universal Service Fund Rider1

1 Ohio Electric Distribution Utility Universal Service Fund riders from Stipulation Agreement 

approved by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission in Case No. 19-1270-EL-USF

Residential Customers
22 

Table 10 

It can be seen that residential electric service customers of Eversource in Massachusetts 

contribute between $2.54 and $3.96 per month toward low-income bill affordability 

programming. Programs in Massachusetts are typified by reliable, secure funding that 

adequately supports broad program participation. In light of experience in other states, it would 

not be unreasonable for the Colorado PUC to consider lifting the existing $0.31/month cap on 

monthly residential bills through revision of existing rules. The next section provides projections 

of program participation capacity under a $1.00 per month average residential bill impact for 

Xcel and Black Hills Energy customers. 

Summary 

Colorado investor-owned electric and gas utilities, including Atmos Energy, Colorado Natural 

Gas, Black Hills Energy, and Xcel have implemented PIPPs pursuant to Colorado PUC 

regulations. Income-eligibility for PIPP participation is capped at 185% of the federal poverty 

guidelines. 

Participant bill payment caps provide meaningful burden reduction benefits to participants, 

especially those with very low incomes. In addition, participants receive the valuable added 

benefit of arrearage reduction through regular monthly PIPP payment. However, the 24-month 

arrearage retirement period will likely be problematic for some low-income households. 

Flexibility that allows participants to make up missed payments is required. Reduction of the 

arrearage retirement period to 12 months or less is another approach to increasing the likelihood 

that participants with pre-existing arrears will complete the retirement process successfully. 

Program enrollment and outreach is closely coordinated with administration of LEAP, enhancing 

administrative efficiency. However, program participation and funding levels are very low. 

Lifting the current $0.31 cap on monthly residential program bill impacts is required to expand 

the reach and benefits of the Colorado PIPPs. 

 

Rate Schedule MWH Sales Avg # 

Customers

kWh Sales per 

Customer

RAAF 

Assessment

Annual Bill 

Impact

Monthly Bill 

Impact

Residential (Account 440)

R-1 Residential 6,408,282 1,009,426 6,348 0.00481 $30.54 $2.54

R-2 Residential Assistance 734,459 119,048 6,169 0.00481 $29.67 $2.47

R-3 Res. Space Heating 885,614 90,398 9,797 0.00383 $37.52 $3.13

R-4 Res. Space Heating Assist. 89,160 7,195 12,392 0.00383 $47.46 $3.96
23 

Analysis of Program Participation under Expanded PIPP Funding 

This section provides analysis of how much PIPP participation could expand if the cap on 

residential customer assessments was increased from the current $0.31 per month to $1.00 per 

month. The analysis uses the Xcel and Black Hills Energy electric PIPPs to illustrate both 

current and prospective participation. The section also highlights the electric burden reduction 

benefits that participants experience under current PIPP payment and arrearage retirement 

parameters. Finally, a non-participant bill impact analysis for each rate class and subclass of 

both utilities is provided. 

Program Costs and Benefits 

The analysis that follows incorporates customers’ electricity usage and revenue data from the 

most recent (2019) FERC Form 1 filings of both companies. It also utilizes income and poverty 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. 

The analysis incorporates a number of important assumptions, including the following: 

 Participant electric service PIPP payments would be capped at 3% of household income, 

as is the case for the existing programs offered to non-heat electric PIPP participants; 

 The average pre-existing arrearage balance of program participants would be $300; 

 Arrearage balances would be retired over a 12-month period rather than the current 

standard of 24 months; 

 The number of program participants for each utility would be based on revenue made 

available through a $1.00 monthly charge to residential customers and a commensurate 

charge to all other customer classes based on those customers’ contribution to total 

utility revenue from sales; and 

 Program administrative cost would be equal to 3% of PIPP benefits, including current 

bill reductions and arrearage retirement. 

These assumptions are reflected in the tables below. 

Table 11 

3.0%

Average Preprogram Arrearage $300 68,066 $822

Program 

Administration (% of 

Arrearage Writedown + Discounts) 3%

Annual 

Household Income # HH

Average 

Annual 

Electricity 

Expenditure

Target Burden Expenditure @ 

Target Burden

$ Annual 

Discount

$ Monthly 

Discount

Percentage 

Discount

Total $ 

Discount 

Total $

Arrearage Writedown

Total $

Program 

Administration

Total $

$ 17,016 822 8,620 $ 3.0% 259 $ 563 $ 47 $ 68.5% 9,585,504 $ 5,104,925 $ 440,712.86 $ 15,131,142 $ 

$ 17,016 822 17,240 $ 3.0% 517 $ 305 $ 25 $ 37.1% 5,185,059 $ 5,104,925 $ 308,699.51 $ 10,598,683 $ 

$ 17,016 822 21,550 $ 3.0% 647 $ 175 $ 15 $ 21.3% 2,984,836 $ 5,104,925 $ 242,692.83 $ 8,332,454 $ 

$ 17,016 822 25,860 $ 3.0% 776 $ 46 $ 4 $ 5.6% 784,613 $ 5,104,925 $ 176,686.15 $ 6,066,224 $ 

42.3%

Total Participants 68,066 $ 20,419,700 18,540,012 $ 1,168,791 $ 40,128,503 $ 

Xcel Electric PIPP Worksheet

Weighted Average Discount

Selected Poverty Level 

(2-person Household)

50%

100%

125%

Participant Payment as 

Percentage of Income # Participants Annual Expenditure

Income Brackets, Households, Expenditures and Discounts Program Costs

150%
24 

Table 12 

Using the data sources and incorporating the assumptions stated above, a $1.00 residential 

customer assessment, along with a commensurate assessment on all other customers, would 

generate revenue of about $40 million, for the Xcel program. This is sufficient revenue to 

support participation of over 68,000 of Xcel’s low-income customers. For Black Hills, the same 

assessment structure would generate about $2.4 million and support participation of nearly 3,000 

low-income customers. 

Burden Reductions 

The tables and charts that follow show the PIPP expenditure and electricity burden benefits that 

accrue to participants living at various income levels. For comparative purposes expenditures 

and electricity burdens of nonparticipant households are included as well. The “undiscounted 

burdens” of the participant households include a $300 arrearage payoff over a 4-month period. 

Table 13 

3.0%

Average Preprogram Arrearage $300 2,982 $1,041

Program 

Administration (% of 

Arrearage Writedown + Discounts) 3%

Annual 

Household Income # HH

Average 

Annual 

Electricity 

Expenditure

Target Burden Expenditure @ 

Target Burden

$ Annual 

Discount

$ Monthly 

Discount

Percentage 

Discount

Total $ 

Discount 

Total $

Arrearage Writedown

Total $

Program 

Administration

Total $

$ 745 1,041 8,620 $ 3.0% 259 $ 783 $ 65 $ 75.2% 583,569 $ 223,625 $ 24,215.84 $ 831,411 $ 

$ 745 1,041 17,240 $ 3.0% 517 $ 524 $ 44 $ 50.3% 390,804 $ 223,625 $ 18,432.89 $ 632,862 $ 

$ 745 1,041 21,550 $ 3.0% 647 $ 395 $ 33 $ 37.9% 294,422 $ 223,625 $ 15,541.41 $ 533,588 $ 

$ 745 1,041 25,860 $ 3.0% 776 $ 266 $ 22 $ 25.5% 198,039 $ 223,625 $ 12,649.94 $ 434,314 $ 

54.5%

Total Participants 2,982 $ 894,502 1,466,834 $ 70,840 $ 2,432,176 $ 

Black Hills Electric PIPP Worksheet

Weighted Average Discount

Selected Poverty Level 

(2-person Household)

50%

100%

125%

Participant Payment as 

Percentage of Income # Participants Annual Expenditure

Income Brackets, Households, Expenditures and Discounts Program Costs

150%

Single, Minimum 

Wage* Worker 

(40 hours x 52 weeks)

2-person 

Household, 100% 

2019 FPL

2-person 

Household, 

150% 2019 

FPL

2-Person 

Median Income 

Household

Upper-income 

Household 

($100,000)

Annual Pretax Income $24,960 $17,240 $25,860 $68,517 $100,000

Monthly Pretax Income $2,080 $1,437 $2,155 $5,710 $8,333

Undiscounted Current Annual Electricity Expenditure $822 $822 $822 $822 $822

Undiscounted Current Monthly Electricity Expenditure $68 $68 $68 $68 $68

Monthly Arrearage Payment ($300/4) $75 $75 $75 $0 $0

Total Undiscounted Monthly Payment $143 $143 $143 $68 $68

Undiscounted Electricity Burden (During Arrearage Payoff) 6.9% 10.0% 6.7% 1.2% 0.8%

Discounted Electricity Expenditure $749 $517 $776 $822 $822

Discounted Electricity Burden 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.2% 0.8%

Electricity Burden Impacts: PIPP Discount (3% Target Burden) - Xcel
25 

Table 14 

Figure 2 

Single, Minimum 

Wage* Worker 

(40 hours x 52 weeks)

2-person 

Household, 100% 

2019 FPL

2-person 

Household, 

150% 2019 

FPL

2-Person 

Median Income 

Household

Upper-income 

Household 

($100,000)

Annual Pretax Income $24,960 $17,240 $25,860 $68,517 $100,000

Monthly Pretax Income $2,080 $1,437 $2,155 $5,710 $8,333

Undiscounted Current Annual Electricity Expenditure $1,041 $1,041 $1,041 $1,041 $1,041

Undiscounted Current Monthly Electricity Expenditure $87 $87 $87 $87 $87

Monthly Arrearage Payment ($300/4) $75 $75 $75 $0 $0

Total Undiscounted Monthly Payment $162 $162 $162 $87 $87

Undiscounted Electricity Burden (During Arrearage Payoff) 7.8% 11.3% 7.5% 1.5% 1.0%

Discounted Electricity Expenditure $749 $517 $776 $1,041 $1,041

Discounted Electricity Burden 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Electricity Burden Impacts: PIPP Discount - Black Hills Electric

6.9%

10.0%

6.7%

1.2%

0.8%

3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

1.2%

0.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Single, Minimum

Wage* Worker

(40 hours x 52

weeks)

2-person

Household, 100%

2019 FPL

2-person

Household, 150%

2019 FPL

2-Person Median

Income Household

Upper-income

Household

($100,000)

PIPP Discount - 3% Target Burden 

Undiscounted and Discounted Electricity Burdens

by Selected Household Income - Xcel Electric

Undiscounted Electricity Burden (During Arrearage Payoff) Discounted Electricity Burden
26 

Figure 3 

The tables and graphics above portray the dramatic impact a PIPP can have on low-income 

electricity and home energy burdens. Expanding participation in these programs through 

increased funding – an additional 70 cents per month for residential customers – could make it 

easier for more of the most vulnerable customers to stay connected to service. The increased 

assessment as proposed here would still represent a modest contribution relative to other states. 

Bill Impact Analysis 

The tables that follow are based on the FERC Form 1 filings of Xcel and Black Hills Electric. 

Bill impacts were calculated by dividing the PIPP program cost by the total revenue from sales 

as reflected in the FERC Form 1. The resulting percent of revenue required for the program was 

then added to the expenditure of each rate class and subclass to determine bill impacts. 

7.8%

11.3%

7.5%

1.5%

1.0%

3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Single, Minimum

Wage* Worker

(40 hours x 52

weeks)

2-person

Household, 100%

2019 FPL

2-person

Household, 150%

2019 FPL

2-Person Median

Income Household

Upper-income

Household

($100,000)

PIPP Discount - 3% Target Burden

Undiscounted and Discounted Electricity Burdens

by Selected Household Income - Black Hills Electric

Undiscounted Electricity Burden (During Arrearage Payoff) Discounted Electricity Burden
27 

sched_num_ttl mwh_sold revenue avg_num_cstmr kwh_sale_cstmr revenue_kwh_sold Annual Expenditure

Monthly 

Expenditure

Monthly 

Program Bill 

Impact Annual Revenue From Program Assessment R Residential General 9,367,554 1,043,577,899 $ 1,269,676 7,378 0.1114 $ $822 $68 $1.01 $15,321,418

RAL Residential Area Lighting 2,281 865,946 $ 4,053 563 0.3796 $ $214 $18 $0.26 $12,717

RD Residential Demand 31,102 3,147,553 $ 1,094 28,430 0.1012 $ $2,877 $240 $3.52 $46,212

RDTDR Residential Demand Time Dif 14,277 1,347,889 $ 1,522 9,380 0.0944 $ $885 $74 $1.08 $19,787

RETOU Residential Energy Time of 38,422 4,308,726 $ 5,505 6,979 0.1121 $ $782 $65 $0.96 $63,232

Residential Unbilled -7,010 (5,254,005) $ 0.7495 $ 

Total Residential 9,446,626 1,047,994,008 $ 1,281,850 7,370 0.1109 $ $817 $68 $1.00 $15,382,200

$ - - $ 

C Commercial 1,271,582 137,737,500 $ 111,511 11,403 0.1083 $ $1,235 $103 $1.51 $2,021,843

CAL Commercial Area Lighting 9,514 3,307,963 $ 6,627 1,436 0.3477 $ $499 $42 $0.61 $48,580

NMTR Non-Metered Commercial 20,837 2,282,752 $ 790 26,376 0.1096 $ $2,891 $241 $3.54 $33,530

PG Primary General 3,624,452 251,813,207 $ 597 6,071,109 0.0695 $ $421,942 $35,162 $516.24 $3,698,362

PLL Parking Lot Lighting 4,323 966,925 $ 847 5,104 0.2237 $ $1,142 $95 $1.40 $14,198

PST Primary Standby Service 31,289 6,028,123 $ 5 6,257,800 0.1927 $ $1,205,878 $100,490 $1,475.38 $88,523

PTOU Primary Time of Use 47,174 3,684,052 $ 0.0781 $ 

SG Secondary General 11,911,794 1,095,212,011 $ 42,158 282,551 0.0919 $ $25,966 $2,164 $31.77 $16,072,172

SGL Secondary Gen Low-Load 6,428 2,536,334 $ 442 14,543 0.3946 $ $5,739 $478 $7.02 $37,241

SPVTOU Secondary Photovoltaic Tim 99,433 9,449,667 $ 157 633,331 0.0950 $ $60,166 $5,014 $73.61 $138,687

SST Secondary Standby 87 $ 1 - $ 

STOU Secondary Time of Use 5,983 551,121 $ 0.0921 $ 

TG Transmission General 2,377,139 127,422,139 $ 23 103,353,870 0.0536 $ $5,539,767 $461,647 $6,777.86 $1,870,689

TST Transmission Standby Svc 33,732 2,029,617 $ 14 2,409,429 0.0602 $ $145,048 $12,087 $177.46 $29,814

SM/LG C&I Unbilled -28,592 (10,960,483) $ 0.3833 $ 

Total SM/LG C&I 19,415,088 1,632,061,015 $ 163,172 118,985 0.0841 $ $10,007 $834 $12.24 $23,972,651

$ - - $ 

MI Metered Intersection 1,815 150,105 $ 358 5,070 0.0827 $ $419 $35 $0.51 $2,204

MSL Metered Street Lighting 600 55,163 $ 132 4,545 0.0919 $ $418 $35 $0.51 $809

COL Customer Owned Lighting 8,770 717,848 $ 69 127,101 0.0819 $ $10,410 $867 $12.74 $10,545

SL Street Lighting 145,365 39,790,243 $ 549 264,781 0.2737 $ $72,471 $6,039 $88.67 $584,139

SLU Street Ltg Unincorporated 3,874 1,391,382 $ 53,019 73 0.3592 $ $26 $2 $0.03 $20,411

SSL Special Street Lighting 7 2,464 $ 2 3,500 0.3520 $ $1,232 $103 $1.51 $36

TSL Traffic Signal Lighting 20,422 1,705,131 $ 157 130,076 0.0835 $ $10,861 $905 $13.29 $25,036

PS & HL Unbilled 3,220 (53,899) $ (0.0167) $ 

Total PS & HL 184,073 43,758,437 $ 54,286 3,391 0.2377 $ $806 $67 $0.99 $642,432

$ - - $ 

SCS-7 Regional Transportation Dis 68,138 6,519,367 $ 50 1,362,760 0.0957 $ $130,416 $10,868 $159.56 $95,738

SCS-8 Regional Transportation Dis 39,154 2,508,049 $ 3 13,051,333 0.0641 $ $836,590 $69,716 $1,023.56 $36,848

OSPA Unbilled 277 (38,546) $ (0.1392) $ 

Total OSPA 107,569 8,988,870 $ 53 2,029,604 0.0836 $ $169,675 $14,140 $207.60 $132,031

$ - - $ 

C IDS Commercial 94 12,394 $ 28 3,357 0.1319 $ $443 $37 $0.54 $182

PG IDS Primary General 271 44,858 $ 1 271,000 0.1655 $ $44,851 $3,738 $54.87 $658

SG IDS Secondary General 3,061 333,444 $ 5 612,200 0.1089 $ $66,669 $5,556 $81.57 $4,894

Interdepartmental Unbilled 66 2,770 $ 0.0420 $ 

Total Interdepartmental 3,492 393,466 $ 34 102,706 0.1127 $ $11,575 $965 $14.16 $5,778

Total Sales (MWH) and Revenue 

From Sales ($) 29,156,848 2,733,195,796 40,135,092

PIPP Discount Program Cost as Percent of Revenues From Sales 1.47%

Xcel 2019 FF1 p. 304 2019 Average 

Expenditures

Program Assessment Bill 

Impacts and Revenues
28 

sched_num_ttl mwh_sold revenue avg_num_cstmr kwh_sale_cstmr revenue_kwh_sold Annual Expenditure

Monthly 

Expenditure

Monthly 

Program Bill 

Impact Annual Revenue From Program Assessment CO860- Residential Service 605,418 83,697,488 $ 80,341 7,536 0.1382 $ $1,041 $87 $0.88 $849,723

CO861- Residential Service -Multi 1,243 178,857 $ 73 17,027 0.1439 $ $2,450 $204 $2.07 $1,816

CO862 - Residential DLC/IPP Pilot 483 65,588 $ 57 8,474 0.1358 $ $1,151 $96 $0.97 $666

CO863 - Residential DLC/IPP Pilot 578 78,597 $ 58 9,966 0.1360 $ $1,355 $113 $1.15 $798

CO865 - Residential Service - Oth 7,116 574,927 $ 1,559 4,564 0.0808 $ $369 $31 $0.31 $5,838

CO864 - 376 47,369 $ 24 15,667 0.1260 $ $1,974 $165 $1.67 $481

CO875- Residential -Net Metering 5,884 960,610 $ 2,079 2,830 0.1633 $ $462 $39 $0.39 $9,757

CO885- Residential -Net Metering 41 5,852 $ 3 13,667 0.1427 $ $1,950 $163 $1.65 $59

COM26 - Mercury Vapor Private Are 314 68,795 $ 300 1,047 0.2191 $ $229 $19 $0.19 $699

COPA2 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 50 23,258 $ 67 746 0.4652 $ $347 $29 $0.29 $236

COPB2 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 3 1,353 $ 7 429 0.4510 $ $193 $16 $0.16 $14

COPC1 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 4 707 $ 1 4,000 0.1768 $ $707 $59 $0.60 $7

COPC2 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 2 588 $ 4 500 0.2940 $ $147 $12 $0.12 $6

COPD1 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 4 471 $ 1 4,000 0.1178 $ $471 $39 $0.40 $5

COPD2 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 98 13,439 $ 97 1,010 0.1371 $ $138 $12 $0.12 $136

COPE1 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 32 5,411 $ 14 2,286 0.1691 $ $387 $32 $0.33 $55

COPE2 - New Lamp - Cust Owns 633 57,938 $ 840 754 0.0915 $ $69 $6 $0.06 $589

Unbilled Revenue -5,277 (496,817) $ 0.0941 $ 

FCA Accrual 21,287,811 $ - $ 

Alt Revenue 57,167 $ - $ 

Note 5: FCA Billed (6,622,820) $ - $ 

Note 5: Peakview 1,054,587 $ - $ 

 Total Residential 617,002 101,061,176 $ 85,525 7,214 0.1638 $ $1,182 $98 $1.00 $1,026,300

$ - - $ 

CO710- Small General Service - No 50,404 6,190,692 $ 6,767 7,449 0.1228 $ $915 $76 $0.77 $62,861

CO711- Small General Service - De 143,632 15,252,763 $ 2,864 50,151 0.1062 $ $5,326 $444 $4.51 $154,906

CO720- Large General Service - Se 366,090 31,752,817 $ 650 563,215 0.0867 $ $48,831 $4,069 $41.32 $322,328

CO725- Large General Service - Pr 47,154 2,916,755 $ 28 1,684,071 0.0619 $ $104,244 $8,687 $88.22 $29,642

CO730- Large Power Service - Seco 5,662 465,439 $ 1 5,662,000 0.0822 $ $465,416 $38,785 $393.87 $4,726

CO735- Large Power Service - Prim 104,525 6,355,573 $ 4 26,131,250 0.0608 $ $1,588,780 $132,398 $1,344.54 $64,538

CO770- Irrigation Pumping 5,287 734,047 $ 259 20,413 0.1388 $ $2,833 $236 $2.40 $7,452

CO876 - COE-Net Metering-NonRes < 354 47,397 $ 73 4,849 0.1339 $ $649 $54 $0.55 $481

CO877 - COE-Net Meterng-NonRes 10 3,642 386,693 $ 70 52,029 0.1062 $ $5,525 $460 $4.68 $3,928

CO878 - COE-Net Metrng-NonRes to 23,540 2,348,268 $ 39 603,590 0.0998 $ $60,238 $5,020 $50.98 $23,858

CO879 - COE-Net Metr-NonRes to 14 6,288 418,147 $ 4 1,572,000 0.0665 $ $104,538 $8,712 $88.47 $4,246 CO888 - COE-Net Metr-NonRes to140 1,472 125,331 $ 1 1,472,000 0.0851 $ $125,267 $10,439 $106.01 $1,272

CO920 - COE-LGS-STOU 11,070 917,006 $ 10 1,107,000 0.0828 $ $91,660 $7,638 $77.57 $9,308

CO925 - COE-LGS-TTOU 195 10,772 $ 0.0552 $ 

CO936 - COE-LPS-TTOU 1,616 360,407 $ 1 1,616,000 0.2230 $ $360,368 $30,031 $304.97 $3,660 COM26 - COE-Pal Dusk to Dawn Burn 573 110,802 $ 225 2,547 0.1934 $ $493 $41 $0.42 $1,126

COM46 - COE-Special Contract 15 3,262 $ 23 652 0.2175 $ $142 $12 $0.12 $33

COPA1 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 0% 13 7,249 $ 5 2,600 0.5576 $ $1,450 $121 $1.23 $74

COPA2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 0% 231 66,006 $ 93 2,484 0.2857 $ $710 $59 $0.60 $670

COPB2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 25 14 5,259 $ 10 1,400 0.3756 $ $526 $44 $0.45 $53

COPC2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 50 3 690 $ 3 1,000 0.2300 $ $230 $19 $0.19 $7

COPD2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 75 174 20,236 $ 95 1,832 0.1163 $ $213 $18 $0.18 $206

COPE1 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 10 182 15,081 $ 18 10,111 0.0829 $ $838 $70 $0.71 $153

COPE2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 10 1,901 137,026 $ 451 4,215 0.0721 $ $304 $25 $0.26 $1,392

Unbilled Revenue 2,299 257,489 $ 0.1120 $ 

FCA Accrued 26,368,081 $ - $ 

Alt Revenue 81,524 $ - $ 

Note 5: FCA Billed (7,831,301) $ - $ 

Note 5: Peakview 1,346,051 $ - $ 

 Total Commercial 776,336 88,869,562 $ 11,694 66,388 0.1145 $ $7,601 $633 $6.43 $902,712

Black Hills Electric 2019 FF1 p. 304 2019 Average 

Expenditures

Program Assessment Bill 

Impacts and Revenues
29 

sched_num_ttl mwh_sold revenue avg_num_cstmr kwh_sale_cstmr revenue_kwh_sold Annual Expenditure

Monthly 

Expenditure

Monthly 

Program Bill 

Impact Annual Revenue From Program Assessment $ - - $ 

CO738 - COE- Supplement Service T 382 95,035 $ 1 382,000 0.2488 $ $95,042 $7,920 $80.43 $965

CO710- Small General Service - No 30 3,689 $ 3 10,000 0.1230 $ $1,230 $103 $1.04 $37

CO711- Small General Service - De 577 59,381 $ 5 115,400 0.1029 $ $11,875 $990 $10.05 $603

CO720- Large General Service - Se 30,131 2,374,640 $ 15 2,008,733 0.0788 $ $158,288 $13,191 $133.95 $24,112

CO725- Large General Service - Pr 8,081 657,311 $ 4 2,020,250 0.0813 $ $164,246 $13,687 $139.00 $6,672

CO735- Large Power Service - Prim 179,659 10,209,368 $ 3 59,886,333 0.0568 $ $3,401,544 $283,462 $2,878.63 $103,631

CO737 - FB-Generation Supp Svc Tr 664 116,712 $ 0.1758 $ 

CO881-Large Power Service Primary 11,921 884,265 $ 1 11,921,000 0.0742 $ $884,538 $73,712 $748.56 $8,983

CO892-Large Power Service Primary 27,899 1,888,211 $ 1 27,899,000 0.0677 $ $1,888,762 $157,397 $1,598.41 $19,181

CO 920 - Large Gen Svc - TOU tran 88 21,014 $ 1 88,000 0.2388 $ $21,014 $1,751 $17.78 $213

CO935 - CO935 10,143 715,752 $ 1 10,143,000 0.0706 $ $716,096 $59,675 $606.01 $7,272

CO936- TOU-LPS Transmission 171,237 8,971,217 $ 2 85,618,500 0.0524 $ $4,486,409 $373,867 $3,796.72 $91,121 COM26 - COE-Pal Dusk to Dawn Burn 45 9,067 $ 10 4,500 0.2015 $ $907 $76 $0.77 $92

COPA2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 0% 1 234 $ 1 1,000 0.2340 $ $234 $20 $0.20 $2

COPD2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 75 7 860 $ 2 3,500 0.1229 $ $430 $36 $0.36 $9

COPE2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 10 19 1,573 $ 5 3,800 0.0828 $ $315 $26 $0.27 $16

Unbilled Revenue 2,231 149,757 $ 0.0671 $ 

FCA Revenue 14,913,174 $ - $ 

Alt Revenue 48,235 $ - $ 

Note 5: FCA Billed (4,156,844) $ - $ 

Note 5: Peakview 754,978 $ - $ 

 Total Industrial 443,115 37,717,629 $ 55 8,056,636 0.0851 $ $685,620 $57,135 $580.22 $382,946

$ - - $ CO784 - COE-Cust Owned Inductn/LE 3,993 652,601 $ 21 190,143 0.1634 $ $31,069 $2,589 $26.29 $6,626 COM26 - COE-Pal Dusk to Dawn Burn 2 380 $ 1 2,000 0.1900 $ $380 $32 $0.32 $4

COM28 - COE-CO/Cust Owned St Ligh 958 187,991 $ 60 15,967 0.1962 $ $3,133 $261 $2.65 $1,909

COM41- Gov't Flashers 1,437 $ 16 - $ 

COPA1 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 0% 33 18,944 $ 2 16,500 0.5741 $ $9,473 $789 $8.02 $192

COPA2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 0% 41 12,088 $ 3 13,667 0.2948 $ $4,029 $336 $3.41 $123

COPB2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 25 8 2,945 $ 2 4,000 0.3681 $ $1,472 $123 $1.25 $30

COPC2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 50 2 227 $ 1 2,000 0.1135 $ $227 $19 $0.19 $2

COPD2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 75 21 2,437 $ 6 3,500 0.1160 $ $406 $34 $0.34 $25

COPE1 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 10 518 38,309 $ 8 64,750 0.0740 $ $4,792 $399 $4.05 $389

COPE2 - COE-New Lamp-Cust Owns 10 681 47,692 $ 39 17,462 0.0700 $ $1,222 $102 $1.03 $484 Unbilled Revenue - $ - $ FCA Accrued - $ - $ Alt Revenue - $ - $ Note 5: FCA Billed - $ - $ Note 5: Peakview - $ - $ 

 Total Public Street & Highway L 6,257 965,051 $ 159 39,352 0.1542 $ $6,068 $506 $5.14 $9,798

$ - - $ 

CO710- Small General Service - No 220 29,045 $ 44 5,000 0.1320 $ $660 $55 $0.56 $295

CO711- Small General Service - De 2,008 214,010 $ 43 46,698 0.1066 $ $4,978 $415 $4.21 $2,174

CO720- Large General Service - Se 18,292 1,583,799 $ 17 1,076,000 0.0866 $ $93,182 $7,765 $78.86 $16,087

CO725- Large General Service - Pr 286 23,786 $ 1 286,000 0.0832 $ $23,795 $1,983 $20.14 $242

CO736 - Large Power Service - Tra 3,864 437,626 $ 1 3,864,000 0.1133 $ $437,791 $36,483 $370.49 $4,446

CO778 - Large Power Service - Spe 30,676 1,832,583 $ 1 30,676,000 0.0597 $ $1,831,357 $152,613 $1,549.83 $18,598

CO780 - Large General Service - S 6,133 339,446 $ 1 6,133,000 0.0553 $ $339,155 $28,263 $287.02 $3,444

CO782 - COE-Traffic Lights Metere 222 29,988 $ 59 3,763 0.1351 $ $508 $42 $0.43 $305

CO783 - COE-Traffic Signals-City 261 40,886 $ 109 2,394 0.1567 $ $375 $31 $0.32 $415

CO876 - COE-Net Metering-NonRes < 24 2,806 $ 1 24,000 0.1169 $ $2,806 $234 $2.37 $28

CO877 - COE-Net Meterng-NonRes 10 53 5,916 $ 2 26,500 0.1116 $ $2,957 $246 $2.50 $60

CO878 - COE-Net Metrng-NonRes to 1,060 82,032 $ 2 530,000 0.0774 $ $41,022 $3,419 $34.72 $833

CO879 - COE-Net Metr-NonRes to 14 6,651 379,514 $ 1 6,651,000 0.0571 $ $379,772 $31,648 $321.39 $3,857

CO881 - COE-Net Metrng-NonRes ove 21,241 1,271,842 $ 1 21,241,000 0.0599 $ $1,272,336 $106,028 $1,076.74 $12,921

CO920 - COE-LGS-STOU 5,711 431,352 $ 2 2,855,500 0.0755 $ $215,590 $17,966 $182.45 $4,379

CO925 - COE-LGS-TTOU 6,429 446,704 $ 1 6,429,000 0.0695 $ $446,816 $37,235 $378.13 $4,538

CO930 - COE-LPS-STOU 8,712 594,844 $ 1 8,712,000 0.0683 $ $595,030 $49,586 $503.56 $6,043

Unbilled Revenue -194 50,418 $ (0.2599) $ 

FCA Accrual 4,032,589 $ - $ 

Alt Revenue 12,092 $ - $ 

Note 5: FCA Billed (1,166,947) $ - $ 

Note 5: Peakview 211,293 $ - $ 

$ - - $ 

 Total Other Sales to Public Aut 111,649 10,885,624 $ 287 389,021 0.0975 $ $37,930 $3,161 $32.10 $110,548

Total Sales (MWH) and Revenue 

From Sales ($) 1,954,359 239,499,042 2,432,304

PIPP Discount Program Cost as Percent of Revenues From Sales 1.02%

Black Hills Electric 2019 FF1 p. 304 2019 Average 

Expenditures

Program Assessment Bill 

Impacts and Revenues
30 

Colorado Case and Statutory Law Impacting the Establishment of LowIncome Rates 

This section sets forth a legal analysis regarding establishment of low-income rates in Colorado. 

A basic tenet of public utilities law is that public utilities are obligated to serve all customers 

without unjust or undue discrimination.34 Colorado law, for example, specifically provides that a 

public utility “shall not make or grant any preference or advantage to a corporation or person or 

subject a corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.”35 While Colorado law 

provides that a “public utility shall not establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to 

rates, charges, service, facilities, or between localities or class of service,” the statute also 

provides specific direction that significantly insulates discount rates from claims of 

discrimination or unlawful disadvantage. Today, Colorado regulators have specific statutory 

authority to implement discount rates for low-income customers: “the commission may approve 

any rate, charge, service, classification, or facility of a gas or electric utility that makes or grants 

a reasonable preference or advantage to low-income customers,” without it being deemed to 

“subject any person or corporation to any prejudice, disadvantage, or undue discrimination.” 

C.R.S. §40-3-106.1(d)(l). In this instance, a low-income customer is defined as someone with a 

household income at or below 185% of the current federal poverty line who meets certain 

eligibility criteria set forth in the Rules of the department of human services.36

The authority to implement discount rates, however, formally authorized in 2007 in Colorado 

Senate Bill (S.B.) 07-022, is not unlimited. The same statute provides that “(w)hen considering 

whether to approve a rate that makes or grants a reasonable preference or advantage to lowincome utility customers, the commission shall take into account the potential impact on, and 

cost-shifting to, utility customers other than low-income utility customers.”37 Creating a factual 

record that assesses the impact of the cost-shifting on utility customers, while likewise providing 

support for the need for a discount for low-income customers is critical.

The presumed need to codify the Commission’s authority to authorize rates that provided 

specific discounts to low-income customers followed the Colorado Supreme Court’s narrow 

interpretation decades earlier of the anti-discrimination provisions of Colorado statutes. In 1979, 

the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision in Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Public 

Utilities Commission, 197 Colo. 56, 590 P.2d 495 (1979) (“Mountain States”), that economist 

Roger Colton characterized in a 1996 article as “a decision that has stalled the implementation of 

discount utility rates for the poor ever since.”38 

 

34 See Access to Utility Service – Disconnections, Metering, Payments, Telecommunications, and Assistance 

Programs, Sixth Edition, National Consumer Law Center, C. Harak, O. Wein, J. Bosco, J. Howat, 2018, Ch. 7.5.2, 

p. 219. 

35 See C.R.S.A. § 40-3-106.1(a). 

36 See C.R.S.A. § 40-8.5-105. 

37 C.R.S. §40-3-106.1(d)(l). 

38

 
31 

In Mountain States, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that set aside 

the PUC’s establishment of a discount gas rate plan for low-income elderly and low-income 

disabled persons, holding that the adoption of this special reduced rate exceeded the PUC's 

authority under Article XXV of the Colorado Constitution, and violated section 40-3-106(1) of 

the Colorado Revised Statutes. That section of the law prohibits public utilities from granting 

preferential rates to any person. The Court further noted that section 40-3-102, C.R.S. 1973, 

requires the PUC to prevent unjust discriminatory rates. 

The Court held: 

When the PUC ordered the utility companies to provide a lower rate to selected customers 

unrelated to the cost or type of the service provided, it violated section 40-3-106(1)'s prohibition 

against preferential rates. In this instance, the discount rate benefits an unquestionably deserving 

group, the low-income elderly and the low-income disabled. This, unfortunately, does not make 

the rate less preferential. To find otherwise would empower the PUC, an appointed, non-elected 

body, to create a special rate for any group it determined to be deserving. The legislature clearly 

provided against such discretionary power when it prohibited public utilities from granting "any 

preference." In addition, section 40-3-102, C.R.S. 1973, directs the PUC to prevent unjust 

discriminatory rates. Establishing a discount gas rate plan which differentiates between 

economically needy individuals who receive the same service is unjustly discriminatory. 

197 Colo. at 59. 

In 2000, however, before the passage of S.B. 07-022 that created specific authorization for a 

low-income discount rate, the Colorado Commission approved the extension of a ratepayerfunded Affordable Payment Pilot Program (“APPP”) as part of a merger proceeding. The 

program provided a discounted rate and arrearage forgiveness.39 In that instance, the 

Commission distinguished the 1979 Mountain States ruling as prohibiting the Commission from 

effecting social policy through preferential ratemaking in favor of a narrow group of customers. 

The Commission concluded that a program or rate that has an economic justification is lawful.40 

However, the APPP was not developed in the name of social policy. Instead the goal of the 

APPP is to reduce the balance of Public Service's lost and uncollectible accounts, thereby 

effecting a net reduction to all customers' bills. This economic justification for the APPP 

prevents Public Service from running afoul of the prohibition against preferential rates found at § 

40-3-106(1)(a), C.R.S. Furthermore, nothing in Mountain States prevents Public Service from 

engaging in research and development with the hope of designing a program that can be used to 

render its service at a cost to ratepayers that is just and reasonable.41

Regardless of these rulings, with the passage of S.B. 07-022, the implementation of discounted 

rates constitutes the kind of “reasonable discrimination” that allows the Commission to approve 

rates that increase utility service affordability for customers who experience energy insecurity 

 

39 2000 WL 575936 (Colo. P.U.C.) 

40 Id. 

41 Id. 
32 

due to inability to pay non-discounted rates, and who might otherwise be unable to afford 

essential utility service. 

Recent State Actions to Protect Consumers during the Covid-19 

Pandemic – California and Illinois 

This section provides an overview of regulatory actions taken in 2 states to provide enhanced 

consumer protection and home energy security in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Illinois Settlement Summary 

On June 18, 2020, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), the regulator of public utilities in 

the state, adopted consumer protections designed to assist financially struggling investor-owned 

electric, gas, and water utility customers once the Commission-issued shut-off moratorium ends. 

The proceeding, ICC Docket No. 20-0309, began with the ICC’s issuance of an Emergency 

Interim Order on March 18, 2020 that, among other actions, imposed a moratorium on investorowned utility shut offs, suspended late fees and penalties due to a customer’s inability to pay, 

and required the investor-owned utilities to file more flexible credit and collections procedures, 

to be in effect for no less than six months, for the Commission’s consideration and approval. 

The utilities then filed their plans and began a series of negotiations with ICC staff and consumer 

advocates. The result was an agreement on a host of post-moratorium customer protections and 

utility obligations and for the utilities to recover certain costs related to the moratorium and the 

pandemic. The agreement, which the ICC adopted, includes: 

 Reconnection of previously disconnected customers. The utilities agreed to reconnect, 

without fees, all customers previously disconnected for non-payment up to one year prior 

to the start of the moratorium and who remained disconnected during the moratorium. 

 Extension of the moratorium on disconnections through the end of Summer 2020. 

 Debt forgiveness totaling $48 million for customers already enrolled in or eligible for 

LIHEAP (those at less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Level), with carve-out funding 

by each utility for undocumented persons. Grant amounts range from $300 to $500 for 

each of the state’s large utilities. 

 Provision of 24-month deferred payment arrangements (DPAs), with no down payments 

for customers claiming financial hardship and no income documentation required. DPAs 

of 18 months are also available for other residential customers who do not claim financial 
33 

hardship. A second-chance DPA of the same length will be offered for all customers who 

default on DPAs. 

 Waiver of deposit and late fee requirements for self-certified financial hardship 

customers (no documentation needed). 

 A moratorium on credit reporting. 

 Reporting of disconnections, late fees, DPAs, deposits, and other data by zip code to 

ensure that regulators and consumer advocates can monitor disconnection and other 

credit and collection practices for disproportionate impacts in communities of color. 

 An agreement by gas and electric utilities to engage with stakeholders in a discussion on 

how to more permanently improve the affordability of utility service for low income 

customers. 

In exchange for these protections, the utilities received cost recovery of the debt forgiveness 

program through an assumed 50% increase in net-charge offs (uncollectibles) from the 2019 

calendar year, or an agreed-upon total capped amount, recovered in a rider tariff. The utilities 

also received, through the tariff, cost recovery for: 

1. all direct COVID-19-related costs, netted with any cost savings and any benefits to 

utilities (tax-related or otherwise) attributable to federal legislation, including the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; 

2. waived (but capped) total late fees; and 

3. actual foregone reconnection charges. 

These consumer protections are offered for about a six-month period, and represent a win-win 

for financially strapped consumers seeking assistance from unaffordable arrearages, and the 

utilities seeking more certainty on cost recovery issues. 

A separate settlement was agreed to with the small utility companies serving a small percentage 

of Illinois utility customers. 

California Settlement Summary 

On June 11, 2020, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) voted unanimously to adopt 

a Phase I decision (D.20-06-003) in CPUC Rulemaking 18-07-005 (re: new approaches to 

disconnections and reconnections). This Phase I decision provides a permanent, progressive suite 

of uniform pro-consumer credit and collection rules, policies and practices for the four large 

electric and natural gas companies to reduce residential electric and natural gas disconnection 

rates for nonpayment. 
34 

Procedural Background 

On September 28, 2017, California Senate Bill 598 (SB 598) was signed into law to address the 

rising electric and natural gas residential disconnections for nonpayment. Among other things, 

SB 598 requires the CPUC to develop rules, policies or regulations with a goal of reducing the 

statewide disconnection rate of gas and electric customers by January 1, 2024. The law also 

requires the CPUC to analyze the effect on disconnection rates of any utility rate increases in 

general rate cases. 

The CPUC opened Rulemaking 18-07-005, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider New 

Approaches to Disconnections and Reconnections to Improve Energy Access and Contain Costs

on July 20, 2018. By December 13, 2018, the CPUC adopted Decision 18-12-013, emergency 

uniform interim measures (see below for a summary of the interim protections). The 

development of the record pre-dated the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the nature 

of the proceeding is salient to the circumstances residential utility consumers will face once 

utility-shut-off moratoria are lifted. In California, CPUC Resolution M-4842, provides 

emergency residential and small business utility service protections in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic, including shut-off moratoria, until April 16, 2021. Thus, utilities have several months 

to make necessary process modifications to implement the robust suite of electric and natural gas 

utility service protections before the lifting of the shut-off moratoria. 

Summary of the Protections in the CPUC Phase I Decision 20-06-003 

 The Phase I Decision makes permanent, with some modifications, the interim rules 

adopted in D. 18-12-013. 

o Sets caps on the disconnection rate of the four large electric and natural gas 

investor-owned utilities. 

o Protects medical baseline (seriously ill) customers from disconnection for 

nonpayment as long as they agree to a 12-month payment plan. 

o Protects low-income customers from disconnection for nonpayment until the 

utility offers to enroll eligible customers in all applicable benefit programs 

administered by the utility (customers must enroll within two billing cycles). In 

the course of discussions with customers before a disconnection, the utilities have 

a duty to ask customers if they are interested in hearing about the applicable 

benefit programs. 

o Prior to disconnecting residential customers for nonpayment, the utility must offer 

the customer a 12-month payment plan. 

o Customers with a LIHEAP pledge pending shall not be disconnected for nonpayment. 
35 

o Disconnections for non-payment are prohibited during extreme weather: when the 

72-hour Natural Weather Service forecast predicts temperatures above 100 

degrees or below 32 degrees. 

 Reporting: Companies are required to submit a status report on compliance with the 

disconnection cap for the previous year within 120 days of the start of the calendar year, 

starting in 2022. 

 Deposits: Establishment of credit deposits and reestablishment of service deposits are 

prohibited. 

 Notices of Disconnection and Call Scripts for IOUs will be modified to notify customers 

that there may be financial services programs available to them and, where appropriate, 

notify clear danger of utility disconnection. For customers who opt for electronic 

notifications, disconnection notices will be sent by email. 

 Reconnection fees are eliminated. Fee based revenue from reconnection fees may be 

addressed in the next GRC and incorporated into base rates. 

 The decision establishes a uniform process for “benefit of service” investigations. 

 The LIHEAP pledge process is uniform and streamlined across the four large IOUs. 

LIHEAP providers should also be able to verify CARE discount participation over the 

phone and assist households in enrolling into the CARE program. 

 The Medical Baseline protections (a rate program for seriously ill individuals whose 

condition requires additional utility service) are enhanced to make it easier for individuals 

to enroll. The Decision expands the medical professionals who are able to provide a 

certification to include physician’s assistants and also allows for electronic certifications 

of eligibility. The IOUs are required to conduct annual trainings to county health workers 

who perform home visits and provide outreach materials in multiple languages for health 

workers to take to their patients. IOUs are to report on how they are funding community 

based organizations to provide outreach and education about the medical baseline 

program. 

 IOUs are to enter into MOUs and Non-Disclosure Agreements with Community Choice 

Aggregators, as appropriate, to promote sharing of information regarding the 

disconnection and reconnection status of customers. 

 CBOs are able to register as capitation agencies to perform outreach and help ensure 

eligible households are enrolled in all applicable benefits programs. 

 Gas field representatives shall be permitted to collect or contact a customer service agent 

to arrange for a minimum payment of 20% of past due balances (and customers agrees to 

enter a payment plan) to allow households to avoid a disconnection or be reconnected 

within 24 hours. 
36 

 Arrearage Management Plans: The Decision established the creation of AMPs for the 

four large electric and natural gas IOUS. Within 90 days of the decision, companies will 

file Tier 2 Advice Letters with the CPUC regarding the implementation of their AMP. 

Within 3 years the CPUC will open a proceeding to reauthorize the AMP. Within 4 years, 

AMPs will sunset unless the CPUC issues a decision extending, reauthorizing, modifying 

or rescinding the AMP. There will be a working group to focus on the allocation of 

proportional recovery where community choice aggregation is involved. 

 A percentage of income payment plan pilot (PIPP pilot) will be evaluated in a separate 

ratemaking phase of this proceeding. 

 The IOUs will establish two-way balancing accounts to create more transparency and 

accurately reflect the cost of uncollectable charges in rates. 

 The CPUC Enforcement Branch will establish a citation program designed to ensure 

compliance with the rules in this decision. 

 
37