PGW also indicated that it will measure overall home savings because the health and safety measures do not directly produce savings. PGW Reply Comments at 56. In the Commission’s Data Request to PGW, we asked if the Company will “treat any de facto heating situations under the pilot if the household also has health and safety issues?” PGW responded that the health and safety pilot is not designed to treat de facto heating situations but that a customer could potentially receive treatment for the heater under LIURP and/or as health and safety measures under the pilot. PGW further clarified that the costs of treating the non-functioning heater would still be governed by cost effectiveness standards. PGW Response at 1. TURN et al. state that de facto heating customers should be a priority under the pilot, that PGW’s response to the Commission’s question neither reveals nor justifies why the pilot does not address de facto heating situations, and that customers in a de facto heating situation could not conceivably fall within the top 50% of normalized usage. TURN et al. further believe that PGW should develop and make available avenues for de facto customers to access the pilot and that the Commission should order PGW to provide access, explore service restoration terms, and coordinate de facto heating treatment efforts with PECO, the EDC in PGW’s service territory. TURN et al. Additional Comments at 6-7. CAUSE-PA points out that often “the cost of repairing or replacing a furnace may exceed the cost-effectiveness standards for LIURP” and that the inoperable systems pose a tremendous threat to the health and safety of low-income customers. CAUSE-PA believes PGW should be required to develop a plan to address de facto heating and suggests coordination with the LIHEAP Crisis Interface program. CAUSE-PA further recommends that PGW should “be required to form a Universal Service Advisory Committee per 52 Pa. Code § 58.16.” CAUSE-PA Additional Comments at 3-4.
the amount of voluntary donations provided to the Hardship Program each year. BCS will continue to monitor PGW’s Hardship Fund participation and may revisit this issue in the Company’s next USECP or earlier. Program Budgets Table 12 below shows PGW’s anticipated USECP budget levels for 2017-2020. Table 12 Projected Budgets and Spending Universal Service Component 2017 2018 2019 2020 CAP (CRP) $49,973,413 $53,673,383 $56,030,965 $57,296,816 LIURP (CRP Home Comfort)* $ 6,571,445 $6,582,749 $6,697,312 $6,622,194 CARES $880,800 $880,800 $880,800 $880,800 Hardship Fund** $1,055,649 $1,055,649 $1,055,649 $1,055,649 Total $58,456,307 $62,192,581 $64,664,726 $65,855,459 Average Monthly Spending per Residential Customer*** $7.67 $8.16 $8.48 $8.64 * Includes programmatic/administrative costs (including labor) and costs for the LIME pilot at $120,048/year ($10,004/month). ** Only the administrative cost of $260,149 and Company contributions of $795,500 for are recovered in base rates and is counted in the Hardship Fund total. Voluntary donations by customers and the UESF funds are not recovered in base rates. *** Based on 469,008 non-CRP residential customers, as reported by PGW as of December 31, 2015. In 2015, PGW recouped 73.8% of CRP and LIURP costs from residential base rates, 21.3% from commercial, 1.7% from industrial, 2.1% from municipal, and 1.1% from the Philadelphia Housing Authority. 2015 Report on Universal Service Programs & Collections Performance at 6, 41, & 58. a. CRP (CAP Budget 2018-2020