administered by the Commission or another federal or state agency. The expenditures of an EDC under this clause shall be in addition to those made under the Commission’s Regulations at 52 Pa. Code Chapter 58. (8) The plan include a proposed cost-recovery tariff mechanism to fund the EE&C measures and to ensure full and current recovery of the prudent and reasonable costs of the plan, including administrative costs. (9) The EDC shall demonstrate that the plan is cost-effective, using a TRC Test approved by the Commission, and provides a diverse cross section of alternatives for customers of all rate classes. (10) The plan require an annual independent evaluation of its and a full review of the results of each five-year plan and, to the extent practical, how the plan will be adjusted on a basis as a result of the evaluation. (11) The plan shall include an analysis of the EDC’s administrative costs. 66 Pa. C.S. § 2806.1(b)(1)(i)(A)-(K). Act 129 permits an EDC to recover, on a full and current basis from customers, all reasonable and prudent costs incurred in the provision or management of an EE&C plan. The costs, however, are limited to two percent of the EDC’s total annual revenue as of December 11, 2006. 66 Pa. C.S. § 2806.1(g) and (k). Act 129 also provides that the Commission is to recover from EDCs its costs of implementing the EE&C Program. 66 Pa. C.S. § 2806.1(h). B. The PPL EE&C Plan The EE&C Plan as filed and described by PPL includes a broad portfolio of energy efficiency, conservation practices and peak load reductions, and energy education initiatives. PPL’s Plan is designed to provide customer benefits and to meet the energy saving and peak load reduction goals set forth in Act 129. The Plan includes a range of effectiveness
The Commission’s EE&C Program must include “standards to ensure that each plan includes a variety of energy efficiency and conservation measures and will provide the measures equitably to all classes of customers.” 66 Pa. C.S. § 2806.1(a)(5). Each EDC is required to demonstrate that its plan “provides a diverse cross section of alternatives for customers of all rate classes.” 66 Pa. C.S. § 2806.1(b)(1)(i)(i). PPL’s Plan contains fourteen different programs distributed across all of its customer classes. PPL Exhibit No. 1 at 1. PPL has provided at least one energy efficiency and one demand response program for each class in accordance with the Commission’s Implementation Order, and in fact, PPL offers multiple programs for each customer class. PPL Exhibit No. 1, Table 6. a. Positions of the Parties The OCA reviewed both the required Budget and Parity Analysis Summary found in Table 7 of PPL’s EE&C Plan and the information contained in the charts below in evaluating whether the portfolio proposed by PPL achieved a reasonable and equitable balance in its portfolio. The OCA also conducted this review keeping in mind the specific requirements of Act 129 for low-income customers, government/non-profit sector and the need for the Plan to be cost-effective under the Total Resource Cost Test. 1 Class Current Revenues (2008)* Percent of Current Revs. Projected Spending (Over Total Plan)** Spending Percent of the Budget Residential $1,476,444,164 45.4% $104,573,538 43% Small Commercial and Industrial $1,027,237,882 31.6% $85,751,508 35% Large Commercial & Industrial-Primary Voltage and Higher $743,252,314 22.8% $30,303,594 12%
July 1, 2009 Plan filing. However, the Commission stated that each filed plan was expected to include at least one contract with a CSP. The Implementation Order established the criteria that the Commission will use in approving request for proposals (RFP) procedures and standard form contracts for CSPs. 1. Multiple CSPs for Demand Response Program a. Positions of the Parties As originally presented in its EE&C Plan, PPL’s proposed Load Curtailment Program contemplated using a single CSP to manage and administer the program. PPL Exh. 1 Amended at 149. However, in response to a request by ClearChoice that multiple demand response CSPs be used, PPL states that it will not limit this program to a single CSP, but will solicit bids from multiple demand response CSPs to provide blocks of firm curtailable load and/or direct load control. PPL MB at 33-34. PPL states that the size of these blocks is expected to be between 5 MW and 25 MW, and asserts that it will select the most cost-effective combination of these firm load reduction blocks. PPL MB at 34. PPL further states that it “does not intend to favor any demand response CSP over another, and it would be difficult to do so because of the turnkey nature of the related programs.” PPL MB at 34. EnerNOC strongly opposes PPL’s proposal to require the bidding of load blocks to multiple CSPs, contending that separating participants into 25 MW blocks will make them too small to aggregate effectively. EnerNOC RB at 4. EnerNOC argues that such a block approach would make it less economical for a CSP to run a program, and would be extremely challenging to operate and manage. EnerNOC RB at 4-5. EnerNOC asserts that there are a number of market influences that will not be controllable under this approach, and those could easily create confusion and program failure. EnerNOC RB at 5. In this regard, EnerNOC elaborates as follows: