Center City Office: 1424 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA Telephone: clsphila.org

Transcription

1 January 13, 2017 Via Electronic Filing Secretary Rosemary Chiavetta Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA Re: PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan for an Advance Payments Program and Petition for Temporary Waiver of Portions of the Commission s Regulations with Respect to that Plan, Docket No. P Dear Secretary Chiavetta, Please find attached for filing the Reply Comments of the Tenant Union Representative Network and Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia in the above-captioned Service. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, o 3D m c_ s* ro -C^ o c/*f CD. r * > * t zc 3D m:> c r\> zo m o m < m o Attorney for TURN et al Community Legal Services, Inc Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA (215) Center City Office: 1424 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA Telephone: clsphila.org North Philadelphia Law Center: 1410 West Erie Ave. I Philadelphia, PA j Telephone:

2 PECO ENERGY COMPANY S PILOT PLAN FOR AN ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 52 PA. CODE Docket No. P AND PECO ENERGY COMPANY S PETITION FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF PORTIONS OF THE COMMISSION S REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT PLAN JAN PA PUBLIC U 11'-.; 1! StCKt TA-.v!. J REPLY COMMENTS OF TENANT UNION REPRESENTATIVE NETWORK AND ACTION ALLIANCE OF SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA Community Legal Services, Inc. Counsel for TURN et al. Lydia R. Gottesfeld. Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) Josie B. H. Pickens, Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) Robert W. Ballenger, Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia. PA Telephone:

3 I. INTRODUCTION Tenant Union Representative Network and Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia (collectively TURN et al ), through counsel Community Legal Services, Inc., hereby submit these Reply Comments to PECO Energy Company's ( PECO ) Pilot Plan for an Advance Payments Program and Petition for Temporary Waiver of Portions of the Commission s Regulations with Respect to That Plan ( Pilot Plan and Petition ). In response to the Commission s Secretarial Letter dated October 28, 2016, which permitted interested parties to submit comments, TURN et al. submitted comments on December 15, Initial comments were also filed by AARP Pennsylvania, the Aids Law Project of Pennsylvania, the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement, CAUSE-PA, the Clean Air Counsel, Direct Energy, Duquesne Light Company, Earth Quaker Action Team, Montgomery County Community Action Development Commission (CADCOM), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Neighborhood Energy Centers, NRG Energy, Inc., the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), the Philadelphia Workers Benefit Counsel, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, and the Retail Energy Supplier Association (RESA). PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition has gained much attention in Pennsylvania. Eighteen groups filed comments in addition to several community groups who signed on together to a joint letter. Of the comments submitted, there was overwhelming opposition to PECO s proposal. The only groups who wrote in support of prepayment programs are those suppliers and utilities who potentially seek to implement advance payments programs themselves. Every community, consumer, and environmental group voiced concern about the potential harm to consumers and the lack of information contained in the petition. TURN et al. strongly oppose PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition for the reasons stated in its initial comments. These reply 1

4 comments focus on claims made in comments submitted by the Electric Generation Suppliers and other Public Utilities. II. REFERRAL TO THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE As a preliminary matter, TURN et al note the posture of this proceeding has changed since submission of initial comments. Prior to submitting initial comments. CAUSE-PA, OCA, and TURN et al. each submitted an Answer and Motion to Intervene in response to PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition requesting that the matter be referred to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for consideration through a litigated proceeding. On December 16, 2016, the Commission issued notice of a Pre-Hearing Conference scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2017 at 1:30 PM presided over by Administrative Law Judge Angela T. Jones. PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition will be reviewed through a litigated proceeding with parties presenting evidence in support of their arguments. TURN et al. provides these reply comments to respond to specific arguments made in the initial round of comments, but submits that the PUC s ultimate decision must be based on the evidence adduced in the on-the-record proceeding concerning PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition. III. ELECTRIC GENERATION SUPPLIERS POSITION In response to PECO s Petition, several Electric Generation Suppliers ( EGSs ) filed comments, including Direct Energy, NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), and RESA (an association representing various EGSs in Pennsylvania). All three groups raised similar claims that warrant response. First, the EGSs argue without evidence or support that prepay electric service is a beneficial service that should be provided directly by the EGSs. RESA states that the success 2

5 of prepay is undeniable 1; NRG lists benefits of prepay such as consumer s ability to manage consumption and bring down costs2; Direct Energy describes prepay as an innovative product that should be provided by EGSs.3 However, none of the EGSs provide data or evidence of existing prepay plans successes. Like PECO, the EGSs discuss potential benefits in broad terms such as managing energy consumption and reducing costs; however, they too lack support to bolster their claims. Further, these espoused benefits could be provided without prepay service and without sacrificing essential consumer protections. TURN et al. submit that these claims should be disregarded and the Commission should look to the evidence provided in the upcoming administrative hearing process to make a determination about whether there would be any benefit to prepay electric service in Pennsylvania.4 EGSs should not be able to provide prepay service in Pennsylvania because it is harmful to vulnerable customers and eliminates important consumer protections. The EGSs argue that prepay electric is a competitive market service product that should be delivered by them, rather than the Electric Distribution Companies such as PECO.5 In support of their arguments, the EGSs reference high satisfaction and a growing market for prepay service provided in Texas, among other places.6 However, TURN et al. submit that comparing the Pennsylvania energy market to that of Texas may be inappropriate and unhelpful. Unlike Pennsylvania, which has strong consumer protections, Texas is a largely deregulated energy market.7 Allowing EGSs to 1 Comments of the Retail Energy' Supply Association to PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan and Petition, P (December ) at 2 (hereinafter ; RESA Comments"). 2 Comments of NRG Energy, Inc. to PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan and Petition, P (December 15, 2016) at 8 (hereinafter "NRG Comments ). 1 Comments of Direct Energy to PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan and Petition. P (December 15, 2016) at 3 (hereinafter "Direct Energy Comments ). 4 None of the EGSs have yet entered their appearance in the administrative hearing proceeding. 5 See RESA Comments at 1; NRG Comments at 2; Direct Energy at See RESA Comments at 2-3: NRG Comments at 7-8; Direct Energy Comments at 2. 7 See Nat l Consumer Law Center, Rethinking Prepaid Utility Service: Customers at Risk 17 (June 2012), available at 3

6 provide prepay service would be as harmful, if not more harmful, than allowing PECO do to it. Prepay programs attract low-income and payment troubled customers. These are the customers who benefit the most from Pennsylvania s strong consumer protections and their right to those protections must be maintained. Allowing either EGSs or EDCs to offer products such as prepaid electricity will take Pennsylvania backward from the significant progress it has made in protecting vulnerable consumers health and safety. Finally, RESA, NRG, and Direct Energy all suggest that the Commission re-focus this proceeding to create a more competitive market where EGSs can provide prepay service.* 9 This suggestion is misplaced and inappropriate. TURN et al. submit that any review of whether EGCs can provide prepay electric service or other service products directly to customers is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The EGSs raised issues that involve different facts and arguments than currently at issue and should not be addressed in this proceeding. IV. PUBLIC UTILITIES'POSITION PPL Electric Utility Corporation (PPL) and Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne) filed comments in support of PECO's Petition. PPL and Duquesne both expressed support for PECO s Petition because it would be useful for other utilities in the future who may want to implement similar programs.10 Additionally, like the EGSs and PECO, PPL and Duquesne extolled the benefits of a prepay service without providing any data or evidence to support their aid_utility.pdf. * Many existing advance payments programs are most popular among low-income customers. For example, Arizona s Salt River Project has seen a decline income among participants. As of 2010, the median income was below the poverty line and over 82% of participants had income below $30,000. See Nat'l Consumer Law Center, Rethinking Prepaid Utility Service: Customers at Risk 18 (June 2012), available at energy _utility_telecom/consumcr_protection_and_reguiatory_issues/report_prepaid_uti lity.pdf. 9 See RESA Comments at 11; NRG Comments at 10; Direct Energy Comments at Comments of Duquesne Light Company to PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan and Petition, P (December 15, 2016) at 3 (hereinafter "Duquesne Comments- ); Comments of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation to PECO Energy Company s Pilot Plan and Petition, P (December 15, 2016) at 2 (hereinafter "PPL Comments "). 4

7 claims.11 TURN et al. urge the Commission to disregard PPL and Duquesne s claims that these programs are beneficial and instead review any theoretical benefit against the multitude of known risks to customers posed by prepaid electricity during the administrative hearing process based on the evidence presented. Further, whether other utilities may be able to learn from PECO s Pilot is secondary to the issues raised in TURN et al, the OCA, CAUSE-PA, and other groups comments as to whether the Pilot Plan and Petition complies with current law and is in the public interest. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in these Reply Comments and in its initial Comments, TURN et al. urge the Commission to reject PECO s Pilot Plan and Petition in its entirety. Because this matter has been referred to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for a litigated proceeding, TURN et al. submit that the Commission must make its determination based on the evidence presented through that proceeding. Respectfully Submitted, Lydia R. Gottesfeld, Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) Josie B. H. Pickens, Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) Robert W. Ballenger, Esquire (Attorney ID. No ) Counsel for TURN et al. Community Legal Services, Inc Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA Igottesfeldfgclsphila.org ipickens@clsphila.org rballenger@clsphila.org Dated: January 13,2017 (215) See Duquesne Comments at 3 (specifically mentioning better customer experience and energy usage reduction); PPL Comments at 2. 5

8 PECO ENERGY COMPANY S PILOT PLAN FOR AN ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 52 PA. CODE Docket No. P AND PECO ENERGY COMPANY S PETITION FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF PORTIONS OF THE COMMISSION S REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT PLAN Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I have this day served copies of the Comments of Tenant Union Representative Network and Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, via first class mail and , on: Tanya McCloskey Acting Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 555 Walnut Street, 5th Floor Forum Place Harrisburg, PA Elizabeth Triscari Office of Small Business Advocate Commerce Building, Suite North Second Street Harrisburg, PA JAN PA PUBLIC UTILITY COTiMiSSIOIM SECRETARY'S BUREAU Richard Kanaskie, Director and Chief Prosecutor Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Penn Center, 2601 N. 3rd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110

9 Joline Price, Esq. Patrick Cicero, Esq. Pennsylvania Utility Law Project 118 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA Daniel Clearfield, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA Ward Smith, Esq. Assistant General Counsel PECO Energy Company 2301 Market Street P.O. Box 8699 Philadelphia, PA Respectfully submitted, Attorney for TURN et al. Community Legal Services, Inc West Erie Avenue Philadelphia, PA (215) January 13, 2017

10 Community Legal Services OF PHILADELPHIA 1424 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. PA Hasler 01/17/2017 mslggsirfo S'E] $ ZIP 1S Dl Richard Kanaskie, Director and Chief Prosecutor Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Penn Center, 2601 N. 3rd Street Harrisburg, PA T* 1 i 0S2046 COSO