[48 Pa.B. 2034]
[Saturday, April 7, 2018]
[Continued from previous Web Page] 2. CARES
Program Design
OCA proposes that the CARES program be expanded and better coordinated with community based organizations (CBOs). Utilities should refer customers to CARES after the first missed CAP payment. Utilities should have dedicated social worker staff for its CARES program. Utilities should also consider:
1. Trained, specialized staff to address the unique needs of low-income customers
2. Implementation of an ''early identification program'' (EIP) and
3. Creation of a process of special ''skills-based routing'' for low-income customers
4. Identify and track the referral outcomes (i.e., in terms of payment enrollments) for case management recipients; and
5. Track the utility bill, payment and arrearage outcomes associated with the CARES case management component.
OCA Comments at 56—58.
The Low Income Advocates support OCA's proposal to adopt an EIP and specialized skills training, which would train utility frontline staff to recognize likely indicators of financial hardship to facilitate an appropriate referral to the utility's universal service programs or to a specialized CARES staff person capable of assisting customers with unique hardships. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 32.
PGW notes that referring a customer to CARES with the first missed CAP payment would place additional strain on customer service reps. It recommends CARES exist mainly as a referral program unless a utility voluntarily elects otherwise. PGW recommends that this issue be addressed through a stakeholder working group. PGW Reply Comments at 17-18.
The Low Income Advocates maintain that referrals are part of CARES but not the only service provided. Case management services should remain a primary focal point of CARES to ensure the uniquely vulnerable households receive necessary services and benefits to maintain utility service. Low Income Advocate Reply Comments at 32.
The United Way notes the Commission designated use of the 2-1-1 number as a social service referral network. PA 2-1-1 has trained social workers connecting people to the resources they need. It is an all-in-one referral agency and has referral database of 11,000 agencies. Some customers are afraid to call utilities about termination of service and PA 2-1-1 fills that gap. The agency spends $3 million per year and would like utilities to use its services and contribute 5% of utility universal service budgets to support PA 2-1-1's work with utility customers. United Way Comments at 10.
PNG makes PA 2-1-1 referrals, stating that customers with utility problems normally have other problems. In addition to PNG' two social workers on staff, it provides training support for PA 2-1-1 phone agents. SM.
EAP opposes any suggestion to mandate funding of PA 2-1-1 with universal service program dollars, particularly as PA 2-1-1 does not operate in all areas of the Commonwealth. EAP Reply Comments at 11.
FirstEnergy opposes the use of ratepayer dollars to fund a third-party organization, such as PA 2-1-1; the funding of PA 2-1-1 would represent a duplicative use of ratepayer dollars for the same services. PA 2-1-1 is not available in all counties served by the jurisdictional utilities. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 23.
Columbia states PA 2-1-1 services are not available across all of Columbia's service territory and is not in favor of substantially funding it. Columbia Reply Comments at 10.
UGI notes that United Way does not administer the PA 2-1-1 program in many parts of its service territory. Such partnerships should be left to the utility's discretion. UGI Reply Comments at 6.
OCA reports it is unaware of any other state where utilities provide contributions to PA 2-1-1 with funds collected from ratepayers through utility rates. PA 2-1-1 services extend beyond utility services, and utility ratepayer dollars should not be used to address non-utility related issues. OCA Reply Comments at 42.
In reply comments, United Way clarifies its initial request: United Way and PA 2-1-1 respectfully requests that utilities be permitted to invest a portion of their universal service dollars to PA 2-1-1 services. Specifically, it suggests ''that up to 5% of a utility's universal service dollars may be directed for use by PA 2-1-1 to support the work [PA 2-1-1 does] with utility customers if the utility determines that such a partnership will allow them to assist financially struggling utility customers more effectively and efficiently.'' United Way Reply Comments at 1.
The Low Income Advocates state that United Way's request for 5% of universal service costs—or approximately $20.9 million—would not only fully eclipse CARES services, it would also subsume nearly half of the aggregate LIURP budget. The Low Income Advocates strongly oppose any determination in this proceeding that one entity, i.e., PA 2-1-1, should be singled out for special treatment and provided with a percentage of total costs. This is particularly true without first determining that PA 2-1-1 actually contributes to energy affordability or enrollment in utility assistance programs. Low Income Advocate Reply Comments at 31-32.
DLC prefers that universal service money remain with EDCs, as currently its CARES program is the most cost effective of its four universal service programs. DLC Reply Comments at 9, 25.
Staffing and Training
The Low Income Advocates proposes dedicated social work staff for CARES. Some utilities rely on call center lists for referrals to universal service program subcontractors with little to no follow-up. CARES funding is often used to pay for general universal service expenses, when it could provide case management and cultivate relationships with a broad range of local agencies and service providers to help households establish and maintain long-term economic stability. Low Income Advocate Comments at 7, 45-46.
Columbia states that having social work training for CARES staff provides a professional service. It does allow for longer call center call times for some CARES referrals. SM. Columbia employs two social service professionals who perform a myriad of services to customers. It is not able to segment the costs of outreach for CARES. Columbia spends $45,000 in outreach efforts for all Universal Service Programs. Columbia Reply Comments at 5-6.
OCA does not believe that utilities should be required to staff CARES with licensed social workers, but the programs would likely benefit from such staffing. OCA recommends that utilities should target those customers with very clear and significant problems for CARES services. OCA Reply Comments at 19.
EAP and PGW oppose creating a mandate for utilities to have licensed social worker staff. EAP Reply Comments at 11; PGW Reply Comments at 18.
FirstEnergy does not consider long-term management of the customer's situation to be a primary objective of CARES. Utilities are not in the business of social work and cannot offer these services cost-effectively. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 21-22.
PPL and NFG oppose the Low Income Advocates' and OCA's proposal to hire social work staff, as such staffing would add significant costs. PPL Reply Comments at 5; NFG Reply Comments at 5.
DLC's CBOs refer customers to CARES at CAP intake. It sees no need to expand staff at this time. DLC Reply Comments at 25.
PNG promotes use of CBOs to determine eligibility for multiple programs across utilities. PNG Comments at 10.
OCA and the Low Income Advocates propose that EDCs and NGDCs share CARES best practices in advisory and stakeholder groups. OCA Comments at 40—43 and SM.
Tracking Outcomes
OCA suggests creation of a process of special ''skills-based routing'' for low-income customers to (a) identify and track the referral outcomes (in terms of payment enrollments) for case management recipients, and (b) track the utility bill, payment and arrearage outcomes associated with the CARES case management component. OCA Comments at 56—58.
PECO would support tracking outcomes for CARES referrals but would be concerned about costs. SM.
UGI states its customer service group does struggle with this. Tracking outcomes would require program upgrades, and cost is also a question. SM.
EAP agrees that cost is a question and that tracking would be labor intensive as it may need to be done manually. SM.
Columbia has tried to track CARES as short term CRISIS management but found it difficult to do. SM.
United Way agrees tracking is difficult, but it did learn that by texting customers to determine outcomes, it received a much higher customer response rate than follow-up phone calls yielded. SM.
DLC maintains that CARES tracking beyond what's done now is not necessary. DLC Reply Comments at 26.
EAP states utilities cannot track outcomes for CARES but notes that they do report on energy assistance funds received by CARES participants through LIHEAP, Hardship Funds, and third parties in the Universal Services Report. EAP Reply Comments at 11-12.
PGW does not support using ratepayer funds to track referral outcomes. CARES is a short-term, crisis program, which does not always help with long term utility bill payments. PGW Reply Comments at 19.
PNG questions the viability of tracking referral outcomes due to privacy concerns and the staff time needed for updates. CARES information is already part of the Universal Service Report. PNG Reply Comments at 6-7.
PPL opposes OCA's recommendation to track outcomes, as it would be labor intensive, costly and possibly conflict with privacy policies. PPL Reply Comments at 5.
Columbia disagrees with OCA's recommendation to identify and track referral outcomes. Columbia does track and report payments on, and grants to, customer accounts. Additional non-payment assistance should not be tracked as it would overburden CARES representatives and create privacy concerns. Columbia Reply Comments at 6-7.
NFG submits outcome tracking would be inappropriate as it is outside the utilities' duties and would be functionally difficult to accomplish accurately and efficiently. NFG Reply Comments at 5.
3. Hardship Funds
Eligibility
OCA and the Low Income Advocates made several similar recommendations:
1. A CBO should not dictate eligibility requirements of a universal service program such as: recent payments, CAP enrollment, or providing SSNs. Outsourcing Hardship Fund administration to a third party should not hamper the Commission's oversight authority. OCA Comments at 50; Low Income Advocate Comments at 46.
2. Customer auto-pay and e-bill systems do not allow easy donations to Hardship Fund programs. Utilities should provide simple check-off options. OCA Comments at 52; Low Income Advocate Comments at 50.
3. Hardship Fund grants should be available to CAP participants even if the grant does not eliminate all arrears. OCA Comments at 49; Low Income Advocate at SM.
PNG agrees CAP customers should be eligible for Hardship Fund grants. SM.
DLC does not deny Hardship Fund eligibility when the grant amount does not eliminate all arrears and allows CAP customers to qualify for a grant. DLC Reply Comments at 26-27.
Columbia maintains it should be up to the utility's discretion whether CAP recipients should be eligible for hardship grants. Columbia states that CAP customers already receive other substantial discounts and it uses Hardship Fund grants to assist those who just need a little more help than just LIHEAP. Columbia Reply Comments at 7-8.
FirstEnergy maintains that a Hardship Fund recipient should have a good payment history leading up to the hardship; however, FirstEnergy is in the process of evaluating whether a different payment amount or timeframe for prior payments would be appropriate in the determination of Hardship Fund eligibility. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 20-21.
Funding
The Low Income Advocates state there is increased need for Hardship funds as they periodically run out. The Commission should issue concise regulations, preventing later challenges, assigning pipeline credits, pro hac vice fees, and operation and maintenance expense reductions, fines, settlements, and terms of mergers and acquisitions to fund Hardship Fund programs. They also suggested raising funds from customers by allowing them to round up bill payment amounts, or add $1.00. Low Income Advocate Comments at 49.
Columbia does have an e-bill button for customers to add a Hardship Fund donation. SM.
OCA submits that the Commission could require a Hardship Fund fundraising component. OCA Comments at 50—52. OCA does not support funding through base rates. It supports allocation of refunds, such as pipeline refunds, towards Hardship Fund programs, but believes there may be legal issues with funding through fines/contributions. SM; OCA Reply Comments at 11.
EAP, FirstEnergy, and DLC oppose the use of rate base dollars to fund Hardship Fund grants. EAP Reply Comments at 10; FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 20-21; DLC Reply Comments at 27.
OCA submits that the Hardship Fund is ultimately a voluntary charitable donation, and it is a long-held principle of ratemaking that charitable donations may not be recovered through rates. Instead of requiring a minimum threshold, the OCA recommends that utilities should be required to drive the fundraising efforts. OCA Comments at 50-51.
Conversely, Columbia would prefer the Commission allow Hardship Fund grants cost recovery through base rates. Even though it has increased fundraising activities, associated costs continue to increase, and donations continue to decrease. Columbia Comments at 13.
PGW supports recovery of Hardship Funds through the Universal Service surcharge or base rates. PGW Reply Comments at 20.
PPL states that although the information technology (IT) cost of implementing rounding up bill payments by $1, $5, or $10 could be substantial, it could pay for itself. Recent changes to its annual golf tournament, mirroring PECO's, expanded participation, and both utilities now raise over $50K each. PPL made adjustments to the timing of its employee donation period in an attempt to increase funds. SM.
United Way stated that funding for Universal Service programs varies statewide. PA 2-1-1 is a single entity to make the entire process as efficient as possible. SM.
ECA asserts that funding is inefficient and the process should be better coordinated. SM.
PGW comments that the City of Philadelphia funds the Utility Emergency Services Fund (USEF) which gives grant money to PGW customers. PGW matches USEF grants with ratepayer funds. The USEF would need to agree to any mandated changes to the Hardship Fund program for this partnership to continue. PGW Reply Comments at 19.
Within cost reasonableness, PGW supports enabling electronically billed customers to contribute to Hardship Funds and increasing program advertising. PGW Reply Comments at 20. PGW prefers the flexibility it has with its USEF program. SM.
WCC urges more advertising to increase Hardship Fund donations. WCC Comments at 5.
PPL disagrees with OCA's suggestion that the Commission needs to direct utilities to engage in or use specific marketing to promote donations to Hardship Funds. PPL Reply Comments at 4.
OCA recommends that the CAP Policy Statement should, at a minimum, provide that companies include a monthly option for customers to donate to the Hardship Fund, with attention to electronic donation capability. EDCs and NGDCs should also consider holding fundraising events and redouble efforts to encourage ratepayer, employee, community, and shareholder contributions. OCA Reply Comments at 11.
NFG continuously strives to expand voluntary contributions to its Hardship Fund and is considering methods to make it easier to donate online. NFG Reply Comments at 5.
EAP agrees that voluntary improvements would increase contributions, such as e-bill and automatic withdrawal payment methods. EAP opposes a mandate for funding changes. EAP Reply Comments at 10.
4. Universal Services Program Design
Statewide Approach—Allow Flexibility vs. Consistency Statewide
PGW comments that the Commission could develop statewide guidelines for universal programs. Utilities would report the costs of running these programs, and the Commission could determine the amount to charge all non-participating customers. A statewide administrator would collect and disburse funds to the utilities for the individual program costs. The Commission's Telecommunications Universal Service Fund (USF) could serve as a template for this model. PGW Comments at 6-7. PGW notes its concerns that differences in housing stock, population age, urban vs. rural areas, and concentration of poverty among utilities could have different cost effects. SM.
PECO has no stance on a statewide program other than if the state ran an income verification program, there could still be flexibility. SM.
The Low Income Advocates support a statewide program and encourage a continuing collaborative. They foresee benefits in areas such as decoupling of costs and collection, streamlined program intake, enrollment, rates, program rules, and referrals. A statewide program would simplify program messaging for outreach, education, and training. CBOs could still be the entry point, providing more consistency and avoiding duplication of costs. Resulting higher universal service enrollment will reduce uncollectible expenses, improve low income families' quality of life, and promote public health, welfare, and safety for the broader community. SM. A consolidated statewide delivery model would ensure universally available and cost-efficient universal service and energy conservation programming, co-administered at the State level, including CAP applications coordinated with a LIURP audit and services. Enrollment in an EDC's CAP should trigger enrollment in the NGDC's CAP and vice versa. The Commission should require a common application form to standardize eligibility, benefits, terms, and conditions across utility service territories. Low Income Advocate Comments at 40-41. The Commission should look to other states that have statewide programs. SM. The Low Income Advocates urge the Commission to either establish a bureau to administer and oversee implementation of a centralized universal service program or contract with a third party to administer a consolidated statewide program. Centralized delivery could continue to promote the use of CBOs to provide in-person intake options, local program outreach, and the delivery of coordinated LIURP services. Low Income Advocates Comments at 67-68.
CLS agrees that statewide programming is necessary, and that PUC jurisdiction is broad, so this could be achieved. SM.
ECA sees a benefit to statewide administration through consistency in applications and income verification. SM.
Columbia sees opportunities for statewide application and income verification but supports flexibility. SM.
UGI questions how a statewide program would work: who would manage it, would it require more utility funding, and would it require staff layoffs. UGI is not convinced it would reduce program costs. The consolidated nature of the four UGI companies' USECPs allows for efficient management of each company's program. SM. UGI Comments at 2-3.
NFG states that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate as universal service programs require flexibility to address the needs of customers living in a specific service territory. There are many differing characteristics of residential housing stock, quality of appliances, usage rates, payment histories, cost of living, and poverty levels. Universal service programs are not intended to provide all resources that low-income homes may need. NFG Comments at 11-12.
PNG notes it is important not to lose sight of differences present in the utility programs across this large and geographically, as well as economically diverse, Commonwealth. It is diverse in terms of population, income levels, age of housing structures, age of residents, and availability of assistance. This impacts the manner in which a utility develops, funds, and delivers its USECP program. PNG opposes a single design for USECP programs across the Commonwealth. Any reworking of the regulations should continue to provide flexibility to the utilities to operate a program based on the needs of the citizens within its territory. PNG Comments at 9.
EAP questions whether any other state has changed from utility-run programs to a statewide model, noting that this would be challenging. SM. EAP opposes mandating uniformity in statewide USECPs. EAP Reply Comments at 5.
The Low Income Advocates assert that a statewide approach to program administration can be structured through either a uniform system benefit charge or statewide program administration. Each utility can set a budget, allocate costs, and account for expenditures based on the actual costs of service for its own customer population. The design and administration of the programs should be consistent across the state to ensure that all low-income Pennsylvanians have access to equally affordable utility service. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 17-18.
DLC opposes a statewide administration of universal service programs which would ignore individual design features and lack flexibility. However, it would support the development of a statewide application form as a first step in creating a database to enable all utilities to confirm customer eligibility for programs. DLC is willing to participate in a collaborative to discuss these issues further. DLC Reply Comments at 10-11.
PGW supports a statewide application form for all programs. PGW Reply Comments at 20. PGW advocates that the Commission examine the use of a statewide program including administration and funding so no service territory is overburdened with Universal Service costs. The Commission could establish a uniform benefit for low-income customers based on an acceptable energy burden level. A fund, administered on a statewide basis by the Commission or an outside vendor, could collect from all PA EDCs and NGDCs. The precedent for such a fund is the statewide electric choice education program that collected funds through a Competitive Transition Charge, assessed on all consumers, established in 1998. In 2007, the Commission initiated a statewide consumer education campaign funded by allocating $5 million from assessments to EDCs to the Commission. PGW Reply Comments at 9.
OCA recommends that a statewide administrator: (1) be a private entity, and (2) hold funding collected in support of universal service programs in trust for low-income ratepayers. OCA Reply Comments at 16.
Columbia disagrees with using a statewide administrator. It would be cost prohibitive and unnecessary to dismantle all individually improved and fine-tuned existing programs. Columbia Reply Comments at 10.
PECO comments that the Commission should carefully consider the costs of transitioning to statewide administration of universal service programs and weigh the customer benefits against the transition's substantial costs. PECO Reply Comments at 7.
FirstEnergy asserts that a single agency administering a CAP on a statewide basis would allow for better coordination among assistance programs and create cost efficiencies. FirstEnergy already took a step towards uniformity by engaging DEF as the USECP administrator for its four jurisdictional EDCs. A single administrator allows for better coordination and a more streamlined data exchange between the Companies and the USECP administrator. While CBOs are an important resource within the communities for providing assistance to those with financial or personal hardships, the involvement of multiple parties in the CAP application process can lead to increased inefficiency in the administration of the program. FirstEnergy recommends a CAP model that uses a central administrator due to the efficiencies and coordination opportunities such an arrangement creates. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 12-13.
The Industrial Customers state that PULP's proposal for a statewide administrator invites a vast degree of waste and inefficiency into the process as bureaucratic programs are frequently rife with inefficiency and waste, citing PA's Energy Efficiency and Conservation program (Act 129). Joint Reply Comments of Industrial Customers at 18-19.
PGW supports permitting flexibility in utility program design absent statewide funding and administration. PGW Reply Comments at 20-21.
CEO Luzerne, CEO Hazelton, CEO Wyoming, the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) of Northeast Pennsylvania, and the PA Weatherization Providers Task Force recommend continued use of CBOs to administer Universal Service and Energy Conservation programs. CEO Luzerne Reply Comments at 1, CEO Hazelton Reply Comments at 1, CEO of Wyoming Reply Comments at 1, HDC Reply Comments at 1; and PA Weatherization Providers Task Force Reply Comments at 1.
The Housing Authority of Beaver County asks the Commission to consider requiring the energy utilities to prioritize the use of CBOs weatherization network. Housing Authority of Beaver County Reply Comments at 1.
The Wyoming County Commission on Economic Opportunity finds it imperative to maintain use of CBOs to administer Universal Service and Energy Conservation Programs. Wyoming County Commission on Economic Opportunity Reply Comments at 1.
The Commission on Economic Opportunity supports the OCA's recommendation to increase use of CBOs in outreach and intake initiatives for CAP. CEO Reply Comments at 2.
PGW does not rely on CBOs in the same manner as many other utilities.10 For assistance with utility bills, PGW customers contact the utility. PGW Reply Comments at 18.
PNG supports either information sharing for customer enrollment and a statewide application or an information warehouse to facilitate a streamlined enrollment process for low-income customers. Similar eligibility requirements and guidelines for documentation can provide a simpler process, increased access and a holistic approach for household needs. An organization such as PA 2-1-1 could refer customers for program enrollment and provide pre-screening for eligibility, sharing financial information with customer consent, and warm transfers to utility customer service centers for seamless enrollment. PNG Reply Comments at 7-8.
PECO recommends that the Commission defer substantive changes to USECP requirements until the energy burden investigation is complete. PECO Reply Comments at 3. However, it also notes that process oriented changes, such as a common application form, USECP reporting requirements, and data sharing, need not be deferred and could be explored by a stakeholder work group. PECO Reply Comments at 5.
The Low Income Advocates assert that the full portfolio of universal service programs should be made available to Pennsylvania water and wastewater consumers to ensure that water—an essential ingredient to life—remain affordable and accessible to all Pennsylvanians, regardless of income. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 33.
Needs Assessment
OCA has found that utilities have defined ''confirmed low-income'' customers in many different ways. OCA recommends that the definition should be interpreted broadly, including whether customers report they are low-income (self-declaration). OCA Comments at 59-60. The OCA recommends that the time-period for which that designation applies to the customer should be longer than a year. OCA Comments at 60.
PECO does not count customers as confirmed low income if they self-declare. SM.
Columbia counts customers as confirmed low-income if they self-declare, are reported as having ''level 1'' income by BCS, or have otherwise documented that they are low-income (e.g., receive a LIHEAP grant). Income data for confirmed low-income customers can be older than 10 years. It is not clear when a utility must re-verify that a customer is still low-income. SM.
PULP agrees with Columbia that there is a need for standardization for identifying confirmed low-income customers. Some utilities will not count a customer as confirmed low-income if documentation is older than one year. SM
EAP comments that the Commission should reevaluate the definition of ''confirmed low income''. Self-certification should not be counted. EAP agrees that when customers in CAP receive an income-qualified benefit, they can remain confirmed longer than one year. EAP recommends further discussion. EAP Reply Comments at 12-13.
FirstEnergy states that the definition for ''confirmed low income'' should not apply to customers who claim to be low-income without providing corroborating information. Utilities should also have the means to request written documentation confirming that the income levels for the household are correct. Consistent with these recommendations, FirstEnergy proposes the following modifying the definition of ''confirmed low income'' to include only ''[a]ccounts where the EDC has obtained specific information that would reasonably place the account in a low-income designation, including household member names and ages, household size, household income by household member, and sources of income, which may be verified by the EDC through written documentation. Income information is valid for at least twelve months after it is confirmed by the EDC.'' FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 30.
PGW allows self-declaration of income and uses data from the two prior years. Census data is not as current as a utility's current customer's records. PGW Reply Comments at 21. PGW states if the needs assessment is to set appropriate budgets for universal service programs, no useful purpose is served by counting anyone who is not actually eligible and/or not likely to need or accept the services. Using a needs assessment to set a budget for PGW, with the highest percentage of confirmed low income customers in the Commonwealth, could result in an outsized impact for non-CAP ratepayers. PGW Reply Comments at 22.
The Low Income Advocates assert that restricting confirmed low-income customer counts to only those who have recently participated in a universal service program wrongfully excludes large swaths of the low income population from a utility's needs assessment and skews the overall assessment of need. The Low Income Advocates urge the Commission to adopt clear and inclusive guidelines for utilities to more accurately assess the adequacy of services for the low-income population. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 25-26.
EAP asserts that census data do not provide an accurate count of ''estimated low-income'' customers in a service territory. The process and criteria should be updated and standardized. Any proposed regulations should clarify the purpose, as it should not be the sole determinant of a utility's LIURP jobs, which could overburden the ratepayers of utilities with a high percentage of low-income customers. EAP supports needs assessment tests or tools that allow for flexibility to be reflective of the differences in service territories, income levels, and housing stock. EAP Comments at 6, 14. EAP also noted that some low-income customers do not want or need universal service programs. SM.
NFG has concerns with using census data to determine estimated low-income customers as many households in its service territory use propane for heating, not gas; most of its low-income customers are rural, which makes it difficult to balance need with ratepayer burden. SM.
The Low Income Advocates strongly assert that a ''cost-benefit analysis'' is an improper means to assess the universal services program need. The intent of the General Assembly was to ensure that PA's low-income families can afford to bring light and heat to their homes. The General Assembly charged the Commission with ensuring that universal service programs are adequately funded, cost-effective and available to those in need. The Low Income Advocates maintain that census data provide a good and universally accepted proxy for conducting an assessment of potential need and should continue to be used in assessing the full potential for program enrollment. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 23-24.
OCA recommends that the Commission develop a collaborative to discuss the best practices regarding the data sought to be included in a needs assessment, the appropriate use of the census data and the databases that are the most useful to capture the needed data. There may also be a need to collaboratively map the Public Use Micro-data Areas (PUMAs). This will allow the stakeholders to overlay the utility service territories on top of the census data in order to appropriately apply the census data to an individual service territory. OCA Reply Comments at 12-13.
DLC supports using census information and suggests other helpful data sources (e.g., families receiving free lunches, participants at food banks, and low-income housing). DLC would participate in a collaborative to address this issue. DLC Reply Comments at 11-12.
The Low Income Advocates note that low-income customers who reside in master-metered multifamily homes are not counted in a needs assessment proportionate to the number of residential accounts because they are not residential accounts. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 21-22.
PA-EEFA comments that a LIURP needs assessment should be fuel-neutral and be based on a realistic timeframe such as 10—12 years. All utility service territories and geographic regions should assess need universally but with allowances within a service territory for labor, housing types, heating/non-heating, budget adjustments, etc. PA-EEFA Comments at 3-4.
Cost Recovery
Industrial Customers want cost recovery for Universal Service Programs from only residential ratepayers as service programs such as CAP and LIURP are made available only to residential customers. Large commercial and industrial organizations neither benefit from nor are eligible for these programs. Principles of cost causation dictate that costs should be attributed to the customers causing costs to be incurred. The Industrials note that states which spread the cost of low-income programs across all ratepayers do have exemptions and nuances regarding surcharges. Joint Comments of Industrial Customers at 2 and SM.
OCA stresses that Universal Service is for the public good. The literal interpretation of the cost causation argument (i.e., only ratepayers that benefit should pay for the program) would have only low-income customers support the cost of these universal service programs since they are the only customers that can participate. Societal poverty causes the cost, not all or only residential customers. Most states fund low-income energy programs through a system benefits charge that is passed to all ratepayers. CAP credits recovered through the universal service surcharge should be subtracted from base rates. Universal service programs are a public good in Pennsylvania that should be funded by all classes of ratepayers. The whole community benefits from universal service programs because providing affordable home energy addresses public health and safety costs that are borne by all taxpayers (e.g., homelessness). Businesses benefit from these programs because the programs provide help to low-wage employees and low-income customers. Small businesses require low wages employees to survive, but low wages also create a situation where the employees may need help to afford utility service. OCA Comments at 36—40, Appendix A, Colton White Paper at 11—20.
The Low Income Advocates state that, to their knowledge, Pennsylvania is the only state to establish a policy generally limiting cost recovery of universal service programs to the residential class. The Low Income Advocates cite 66 Pa.C.S. § 2206, the Gas Choice Act, which specifically prohibits recovery from the industrial customer for costs related to consumer education. However, there is no such restriction for cross class recovery for other universal service costs in the Gas Choice Act and no restrictions in the Electric Choice Act. The Low Income Advocates note the PUC has ample authority to approve cross-class recovery in its specific mandate to ensure that universal service programs are appropriately funded. Noting the public purpose goals of the Electric and Gas Choice Acts, the toll of poverty, and the consequences of unaffordable utility service, the Low Income Advocates state the safety of the community at large is improved by affordable utility service. Universal Service is the responsibility of all individuals and entities which benefit—either directly or indirectly—from the provision of universal service. Low Income Advocate Comments at 52, 55 and 59.
The Low Income Advocates recommend the Commission institute a uniform system benefit charge across utilities and customer classes. The system benefit charge could provide the greatest flexibility in terms of contracting for services and delivering benefits across utility service territories. It would also provide a consistent and understandable mechanism to recover program costs. Alternately, if the Commission continues to allow recovery through universal service riders, the Low Income Advocates urge the Commission to set forth guidance regarding an appropriate allocation of costs among rate classes. Low Income Advocate Comments at 51-52.
The Industrial Customers assert that utility service is not a 'public good.' They maintain that social policy ratemaking is a faulty approach that will erode time-tested, objective methods of utility ratemaking. A total assistance burden of $360 million is an enormous one to add to the non-residential classes who are ineligible to participate in the CAP programs in Pennsylvania. Joint Reply Comments of Industrial Customers at 14, 16, 17-18.
The PA Depts. of Aging, DCED, DEP, DOH, DHS jointly recommend that the Commission expand recovery of universal service costs to other rate classes to allow for increased efficacy of the programs while avoiding the need for rate increases within a single rate class. Eleven other states authorize cross-class cost recovery, including OH, NJ, MD, and NY. Universal Service programs legally establish an obligation on public utilities. All utility customers should owe support, and non-residential classes do benefit as a whole. Joint Comments of PA Depts. of Aging, DCED, DEP, DOH, DHS at 3.
PGW, which as a city natural gas distribution company does not have stockholders, collects universal service costs from all ratepayers. All non-residential customers indirectly benefit from keeping the residents of the City of Philadelphia in their homes. Without residents living in the City, Philadelphia businesses may lose their workforce. People living and working in the City help businesses avoid financial losses, increase employee productivity, and retain viable consumers. As part of its current base rate case at Docket No. R-2017-2586783, PGW proposes to continue this allocation. PGW Reply Comments at 23.
The Low Income Advocates note the Choice Acts mandate that full and non-bypassable cost recovery be required to ensure universal service programs are appropriately funded and cost-effective across the Commonwealth. 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2203(6), 2802(17), 2804(9). Given the statutory authority of the Commission over public utilities, the Low Income Advocates find no merit to the suggestion that the Commission's obligations concerning utility affordability may be referred to another governmental body, left to the General Assembly or Federal Government, or suspended in the hopes that charities will step in to assist in effectuating the statutory promise of universal service. The Advocates assert the Commission is fully and completely capable of requiring public utilities to implement new programs, establish lower energy burdens, and coordinate practices more effectively to ensure that low-income customers can maintain essential utility service. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 11-12.
OSBA echoes all comments made by the Industrials Customers and adds that PGW's universal service costs recovered from industrial and commercial accounts is currently in litigation before the PUC.11 SM.12 OSBA cites Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 960 A.2d 189 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), in which the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission's decision with regard to allocating universal service costs solely to the residential class. OSBA Reply Comments at 3.
The Industrial Customers assert that underlying facts have not changed to justify a reversal of the 25-year Commission precedent of allocating Universal Service program costs solely to the residential class. In a 2004 PPL rate proceeding at R-00049255, the Commission found that Universal Service costs should be allocated to only residential customers and reaffirmed that position in a 2006 Final Order at Docket No. M-00051923. If the Commission makes this policy change, it should identify its reasons for doing so, including what facts or laws have changed to require a departure from established precedent. Joint Reply Comments of Industrial Customers at 4-5, 11.
The Industrial Customers state that if the Commission does reverse precedent, the only conceivable allocation that could be used is a customer or meter allocation and recovery mechanism as opposed to a per-kWh or per-Mcf basis. Joint Reply Comments of Industrial Customers at 20, FN 41.
UGI contends that Universal Service program funding should remain from the class that directly benefits. It cautions against cross-class subsidization as customer choice is not limited to residential customers. Commercial and industrial ratepayers have alternatives to natural gas for energy needs. Some have the ability to bypass the UGI distribution system and directly connect to the interstate pipeline system. Should universal service costs be passed on to them, large customers can choose to procure energy services elsewhere. UGI Reply Comments at 7; SM.
The Low Income Advocates maintain that there is insufficient information or data to support UGI's claim that universal service costs would be a driving factor in the choice of energy service providers. The Advocates assert universal service costs have not caused residential customers to switch away from natural gas. Low Income Advocates Reply Comments at 10-11.
The PA Chamber of Business and Industry (Chamber) professes that the increase in gas production volume is commensurate with decreasing PJM prices. Prolific natural gas production has resulted in significant prices decreases for gas utility customers. The Chamber contests the notion that low-income ratepayer assistance programs are in need of expanded investment financed by other rate classes. It strongly opposes proposals to expand cost recovery to all rate classes for these programs, as it would disadvantage the commercial and industrial sector. The Chambers' membership is more than 8,500 businesses of all sizes and industrial and commercial sectors. Its members require affordable, reliable, and competitively priced energy to sustain ongoing operations in the state. A rider on industrial user bills to finance universal service programs would diminish Pennsylvania' competitiveness to attract new investment into this sector, which would clearly run contrary to the Wolf administration's plain desire to attract and promote new investment in manufacturing in Pennsylvania. The Chamber states that in view of the filed comments, it is clear such changes are not needed. What is needed is more economic growth and continued support for competitive energy markets, which will expand economic opportunity and continue to drive down energy costs. PA Chamber of Business and Industry Reply Comments at 1—3.
PECO does not have a specific recommendation regarding the allocation of USECP costs among customer classes, but it offers a breakdown of cross-class allocation if a 6% energy burden would be implemented. The commercial customer class (gas and electric) would be allocated approximately $33 million (14 percent of overall revenue requirement), and the industrial customer class (gas and electric) would be allocated approximately $22 million (14.3 percent of its overall revenue requirement.) PECO Reply Comments at 6.
PGW's universal service and energy conservation surcharge does not recover lost revenues, CAP administrative costs, or hardship fund costs. Bad debt offset mechanisms in rate case proceedings further erode the ability of utilities to receive full cost recovery. PGW asks the Commission to clarify what Universal Service costs are recoverable and allow recovery without a USECP review or rate case proceeding. PGW Comments at 6.
Reporting Requirements
Columbia, DLC, FirstEnergy, PGW, PECO, and OCA see merit in developing a working group collaborative to review universal service reporting requirements for clarity and data definition consistency. Columbia Comments at 14, Duquesne Comments at 10, DLC Reply Comments at 14, FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 30, PGW Comments at 4, PECO Reply Comments at 10-11, and OCA Reply Comments at 44-45.
DLC, PGW, and ECA request that the Commission define and identify the data points required to measure the effectiveness of universal service programs. PGW Comments at 3, DLC Comments at 10, and SM.
OCA notes that much of the universal service data reported to BCS is not publicly available. OCA often requests this data through discovery in a base rate proceeding. OCA Reply Comments at 44-45.
PGW asserts that the Commission staff regularly make changes to the LIURP codebook and expect utilities to comply even if the utility does not currently collect the necessary data. PGW recommends that the Commission initiate a stakeholder process to formulate a reportable data list with a subsequent rulemaking requiring that data. It also requests sufficient time to address data request adjustments and full cost recovery for these changes. PGW Comments 3-4.
The Low Income Advocates urge the Commission to make public the universal service data initially reported by utilities (before the BCS/Penn State University validation process). They state that information about CAP payment rates, the number of full on-time payments, and the percentage of CAP bills paid by a customer are missing from the Commission's annual report but are important to assessing whether a given CAP is producing an affordable bill and whether improvements need to be made to specific processes. Data regarding service rates and outcomes for LIURP, CARES, and Hardship Fund programs are withheld from the public. The Low Income Advocates also suggest disclosing other specific data points regarding CAP recertification, maximum CAP benefit levels, CAP shopping information, program coordination among utilities, and periodic termination and reconnection information. Low Income Advocate Comments at 73-74.
PGW does not support a requirement to publicly share the data provided to the Commission. The Commission should be the data clearinghouse for reported program data. PGW Reply Comments at 25.
EAP responded that the utilities have been working to submit more accurate data. They are not opposed to making it public but need further checks/validation first. SM.
WCC requests that BCS provide reported information in a format to facilitate outside data analysis. WCC Comments at 6. DLC agrees with WCC as long as the format ensures the data's security. DLC Reply Comments at 14.
USECP Filing Timeline
EAP, DLC, PGW, FirstEnergy, and PECO all recommend changes to the USECP filing schedule:
• Every 3 years after approval of USECP. EAP Comments at 8; PGW Comments at 7.
• Every 4 or 5 years. Duquesne Comments at 8.
• Every 5 years. PGW Comments at 7-8.
• Every 5 or 6 years. PECO Comments at 17-18.
• Every 4, 5, or 6 years. EAP Comments at 9.
• Every 6 years. FirstEnergy at 8, UGI Comments at 6.
Each of the above makes similar comments such as: needing time for utilities to evaluate a USECP's effectiveness before proposing a new USECP; having flexibility in implementing pilot programs; noting that the USECP approval process is lengthy, and USECPs are sometimes delayed past the starting date; providing BCS with sufficient time for initial review prior to formal Commission action; changing a utility's almost constant state of ''planning''; allowing USECPs to be effective for a certain time period after approval before resubmitting the next proposed USECP; and reducing the Commission's workload. PGW Comments 7-8; PPL Comments at 9; PECO Comments at 17-18; FirstEnergy Comments at 8; UGI Comments at 6; Duquesne Comments at 8; DLC Reply Comments at 14; EAP Reply Comments at 12; PGW Reply Comments at 25; PECO Reply Comments at 9-10; and NFG Reply Comments at 6.
PNG does not support lengthening the period between USEC filings. It strongly supports continuing the current process with BCS leading the USECP reviews. PNG Reply Comments at 8.
EAP notes that USECP review requirements are not consistent for EDCs and NGDCs.13 EAP Comments at 10.
The Low Income Advocates would not object to extending the current triennial USECP review cycle if a more thorough exchange of data and information were discoverable in the context of a USECP review and if adequate time and process were provided for the nuanced details of universal service program design could be crafted more deliberately in the context of the USECP. They assert that expanded due process would become even more important if the Commission were to prolong its USECP review cycle to every 4, 5, or 6 years. Low Income Advocate Reply Comments at 20-21.
Current USECP approval process vs. a more litigated proceeding
The Low Income Advocates urge the Commission to adopt a more formal USECP review process that includes an opportunity for discovery and an exchange of information. The Advocates note that BCS has taken steps to bring transparency to USECP proceedings, such as hosting voluntary stakeholder meetings prior to the issuance of a Tentative Order. However, they maintain stakeholders continue to lack adequate access to relevant and timely data and sufficient time to review and analyze USECP proposals to make informed policy recommendations. Whether the Commission continues to administer programs on a utility-by-utility basis or consolidated programming into a statewide administrative model, the Low Income Advocates suggest the following procedural progression:
1. A utility files its triennial USECP, which is immediately referred to the OALJ for the creation of a record. The ALJ assigned to the case oversees the exchange of discovery and the admission of evidence and testimony.
2. The ALJ certifies the complete record to the Commission for a decision.
3. The Commission refers the record to BCS, the Office of Special Assistants, and/or the Law Bureau (as appropriate) to draft a Tentative Order.
4. The Commission issues a Tentative Order, allowing interested stakeholders and the general public to provide comment.
5. At the conclusion of the comment period, the Commission issues a Final Order.
Low Income Advocate Comments at 71-72 and SM.
OCA agrees with the Low Income Advocates. The current review process does not allow discovery or data requests, which denies public service and due process. Twenty days to respond to a USECP Tentative Order is not sufficient. It notes that current base rate proceedings do not permit discussion of USECPs. SM. OCA recommends that a collaborative be developed to discuss and address the issues and concerns with the USECP review process. One critical element that is missing in the current process is the opportunity to exchange information before stakeholders are required to present their comments. There should be some requirement for the exchange of information and opportunity to request data regarding the USECP. Third-party evaluation recommendations should be included as a part of the USECP filing. OCA Reply Comments at 38-39.
CEO Luzerne would prefer a codified review process which allows more notice to and input from interested stakeholders on USECP filings with limited, but formal discovery or exchange of information. An ALJ should review and issue a recommended decision. It notes that a more robust USECP proceeding would prevent, but should not preclude, having Universal Services become an issue in rate cases. CEO Luzerne Comments at 2-3 and SM.
PGW does not support a mandatory litigated proceeding. Even a truncated process, such as a certified record, would still result in increased costs and raise complicated issues about staff's role in these proceedings. A process that sets clear Commission policy through a rulemaking and which enables discussions with the Commission's staff, would be more conducive to better universal service programs than a litigated proceeding which has the effect of shutting down the ability of utilities to informally discuss issues with staff and which results in a more adversarial, and significantly costlier, approach among interested stakeholders. PGW Reply Comments at 25—28.
Support for maintaining current USECP review process
EAP recommends the Commission continue with the current collaborative process regarding USECP plan approval. Should it be transferred to OALJ, BCS's expertise would be minimized and/or eliminated. A more formal, adjudicated proceeding would jeopardize the existing framework that encourages cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. EAP Comments 15-16; EAP Reply Comments at 12.
UGI values and supports the current USECP review process. Only the triennial USECP review process, with the input and oversight of BCS, has the purview to look at all impacts to a customer's energy burden—both due to base rates and commodity pricing—and accordingly make ''holistic'' recommendations on the propriety of a utility's universal service programs. UGI therefore recommends that the Commission ensure that utility universal service programs are reviewed in a consistent manner with the input of BCS. UGI Comments at 3-4.
FirstEnergy maintains that USECP reviews should be reserved for the triennial proceedings led by the BCS as opposed to being addressed within utilities' base rate cases. Any time an ALJ makes changes to a FirstEnergy company USECP on a piecemeal basis, the rest of the USECPs of the other FirstEnergy companies are impacted. The costs associated with a BCS-led review of USECPs are far lower than the costs of a fully litigated proceeding. BCS is best-suited for providing recommendations regarding the plans that consider the interplay of each of the programs and the impact on the many components of USECP administration. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 27-28.
NFG supports the current USECP review process and states that a formal discovery process is unduly burdensome and unnecessary. NFG Reply Comments at 5.
DLC supports the current process without need for hearings or a Recommended Decision from OALJ. DLC Reply Comments at 14.
PECO states that BCS is the appropriate entity to manage the USECP approval process. Automatic referral to OALJ would lengthen USECP proceedings, imposing significant and unnecessary costs on stakeholders, utilities, and the Commission and ultimately on customers. PECO Reply Comments at 9.
Addressing universal service issues in Rate Cases
DLC states that the BCS has no role in base rate cases before an ALJ and cannot ensure that USECP modifications are consistent with the USECP currently in effect. If changes are made through the base rate proceeding, the OALJ should circulate a draft Recommended Decision to BCS for technical review before issuing the official Recommended Decision. DLC Reply Comments at 16-17.
CEO states that a formal ALJ procedure established for USECP review should not preclude a party in a rate case from addressing universal service issues. Rate cases are an appropriate forum in which to raise and address universal service and energy conservation issues, as an increase in rates would impact funding of universal service programs. CEO Luzerne Comments 2-3.
UGI has concerns with litigating USECPs in a rate case because the rate cases exclude BCS. A rate case is about funding; it is not the place for determining programmatic changes. SM.
PGW echoed UGI's comments and suggests the Commission set clear policy and rules through a CAP rulemaking to achieve a more transparent and streamlined USECP process. SM; PGW Reply Comments at 29.
UGI asserts that one of the largest hurdles to maintaining consistency among the UGI Companies for universal service offerings is the fact that the UGI NGDCs and EDC must each file on an individual basis for base rate relief pursuant to Section 1308(d) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1308(d) during which universal service offerings are the subject of testimony and recommendations. UGI Comments at 4.
PPL does not support a distribution base rate proceeding as the appropriate forum to address universal service related issues. It is more appropriate and effective to address these programs when the utilities file their proposed USECPs for Commission review and approval. PPL Comments at 9.
EAP notes that funding issues raised by advocates in base rate cases or rider proceedings do not have BCS as a party. At times, rate cases reopen issues previously reviewed and resolved through the USECP proceeding. The Commission should consider how best to align these two processes to maintain consistency but repeats that it does not advocate a more formal, litigated process. EAP Comments at 16.
OCA submits that the Commission should establish by regulation that, in each base rate case, utilities should be required to apply bad debt and working capital offsets reflecting changes in the base CAP participation from the level used to establish base rates. OCA Comments 29—32.
FirstEnergy asserts the that fluctuation in the number of CAP enrollees has little, if any, direct relationship to uncollectible and working capital expenses. A fluctuation in the segment of customers enrolled in a FirstEnergy CAP who are actively receiving arrearage forgiveness has very little impact on both the total arrears and the working capital expense for any of the FirstEnergy EDCs. It is entirely inappropriate to prevent utilities from receiving full cost recovery for their customer assistance programs through USECP riders as required by statute. FirstEnergy Reply Comments at 17-18.
OCA does not agree that parties should be prohibited from raising universal service issues in a base rate proceeding or that all low-income customer issues would necessarily fall within the USECP. This incorrectly assumes that the universal service programs have no impact on a base rate proceeding. The converse is also true. OCA maintains the impact of base rate proceedings should also be addressed in a utility's USECP proceeding. OCA opines that the current base rate proceedings do not permit discussion of USECPs. This permits no discovery and no data exchange, precluding due process and resulting in significant cost to the rate base. OCA Comments at 43-44. A prohibition against raising issues related to universal service, however, would essentially prevent the parties from evaluating the impact of the rate case on the poorest of the utility's customers. In a base rate proceeding, all utility tariff provisions are at issue, including the surcharges through which universal service costs are passed on to ratepayers. OCA Reply Comments at 40.
The Low Income Advocates maintain it would be inappropriate to restrict consideration of rate affordability for the significant low-income customer base in proceedings which determine rates. They argue that universal service program issues are also relevant in rate cases: If rates increase, the corresponding need for universal service programming also increases. Furthermore, utility customer service functions, including the operation of universal service programs, are clearly relevant to assessing the reasonableness of a utility's request for any increase in rates. Base rate proceedings often present the only forum for parties to discover details and ask questions about a utility's program services. Low Income Advocate Reply Comments at 20-21.
Conclusion
The Commission's universal service initiative was commenced by order entered on May 10, 2017. It entails a comprehensive review of the Commission's universal service and energy conservation model. The May 10 Order invited interested parties to submit written comments, by August 8, 2017, on their priorities, concerns, and suggestions for amending and improving any or all aspects of universal service programs. Stakeholder meetings were held on September 13-14, 2017, to gather feedback on the previously submitted comments and any other priorities, concerns, or suggested changes pertaining to energy utility USECPs. Interested parties submitted reply comments by October 16, 2017.
This staff report, notice of which will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, comports with Ordering Paragraph No. 5 in the May 10, 2017 Order which required that BCS in consultation with the Law Bureau prepare a report summarizing all comments and reply comments as well as input from the stakeholder meeting. This staff report also provides a summary of all options proposed by stakeholders. However, no recommendations are made at this time. Nor is this staff report indicative of how the Commission may decide to act on the subject matter in this or other dockets.14 52 Pa. Code § 1.96. The legal, policy, and procedural issues raised in this matter remain under Commission review and may be factored into a subsequent order at this or other dockets.
ROSEMARY CHIAVETTA,
Secretary
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 18-555. Filed for public inspection April 6, 2018, 9:00 a.m.] _______
10 PGW explained in its 2017—2020 USECP proceeding that it does not contract with CBOs to help customers complete CAP applications/recertifications or to assist with outreach/referrals because those functions are ''union-covered work provided pursuant to PGW's agreement with the Gas Works Employees' Union of Philadelphia Local 686, Utility Workers' Union of America AFL-CIO.'' PGW 2017—2020 USECP Reply Comments at 5 & 8, Docket No. M-2016-2542415.
11 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. R-2017-2586783.
12 OSBA also notes that PGW's universal service cost allocation (to all rate classes) was in place before PGW came under PUC oversight. OSBA Reply Comments at 4.
13 Pa. Code 52 § 54.74(b) and 62.4(b) identify the required contents of USECPs for EDCS and NGDCs, respectively. NGDCs are requested to provide information in their USECPs that are not requested for EDCs. Specifically, NGDC must additionally provide: (1) A description of outreach and intake efforts for each program component; (2) An identification of the specific steps used to identify low-income customers with arrears and to enroll them in appropriate universal service and energy conservation programs; and (3) An identification of the manner in which universal service and energy conservation programs operate in an integrated fashion.
14 Specifically-related universal service dockets include Initiative to Review and Revise the Existing LIURP Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 58.1—58.18, Docket No. L-2016-2557886, and Energy Affordability for Low-Income Customers, Docket No. M-2017-2587711.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
