PPLÂ’s proposed TOU tariff unfair: commission

They also alleged that it shifted program costs to non participating customers, unfairly excluded low income customers, promoted unfair competitive practices and lacked real economic benefit for PPL ratepayers.

In its filing, PPL proposed to charge non-participating customers to fund the discount received by customers switching loads to off-peak periods.

PPL's proposed Time of Use program offers higher rates for electricity consumed during "on-peak" periods and lower rates for electricity used during "off-peak" periods. Essentially, customers who shift usage from "on-peak" periods when it cost more to generate electricity to "off-peak" periods when it cost less would reduce their bill. For example, a homeowner could set the dishwasher to run at bedtime instead of during the mid-afternoon peak period.

"We are supportive of Time of Use Rates where the savings result from electricity generators providing time varying rates," stated John Costlow, Director of Technical Services for SEF. "PPL's proposal asked for non participating customers to foot the bill. It is like the grocer giving the customer in front of you a dollar off then adding that dollar to your bill."

In its final order and opinion issued on March 9, 2010 the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission found PPL's proposal "unjust and unreasonable." The order directed PPL to modify the program to allow participation by renewable energy, "On-Track" and net metering customers it previously excluded; questioned the cost-effectiveness of the program; and prohibited PPL from collecting more than $4 million dollars it proposed to spend for education and marketing costs. In addition, the PUC directed PPL to "absorb any costs of the TOU program that are the result of lost or decreased revenues due to reduced or shifted demand."

Eric Epstein from TMIA stated, "The PUC correctly halted PPL's discriminatory plan that unfairly excluded customers, penalized hostage ratepayers and cross-subsidized PPL Energy Plus." He welcomed the decision as a victory for ratepayers and hailed the PUC's decision as a landmark that could potentially set a precedent, stating, "The PUC made it clear that it will not allow ratepayers to finance and brand ill-conceived marketing schemes."

Mr. Costlow stated, "Local electric customers have supported PPL since the 1920s yet when their customers are hurting the most, PPL proposes a program that will reduce one customer's bill and increase someone else's bill." He continued, "I don't get PPL; last month PPL increased its dividends for shareholders and then three days later announced it is filing for a rate increase. Where is their corporate conscience?"