LG&E/KU Tries to Trim Energy Efficiency Programs, Awaits PSC Ruling

In the initial and reply briefs, which can be read here and here, the Metropolitan Housing Coalition argues that the cost-effectiveness methodology used in the Joint Application is inadequate since it excludes, without rational basis, consideration of non-energy benefits, thus skewing the analysis in a manner that understates the benefits associated with DSM and EE measures. MHC seeks an Order from the Commission directing that the analyses utilized by the Joint Applicants to end or curtail DSM and EE offerings be revised in order to account for those non-energy benefits that are capable of being monetized and measured, and that once the true cost and benefits are ascertained, that the Companies be required to supplement their filing with respect to programs proposed for termination or curtailment.

 

Additionally, MHC argues that this Commission should revisit the question of whether the pilot programs for advanced meter systems are exempted from the statutory requirement of demonstrating that costs exceed benefits, and that the Companies should be required to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs for continuation of the AMS program.  (The Commission recently denied the request of the companies to deploy AMS throughout their service areas).

 

Further, MHC argues that the Commission should direct the Companies to commission a study on the distribution of the benefits of the DSM and EE programs within the residential customer class, and in particular, whether the array of DSM and EE offerings adequately address the specific needs of low- and fixed-income residents, including those in protected classes under the fair housing laws, and those in rental units. 

 

Finally, MHC supports continuation of the WeCare and other DSM-EE programs, and the proposed expansion of DSM-EE offerings to industrial customers.

 

The entire case file can be reviewed here on the Public Service Commission website.