Fixed Utility Distribution Rates Policy Statement

2018 WL 2717449 (2018)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fixed Utility Distribution Rates Policy Statement

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
2018 WL 2717449 (2018)


The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the commission) invited parties including researchers, energy companies, and consumer advocates to testify regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of alternative rate methodologies for public utilities. The invitees testified about whether alternative rate methodologies could encourage utilities to better implement energy-efficiency-and-conservation (EE&C) programs and whether the alternative methodologies would be just, reasonable, cost-effective, and in the public interest. One alternative methodology discussed was revenue decoupling (i.e., finding ways for utilities to recover authorized revenues other than tying revenues to sales). Several utilities and environmental interest groups (e.g., the Natural Resources Defense Council) supported revenue decoupling in some form, noting that revenue decoupling would allow utilities to recover their capital investments and mitigate revenue losses caused by energy efficiency and distributed-energy resources (DERs). However, consumer advocates opposed revenue decoupling, arguing that lower-income households would be unfairly impacted by rate increases due to decoupling because they would not be able to participate in energy-efficiency programs that would allow them to reduce their energy consumption. Large industrial utility customers also opposed decoupling, claiming that it was illegal and that the commission could not ensure that rates were just and reasonable. Another alternative methodology discussed was straight fixed/variable (SFV) pricing (i.e., allowing the recovery of the utility’s fixed costs through higher fixed charges on customers’ bills, rather than through charges related to customers’ variable volume-based electricity use). Although one utility supported SFV pricing, consumer advocates and environmental interest groups argued that making fixed charges too high would work against EE&C efforts because consumers would face higher utility charges regardless of whether they conserved electricity and thus would not have a price signal to change their behavior. A third alternative methodology discussed was demand-side-management (DSM) performance-incentive mechanisms (i.e., methodologies to be implemented in combination with revenue decoupling to incentivize utilities to promote EE&C programs). A utility and the environmental-interest groups supported implementing performance-incentive measures to encourage EE&C measures. After hearing the parties’ testimony, the commission gave thoughts on the merits of the proposed alternative methodologies.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership