PPL hypes its energy-reducing plan, but critic sees flaws

Complying with a legislative mandate, PPL Corp. submitted on July 1 a proposal to reduce its customers’ electric demand through various methods, including offering rebates for buying energy-efficient appliances.

But the Allentown nonprofit Sustainable Energy Fund calls the plan “self serving” and urges PPL customers to oppose it.

Act 129 of 2008 requires the state’s largest electricity utilities to reduce customers’ electricity use overall and specifically during peak periods. PPL Electric Utilities’ 14-program proposal leans heavily on appliance replacement and recycling, replacing conventional light bulbs with compact fluorescents and rehabbing central-air systems.

The program would be paid for with an added fee on customers’ bills, though PPL is proposing that it be lumped into the distribution portion of the bill. That proposal “was really based on input from stakeholders,” said company spokesman Ryan Hill. Historical preference has shown that customers “don’t want items all over their bill, especially items they can’t control.”

He noted that the charge would be about $2 per month per customer, but that customers would be entitled to a slew of reduced-cost and use-reduction programs that would offset the surcharge. “Customers who take advantage of the programs, they could see a significant net savings from what they’d otherwise pay,” Hill said.

John Costlow from the Energy Fund disagreed. “We’re generally quiet, to say the least,” he said of his organization’s usual involvement in such issues. “Act 129 was meant to be so much more and the plan that was put together just does not deliver. … We believe the ratepayer is being shortchanged.”

Specifically, he calculated that of the $246 million PPL would collect for the program over the next 3� years, 25 percent of it would go to administrative costs. “Twenty-five percent of $246 million would buy a lot of light bulbs,” he said.

Also of concern, he said, were PPL’s requirement for consultants to show how their work would “build PPL’s brand” and a collaboration with retailers to sell products at reduced prices and bill PPL for the remainder. That, he said, would allow non-PPL customers to benefit from PPL’s fees.

“The numbers have been tweaked to fit the plan instead of the other way around. … To us, it screams at us; we honestly believe there is a better way this could be done,” Costlow said. “All we’re asking is for them to put together a plan … to get the job done at hand. … If good quality programs are in place that they (customers) can utilize, it will help them mitigate the increase from that rate increase and any other rate increases that are coming down the pike.”

The nonprofit is so concerned that it has hired consultants to model the effects of the proposal.

Noting that PPL’s goal is to reduce demand by 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours per year by 2013, Hill said, in the long run, the plan will benefit every customer.

If you go

What: The state Public Utility Commission will hold a public-comment hearing on PPL Electric Utilities’ proposal on how to reduce its customers’ energy demand.

When: 6 p.m., July 30

Where: Bethlehem City Hall at 10 E. Church St.

Who: Ratepayers interested in commenting on PPL’s proposal are asked to speak for the official record, which the PUC will consult before deciding whether to approve the plan.