STATE OF MAINE	March 22, 2006
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
	Docket No. 2005-635
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Amendments to Statewide Low-Income Assistance Plan (Chapter 314)	ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED RULE AND STATEMENT OF FACTUAL AND POLICY BASIS

 

 

I.          SUMMARY

 

Through this Order, we amend certain provisions of the Statewide Low‑Income Assistance Plan (Chapter 314).  The purpose of these amendments is to provide financial assistance to low-income customers who must use an oxygen pump at least eight hours each day.

 

II.         BACKGROUND

 

Chapter 314, which became effective August 14, 2001, established a Statewide Low-Income Assistance Plan to help qualified low-income customers pay their electric bills, and mandated Low-Income Assistance Programs (LIAPs) for transmission and distribution utilities.  Chapter 314 applies to all transmission and distribution utilities in the State except those exempt from electric restructuring pursuant to 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3202(6).[1]

 

During its 2005 session, the Legislature directed the Commission to establish a program to provide financial assistance to low-income customers who, for health reasons, must use an oxygen pump.  Under the applicable statute, 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5), the benefits must be reasonably equivalent in each transmission and distribution utility territory and there must be no reduction in the benefits provided under existing assistance programs.  The Commission must establish an administratively simple and inexpensive method of administering the program, and reasonable costs incurred by a transmission and distribution utility in implementing it will be considered just and reasonable expenses for ratemaking purposes.  Finally, rules adopted by the Commission to implement the assistance program will be routine technical rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2‑A.  This rulemaking incorporates the new statutory requirements.

 

III.        RULEMAKING PROCESS

 

On November 8, 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Rulemaking (NOR) and proposed amendments to Chapter 314 (Proposed Rule).  The NOR required that comments on the proposed revisions be filed with the Administrative Director by December 19, 2005.  In a November 17, 2005 procedural order, the Commission extended the comment deadline to December 23, 2005 to comply with the requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.  The Commission was asked to further extend the deadline to give parties an opportunity to submit comments.  In a December 29, 2005 procedural order, the Commission extended the comment deadline to January 13, 2006.  Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (BHE), Central Maine Power Company (CMP), Maine Public Service Company (MPS), and the Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA) submitted written comments on the proposed changes to the rule.

 

IV.       AMENDMENTS TO RULE

 

A.        Section 1:  General

 

Throughout the rule, we have eliminated deadlines for compliance with the rule when it was first adopted in 2001 and references to low-income assistance programs existing prior to initial adoption of the rule because they no longer apply.

 

B.        Section 1:  Definitions

 

We reorganized the definitions so that they are in alphabetical order.  Additional changes to definitions are described below.

 

1.         Apportionment/Apportionment Rate/Assessment

 

Appendix A contained the assessments and apportionments that applied when the rule was first adopted.  Since that time, the Commission granted a waiver to Section 5(D) of Chapter 314 to allow the Commission to make minor modifications to the annual apportionment rate, and issued an order to amend the apportionment rates for each utility.[2]  Because Appendix A is out of date, it has been deleted.  References to Appendix A were removed from these three definitions.

 

2.         Carry-Forward Amount

 

The Proposed Rule added a definition of “carry-forward amount.”  The term is defined as the total amount of apportioned funds unspent or uncommitted in a LIAP program year that are available for use in a future LIAP program year.  Because final reports for each program year are not due until after the next program year has begun, there is a one-year lag between the program year in which the funds are unspent and the program year in which they can be brought forward and used.  For example, funds that were unspent during the 2004-2005 program year are not reported by the utility until October 31, 2005 and by the Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA) until January 1, 2006.  As a result, the unspent funds cannot be apportioned until the 2006‑2007 program year.  This term is used in Section 5(C) of the rule, which outlines the procedure to be followed if the cost of providing benefits to customers who must use an oxygen pump exceeds the amount of unspent funds that are carried forward into the next LIAP program year.  No comments were received on this added definition and it is included in the final rule.

 

3.         Doctor/Physician

 

The Proposed Rule added a definition of “doctor” because the term is used in 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5), the statute that is the basis for the oxygen pump assistance program.  We noted that other Commission rules use the term “physician” and sought comment on which term was preferable.  CMP commented that the Commission should have internal consistency in its rules whenever possible.  We agree, and note that Chapter 290 uses the term “physician” while Chapter 81 currently uses the term “registered physician.”  However, Chapter 81 is being revised and it is anticipated that the term “physician” will replace the term “registered physician.”  Therefore, the term “physician” will be used in Chapter 314.

 

In the revisions to Chapter 81, we intend to propose to define the term “physician” as “any natural person authorized by law to practice medicine or osteopathy or mental health counseling in Maine.”  We adopt this same definition in the Final Rule, but with a minor change.  For purposes of this Rule, we omit the phrase “or mental health counseling” because a mental health counselor would not prescribe the use of an oxygen pump.  The term “physician” is used in Section 4(K)(2) of the rule, which requires that customers provide documentation from a physician of the medical need to use an oxygen pump at least eight hours each day.

 

CMP commented that the Commission should not include any language allowing actions by a physician’s agents or designees.  While we agree with CMP that the determination of the need for an oxygen pump, as well as the duration of such need, should be made by a physician, we do not agree that it is necessary for a physician to actually sign the oxygen pump certification form.  In the Proposed Rule, our intent to allow an agent or designee to sign the form was contained in the definition of “doctor.”  To improve clarity, the provision that an agent or designee may sign the form has been moved to Section 4(K)(2) of the Final Rule.

 

4.         Eligible Customer

 

The Proposed Rule deleted this definition because the term “eligible customers” is already defined in Section 4(A) of this Chapter.  Modifications to Section 4(A) are discussed in Section IV(C) of this Order.  No comments were received, and we adopt this change.

 

5.         Oxygen Pump

 

Title 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5) requires that transmission and distribution utilities provide financial assistance to low-income electric customers who must use an oxygen pump for at least eight hours each day.  An oxygen pump is more commonly referred to as an oxygen concentrator, a device used to provide oxygen to a patient at substantially higher concentrations than those of ambient air.  Because the statute uses the term “oxygen pump,” we use the same term in Chapter 314.  The term “oxygen pump” is defined as an electrical device used to provide oxygen to a patient at substantially higher concentrations than those of ambient air.  We sought comment on whether this definition would adequately address the type of equipment for which 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5) is intended to provide financial assistance to low-income customers to operate.  We received no comments and adopt the proposed definition with a minor modification.

 

6.         Participant/Participating Customer

 

In the Proposed Rule, we clarified that the definition of “participating customer” included “participant” as well as “participating customer.”  However, the term “participating customer” is used only once in the Proposed Rule while the term “participant” is used more than a dozen times.  Therefore, we adopt a definition that refers solely to a “participant” and have changed the reference to “participating customer” in the Final Rule.  In addition, the statement that “participating customers are a subset of eligible customers” has been deleted from the definition because it is unnecessary.

 

7.         Percentage of Income Program

 

The Proposed Rule added a definition of “percentage of income program” or “PIP.”  The term is defined as a program under which a customer’s utility costs are based on a predetermined percentage of the customer’s total household income.  While this term was used in the initial rule, clarification of its meaning is warranted given its increased use in the revised rule.  Under a PIP, benefits are paid to a customer only when the customer’s annual household electric costs exceed a predetermined percentage of total household income.  A PIP allows customers to have a portion of their pre-program arrears deferred during the term of their payment plan.

 

C.        Section 4(A):  Eligible Customers

 

Section 4(A) requires that each transmission and distribution utility's LIAP be available to its year-round residential customers who meet the following eligibility criteria:  1) the customer or a member of the customer’s household is eligible to receive a LIHEAP benefit; and 2) the customer is not receiving a housing subsidy that limits the household’s total housing cost, including utilities, to a fixed percentage of the household’s income.  The title of Section 4(A) was changed to “eligible customers” because the previous title, “eligible participants,” was an error and not used in the rule.

 

This section was revised to add the requirement that a customer must qualify for the utility’s LIAP.  The result of this change is that a customer using an oxygen pump will not receive a benefit solely due to the presence of the pump when the customer otherwise would be ineligible to receive a benefit.  This is to ensure that a customer’s financial situation is the determining factor regarding whether a benefit is to be provided, as well as the amount of any benefit.  For example, under CMP’s LIAP, if a customer’s annual credit is calculated to be less than $50, the customer will not be enrolled in its LIAP program.  The purpose of the minimum credit amount is to eliminate the administrative costs of calculating an annual budget payment plan that reflects a relatively small monthly credit on the participant’s bill.  Other utilities do not have a minimum credit amount.  Therefore, limiting oxygen pump benefits to customers who qualify to participate in a utility’s LIAP will ensure that assistance for oxygen pump usage is provided only to those who qualify.  We received no comments and include the changes in the Final Rule.

 

D.        Section 4(B):  LIAP Administration

 

BHE suggested that Section 4(B) be amended to require that code or database changes by the Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA) be discussed and reviewed in advance with all parties involved so that no significant program expenses or enrollment delays result from the proposed changes.  While we are sympathetic to BHE’s concerns, we decline to include the suggested requirement because this rulemaking addresses only the oxygen pump assistance program and not the overall LIAP administration, and there has been no opportunity for other parties to comment on BHE’s suggestion.

 

BHE also suggested that MSHA include a customer declaration of the existence of an oxygen pump as part of the LIAP certification process.  We agree this is a good idea, but the rule does not address the process by which MSHA or its designees will make clients aware of the LIAPs.  We therefore decline to incorporate this suggestion into the rule.  However, we will ask MSHA or its designee(s) to make clients aware of the oxygen pump assistance program at the time a client applies for LIHEAP and for MSHA to provide forms required by Section 4(K)(2) to clients at the time they apply for LIHEAP.  As outlined in Section 4(K)(2), customers should provide their utility with the authorization from their doctor for use of an oxygen pump.

 

E.        Section 4(K):  Benefits for Users of Oxygen Pumps

 

1.         Section 4(K)(1):  Purpose of Oxygen Pump Benefit

 

We proposed a new Section 4(K) that describes a program that will provide financial assistance to low-income customers who, for health reasons, must use oxygen pumps at least eight hours each day.  As stated in Section 4(K)(1), it is the Commission’s intention that benefits provided under this program cover the full cost of operating an oxygen pump; that these benefits not reduce benefits provided under existing assistance programs required by this rule; and that benefits be reasonably equivalent in each transmission and distribution utility territory.  Modifications have been made to the funding, reporting and record maintenance provisions of this rule to track and gather data on the benefits provided to users of oxygen pumps.

 

BHE and MPS suggested that benefits under the oxygen pump assistance program should not begin until October 1, 2006 to provide sufficient time for utilities and MSHA to make any changes necessary to implement the new program.  MSHA commented that there are administrative challenges to starting the oxygen pump assistance program in the middle of the LIHEAP year because LIAP eligibility is determined by the LIHEAP application.  Over 40,000 LIHEAP applications have been received in the current LIAP program year, and these applications would need to be reviewed to determine eligibility under the oxygen pump assistance program.  In addition, MSHA noted that software changes must be made to its database.  We agree that benefits should begin concurrent with the start of the LIAP program year, and have amended Section 4(K)(1) to provide for an effective date of October 1, 2006.

 

2.         Section 4(K)(2):  Certification of Need

 

Section 4(K)(2) requires that each transmission and distribution utility provide a form for customers who use an oxygen pump.  We proposed that the form include the name and physical address of the patient using an oxygen pump, the number of hours each day the patient must use it, and the name and utility account number of the eligible customer.  We also included a requirement that the form be signed and dated by the patient’s doctor (the definition of “doctor” included the doctor’s agent or designee).  We sought comment on the contents of the form, and whether a prescribed form should be included in the rule.

 

CMP commented that a standard form should be attached to the rule so that all parties use a single, uniform document.  MPS commented that the form should be uniform throughout all transmission and distribution service territories, and suggested that utilities develop a draft form for the Commission.  MSHA stated that it, in conjunction with the Commission, should help design the form, and that the form should be referenced in Chapter 314.  We agree that the same form should be used across utility service territories to eliminate confusion, but decline to attach the form to the rule because a rulemaking proceeding would be needed to revise the form.  Therefore, we have modified the rule to state that use of a form provided by the Commission will constitute compliance with Section 4(K)(2).  The Commission will work with all interested parties in developing the form.

 

CMP commented that the form should include the duration of the need for an oxygen pump.  We agree, and have revised Section 4(K)(2) accordingly.  BHE commented that it intends to send the oxygen pump enrollment form directly to the customer’s physician.  We disagree with this process, and have revised Section 4(K)(2) to require that each transmission and distribution utility shall provide the form to its customers.  We believe it more appropriate for the customers, rather than the utility, to submit the form to their physician.

 

Finally, as discussed in Part IV(B)(3) above, we have moved the provision that the oxygen pump certification form may be signed by an agent or designee of a physician to Section 4(K)(2) of the Final Rule for clarity.

 

3.         Section 4(K)(3):  Eligibility for Oxygen Pump Assistance Program

 

Section 4(K)(3) requires that each transmission and distribution utility provide a credit to participating customers who submit documentation from a doctor that a member of the household must use an oxygen pump for at least eight hours each day.  This documentation is required by 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5)(A)(2).  We proposed that documentation of oxygen pump use be submitted annually to ensure that the need and eligibility for oxygen pump benefits continue.  In its comment, MSHA concurred with the requirement for the annual submittal of documentation, stating this would be consistent with the procedures of the existing LIAP program.  We include the requirement for annual certification of oxygen pump use in the Final Rule.

 

MPS suggested adding language to the rule that would ensure oxygen pump benefits are applied to only one account per customer to eliminate the potential for credits being applied to multiple accounts when there is concurrent service, such as seasonal accounts.  MPS also noted that if a customer moves to another location, the benefit should follow the customer to the new location.  We agree with both suggestions and have modified Section 4(K)(3) accordingly.

 

BHE commented that a renewal process was not addressed in the Proposed Rule and described the process it expected to include in its Terms and Conditions.  We note that Section 4(K)(3) already requires that a participating customer annually submit documentation when a member of the household must use an oxygen pump at least 8 hours each day.  While we decline to adopt a specific process for annual recertification, we have revised Section 4(K)(3) to clarify the timing for annual submittal of the oxygen pump certification form to ensure coordination of oxygen pump benefits with utilities’ LIAPs.

 

4.         Section 4(K)(4):  Effect on Other LIAP Benefits

 

Section 4(K)(4) requires that benefits provided for the use of an oxygen pump cannot reduce any other benefits provided, nor increase co‑payments, under any other section of Chapter 314.  For utilities offering a PIP, an eligible customer’s benefit must be recalculated to consider the increased usage associated with the operation of the oxygen pump.  This will ensure that eligible customers receive a full credit for the cost of service associated with the use of an oxygen pump under a PIP, as they will under all other utility LIAPs.

 

Likewise, an eligible customer’s co‑payment cannot increase due to the usage associated with an oxygen pump and the overall benefit provided to eligible customers must reflect the usage associated with the pump, even if that usage causes the total benefit amount to exceed a pre-established ceiling for a total benefit amount.  This means that for PIP programs where the percentage of income that a customer pays increases as usage increases, the usage associated with the customer’s oxygen pump cannot be included in the overall usage amount used to establish the customer’s percentage of income co‑payment.  It also means that utilities that have a ceiling for the maximum benefit must increase the ceiling by an amount equal to the cost of operating the oxygen pump.  This will ensure that customers receive a full credit for the cost of operating the oxygen pump.  For utilities operating a PIP that bases the benefit amount on a customer’s electric usage for the previous 12 months, an estimate should be used until 12 months oxygen pump usage is accumulated.  We received no comments and adopt the language as proposed.

 

5.         Section 4(K)(5):  Amount of Credit

 

a.         Calculation of Benefit

 

Section 4(K)(5)(a) requires that the credit provided under the oxygen pump assistance program be equivalent to the total cost of electricity to run the oxygen pump, including both the supply cost and the delivery cost, for the number of hours indicated by the physician.  As stated earlier, 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5)(B) requires that the oxygen pump assistance program established by the Commission ensure that benefits provided to low-income customers are reasonably equivalent in each transmission and distribution utility territory.  Because each utility has its own unique rates and LIAP, it is a challenge to ensure that benefits are “reasonable equivalent” among the various utilities.  For example, with CMP’s percentage of income program, customers using an oxygen pump are already receiving a financial benefit for the usage due to the design of the program.[3]  However, MPS and other utilities providing a “lump-sum benefit” do not provide customers using an oxygen pump with any additional benefit.[4]  To ensure that benefits among the various transmission and distribution utilities are reasonably equivalent, the Propose Rule required utilities not operating a PIP program to provide eligible customers with a credit that is equal to the annual cost of operating an oxygen pump.

 

BHE commented that the dollars associated with transmission rates are regulated by FERC and are therefore exempt from the credit calculation since transmission rates are not eligible for BHE’s LIR discount.  We have never “apportioned” the benefits provided through the LIAP (nor would we in the oxygen pump assistance program) between transmission or distribution rates.  Rather, we have considered the “all in” cost of electricity, which includes supply, distribution and transmission costs, when establishing appropriate benefit amounts.  The LIAP has operated this way since its inception.  We therefore decline to address BHE’s comment in the rule.

 

Section 4(K)(5)(a) also requires that the cost of electricity for operating an oxygen pump be calculated by multiplying the applicable monthly kWh in Table 1 (based on daily hours of oxygen pump use) by the appropriate price per kWh.[5]  The “monthly kWh” figures in Table 1 were calculated based on a 30-day month and a 750 watt oxygen pump, which is the high end of the range of power requirements for oxygen pumps.  Using the maximum wattage possible will ensure that customers receive full credit for use of an oxygen pump.  We sought comment on whether the actual power requirements of a customer’s oxygen pump should be used to calculate their credit, rather than a fixed monthly kWh, since power requirements vary widely.

 

MPS commented that actual wattage of the unit used by the customer should be obtained to ensure more accurate calculations of use and cost.  CMP commented that the Commission should adopt simple provisions that do not create undue administrative burdens for customers, utilities, or physicians.  Because gathering wattage information for each oxygen pump and performing calculations for each customer would be an undue administrative burden given the modest amount of funds at issue, CMP supports setting a fixed kWh level for all oxygen pumps irrespective of the wattage.  We agree, and decline to require that the actual oxygen pump wattage be used in the benefit calculation.  The benefit calculation described in Section 4(K)(5) ensures that eligible customers who must use an oxygen pump receive financial assistance without placing an undue administrative burden on utilities.

 

MPS commented that consideration should be given to limiting the benefit in situations in which the calculated benefit is higher than the actual monthly billing, which could occur if a residence were vacant for an extended period of time or if oxygen tanks were used rather than an oxygen pump.  While we agree it is theoretically possible for a customer to achieve a credit balance due to the oxygen pump benefit, we believe there is an extremely low probability of this happening.  In addition, a utility’s cost of comparing actual usage with the benefit provided for each customer would most likely be higher than the amount saved.  Therefore, we decline to adopt this suggestion because we believe it would be unduly burdensome for utilities to compare actual usage with the benefit provided.

 

BHE commented that the rate used to calculate the oxygen pump benefit should be equal to the rate in effect as of the last bill date because distribution rate and standard offer price changes occur on an annual basis while competitive electric prices may change monthly.  BHE also commented that prorating the oxygen pump benefit would add considerable administrative expense for BHE.  We note that the rule does not require modification of the benefit amount based on a rate change.  To address BHE’s concerns, we have modified Section 4(K)(5)(a) in the Final Rule to require that the benefit amount be calculated based on the rate in effect on the date the calculation is performed.

 

b.         Effect on Level of Credit when Energy Supplied by Provider Other than the Standard Offer Provider

 

The Proposed Rule required that the credit for eligible customers receiving service from a competitive electricity provider (CEP) other than the standard offer provider be equivalent to the amount charged for the electricity or the cost of the electricity if it had been provided through standard offer service, whichever was less.  This requirement was intended to ensure that oxygen pump program costs did not place an excessive burden on other ratepayers.  MPS commented that the amount of the credit should simply be the “amount billed both for the supply cost and the delivery cost” to eliminate the need to check, verify and compare rates to determine which is less.  In addition, MPS commented that if the benefit is different from the amount billed and the billed amount is higher, the difference would impact the payment allocation and it does not see the need for this complexity.  We agree.  The Legislature directed the Commission to establish an administratively simple and inexpensive method of administering the program.  Requiring utilities to review and compare the rates charged to each customer receiving oxygen pump benefits adds an unnecessary layer of complexity and expense without adding significant value.  In addition, limiting the benefit to the lowest rate available would penalize customers who signed contracts with a CEP because it offered the lowest rate at the time, and then the price of standard offer service subsequently decreased to less than the CEP’s rate.  Therefore, we remove this requirement from the Final Rule.

 

c.         Timing of Enrollment

 

Section 4(K)(5) of the Proposed Rule required that for customers who enroll in the oxygen pump assistance program during a LIAP program year, the benefit would be calculated from the date the utility receives the appropriately completed form specified in Section 4(K)(2) to the end of that LIAP program year.  MPS suggested replacing “to the end of that LIAP program year” with “the period of need.”  CMP suggested that the benefit be calculated to the end of either the period of need or the end of the LIAP program year, whichever is shorter.  We agree that the rule should address situations in which a patient no longer needs an oxygen pump, and have modified Sections 4(K)(5)(b) and (c) accordingly.  We note that for customers who are on an oxygen pump when they enroll in a utility’s LIAP, it is expected they will receive a full year’s worth of benefits.

 

BHE proposed that the credit be provided on the first bill after receipt of the appropriately completed form, and sought clarification on the oxygen credit program year.  BHE asked if the rule intends for oxygen pump credits to stop at the end of each LIAP year and certification renewals to begin with each new LIAP year in October.  We have modified Section 4(K)(5) to describe the timing of certification form submittal and to ensure that oxygen pump benefits continue along with LIAP benefits.

 

BHE commented that for partial months, a standard credit kWh in Table 1 or an amount equal to the distribution and supply bill should be used, whichever is less.  BHE noted that credits should be equal to, but not exceed, an amount equivalent to the customer’s monthly distribution and supply charges so a credit balance does not occur, such as with out of cycle bills when a customer moves.  We agree, and have revised Section 4(K)(5) to address partial credits for both months and the LIAP program year.

 

6.         Apportionment/Apportionment Rate/Assessment Amounts

 

As discussed in Part IV(B)(1) of this Order, Appendix A was deleted from the rule because it is out of date, and the information it contains will be updated by Commission order.  Therefore, all references to Appendix A have been removed from the rule.

 

7.         Section 5(C):  Modifications to Assessment Level[6]

 

Title 35‑A M.R.S.A. § 3214(5) requires that benefits provided under existing assistance programs not be reduced by the provision of oxygen pump benefits.  We believe this can be achieved because the cost to operate the oxygen pump program most likely will be less than the amount of annual unspent benefit funds that are carried forward from year to year.  However, we will monitor program costs to ensure there is no overall reduction in benefits.  Section 5(C)(1) states that the Commission will monitor the needs of Maine’s low-income electric customers and evaluate annual LIAP funding and expenditure levels and program design features.  Section 5(C)(2) requires that the Commission monitor the cost of providing benefits to eligible customers who must use an oxygen pump for at least eight hours each day.

 

Commission staff estimated the annual cost of the program to be less than $75,000, while the unspent benefit amounts of the Statewide Plan were $623,589 for the 2002‑2003 LIAP program year and $320,411 for the 2003-2004 LIAP program year.  The actual cost of the oxygen pump assistance program may be higher or lower.  If the cost of the oxygen pump assistance program exceeds the carry-forward amount, this section requires the Commission to increase the overall assessment amount to cover the additional cost.

 

BHE asked for clarification on how the Commission will monitor the initial utility startup cost and annual administrative expenses to provide oxygen pump benefits.  The Commission will not be monitoring startup costs, and any incremental expenses should be considered under each individual utility’s rate scheme.

 

8.         Section 5(D):  Funding Levels

 

Section 5(D) describes the apportionment of funds to each transmission and distribution utility for LIAP benefits.  As mentioned earlier in this Order, the Commission waived Section 5(D) of Chapter 314 to allow the Commission to make minor modifications to the annual apportionment rate.[7]  Section 5(D)(1) has been revised to incorporate this waiver and clarify that the Commission itself may, by Commission order, change the apportionment rates if LIHEAP demographics provided by MSHA indicate that the proportion of the State’s LIHEAP eligible customers who reside in each utility’s service territory has changed.

 

Section 5(D)(2) requires that each utility be apportioned a specific amount to cover the cost of providing benefits to eligible customers who use an oxygen pump for at least 8 hours each day.  The amount provided to each utility will be equal to the incremental cost incurred by the utility in providing the benefits, and will be added to the apportionment amount specified in Section 5(D)(1).

 

9.         Section 6(D)(6):  MSHA Reports to the Commission

 

Section 6(D) requires MSHA to annually provide the Commission with information on the total number of participants in each utility’s LIAP, the amounts reimbursed to and received from utilities, benefits paid, the amount of LIAP funds held by MSHA, and projected spending for the pending program year.  The Proposed Rule added Section 6(D)(6) to require MSHA to provide information on the oxygen pump assistance program in its annual report to the Commission, including the number of eligible customers receiving benefits under the program and the total amount of the benefits paid.  This information is needed to determine the effectiveness of the oxygen pump assistance program, to evaluate utility spending levels, and to determine whether an increase in statewide funding is necessary.  No comments were received, so this reporting requirement is included in the Final Rule.

 

10.       Section 6(E)(3):  MSHA Record Maintenance

 

Section 6(E) requires MSHA to maintain records that include the number of customers evaluated for participation in a LIAP.  For individual customers determined eligible for participation in a LIAP, Section 6(E) requires MSHA to track the household income, electric usage, benefit amount, date of eligibility determination, and the name of the utility.  The Proposed Rule added Section 6(E)(3) to require MSHA to maintain records of the number of customers receiving a benefit for the use of an oxygen pump pursuant to Section 4(K).  This information is needed to determine the effectiveness of the oxygen pump assistance program.  No comments were received, so this requirement is included in the Final Rule.

 

11.       Section 6(F) and Section 7(A):  Notice to Customers

 

Section 7(A) requires that each transmission and distribution utility:  1) explain in its summary of rights and responsibilities provided to new customers pursuant to Chapter 81 how customers may become eligible and apply for credit for the use of an oxygen pump; and 2) include information on how customers may apply for credit for the use of an oxygen pump in any mailings by the utility to comply with the Commission’s Winter Disconnection Rule (Chapter 81, Section 17).  MPS suggested that in addition to these notifications, medical equipment suppliers be notified of the oxygen pump assistance program to assist customers in getting enrolled earlier and to lessen any confusion between the LifeLight programs that currently operate within certain areas.  We decline to require any formal notification of equipment suppliers, but note that utilities may provide notice of the program to anyone they wish.  In addition, we ask that transmission and distribution utilities notify customers of the new Oxygen Pump Benefit, such as through a bill insert.

 

To increase the opportunity for customers to learn of the low‑income assistance available to them, we have amended Section 6(F) to require that the MSHA provide notice of the individual utility’s LIAPs, including the Oxygen Pump Benefit, to customers applying for LIHEAP as well as in its mailings to clients about low‑income assistance.

 

12.       Section 7(D):  Utility Reporting

 

Section 7(D) requires transmission and distribution utilities to file quarterly and annual reports with MSHA and the Commission.  The Proposed Rule added a requirement that utilities report the number of participants enrolled in its LIAP each month who receive a benefit for the use of an oxygen pump, and the cumulative, incremental benefit amount provided to customers each month for the use of an oxygen pump.  This documentation will help determine the cost and effectiveness of the oxygen pump assistance program.  No comments were received, so this reporting requirement is included in the Final Rule.

 

13.       Section 7(E):  Utility Record Maintenance

 

We proposed in Section 7(E) that transmission and distribution utilities maintain completed certification of need forms submitted by eligible customers pursuant to Section 4(K)(2), records of calculations used to determine benefit amounts for each eligible customer who submits a completed certification of need form, and any other materials associated with the calculation of benefits under the oxygen pump assistance program.  This documentation will help determine the cost and effectiveness of the program.  CMP commented that the rule should specify the time period for which these records must be maintained, and proposed 18 months.  We agree that a time period for record retention should be specified in the rule, but believe that more than 18 months is warranted given the long-term nature of the program and to ensure that records are available in the event there is a need to review such information.  Therefore, we have included a requirement that records be retained for 5 years in Section 7(E) of the Final Rule.

 

 

Accordingly, we

 

O R D E R

 

1.         That the attached amendments to Chapter 314, Statewide Low-Income Assistance Plan, are hereby adopted;

 

2.         That the Administrative Director shall file the adopted rule and related materials with the Secretary of State; and

 

3.         That the Administrative Director shall notify the following of the final adoption of the attached rule:

 

a.         All electric transmission and distribution utilities in the State;

 

b.         All persons who have filed with the Commission within the past year a written request for notice of rulemakings;

 

c.         All persons on the service list for this docket;

 

d.         All persons that have commented in this rulemaking proceeding.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22^nd day of March, 2006.

 

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

 

 

_________________________________

Dennis L. Keschl

Acting Administrative Director

 

 

COMMISSIONERS VOTING FOR:             Adams

                                                                        Diamond

                                                                        Reishus