Page 11 - OCC-Annual-Report-2017-SPREADS

Issues for Electric Consumers
served by local utilities. Bills are proposed at the Ohio General Assembly (S.B. 157, H.B. 249)
for regulating submetering. The Agency offered testimony and recommendations on both bills
and supports the passage of House Bill 249 for consumer protection.
In 2017, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel served the interests of more than about four
million residential electric consumers in Ohio. The Agency advocated for lower rates, reliable An important bill for consumer protection, House Bill 247, was introduced in the Ohio General
service, and competition for power plant generation and smart grid services.
Assembly in 2017. The bill would repeal the part of Ohio’s 2008 energy law that allows “electric
security plans” and permit refunds to Ohio consumers when charges they paid are later
There were some familiar and some novel consumer issues in 2017. The Ohio General Assembly’s determined by the Ohio Supreme Court to have been improper. OCC supports the bill.
vision in 1999 was for a competitive electric market. But nearly twenty years later Ohio’s electric
utilities continue to seek subsidies from consumers. The Agency’s “Subsidy Scorecard,” shown Some of the protections that the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel recommended for
on the inside back cover of this Annual Report, is a summary of the subsidies paid by Ohio millions of Ohioans in 2017 are described below. A full listing of the Agency’s case activities can
customers to their electric utilities since 2000. Utilities have sought to subsidize their aging, be found at the back of this Annual Report.
uneconomic power plants at the General Assembly, the PUCO, and other forums.

At the General Assembly, bills have been introduced that, if passed, would subsidize both coal
and nuclear plants. The Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) bills (S.B. 155, H.B. 239) reflect
utility efforts to subsidize sixty-year-old, uneconomic coal-fired power plants located in Ohio State Cases Affecting Consumers’ Counsel challenges
and Indiana that are owned by a number of the regional utilities. The nuclear plant bills (S.B. Electric Consumers another subsidy charge from DP&L
128, H.B. 178, H.B. 381) would require customer payments to subsidize FirstEnergy’s nuclear
plants over the next 16 years. Consumers’ Counsel recommends In February 2016, DP&L sought PUCO approval for
protecting consumers from AEP’s its most recent electric security plan. Part of DP&L’s
At the PUCO, utilities have sought and received power plant subsidies for the old, uneconomic proposed electric security plan plan called for a so-called Distribution Modernization
OVEC plants in which Ohio utilities have ownership interests. The subsidies are through a power Rider (DMR) to preserve DP&L’s “financial integrity.”
purchase agreement with OVEC. AEP customers have paid to subsidize the OVEC plants since In September 2016, AEP submitted an application This customer-funded subsidy ($105 million per year
January 1, 2017. OCC has appealed that subsidy and is awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court to extend its electric security plan. AEP proposed for 3-5 years) is aimed at allowing DP&L and its parent
of Ohio. Dayton Power & Light (DP&L) customers also began paying to subsidize the OVEC charging customers millions of dollars for a distribution company to improve their financial condition so DP&L
plants starting November 1, 2017. An appeal of that subsidy is likely once a final order is issued investment rider, a distribution technology rider, and can borrow money at a lower rate and eventually
by the PUCO. Duke has sought the same subsidies from customers in two cases presently before a plug-in vehicle charging station rider. Additionally, modernize its distribution system at a later date. The
the PUCO.
the utility proposed charging its customers to subsidize OCC estimates that this subsidy will cost the average
uneconomic coal-fired power plants in which the utility residential consumer nearly $10 per month and up to
This year, Ohio’s utilities have continued to pursue a variety of other charges that add to the $600 in total for three years of the subsidy. The Agency
costs customers pay for electricity. Dayton Power & Light ($105 million/year for 3-5 years) and has an ownership interest through OVEC. opposed the charge as unlawful because it requires
FirstEnergy ($204 million/year for 3-5 years), for example, were allowed to charge customers customers to support the creditworthiness of the
for “distribution modernization.” However, the PUCO did not require these utilities to actually In November 2017, AEP submitted to the PUCO a utility’s parent corporation.
use the money collected from customers to modernize their distribution systems. Instead, the settlement it had reached with other parties. This
charges are intended to provide credit support for these utilities. settlement would allow AEP to charge customers for,
among other things, subsidizing the OVEC plants. AEP The PUCO approved a settlement that included the
AEP Ohio proposes to increase rates to customers for electric vehicle charging stations. And proposed to extend its current electric security plan DMR subsidy charge for Dayton-area consumers to pay.
Duke, just two years after it finished installing smart meters for all of its customers, already and included various financial benefits for parties that
proposes to replace some of those costly meters with new smart meters. signed onto the settlement. The Agency opposed this DP&L - 16-0395-EL-SSO, et al.
settlement because it requires Ohioans to subsidize
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel has advocated to protect consumers from all of uneconomic power plants and pay tens of millions
these charges. of dollars annually for projects that most consumers
will not benefit from or use. Customers are awaiting a
Ohioans who receive electric service resold by unregulated middlemen continue to see excessive decision from the PUCO on the proposed settlement.
charges for electric service and/or a lack of consumer protections. Under this “submetering”
model, consumers do not receive the same protections and service available for Ohioans AEP - 16-1852-EL-SSO, et al.

8 Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Annual Report 2017 9