Page 12 - OCC-Annual-Report-2017-SPREADS

Consumers’ Counsel acts to protect Agency continued to investigate this case. The PUCO investigation into Duke’s disconnection practices. OCC that Ohioans whose utility service is provided by a
Duke customers from unwarranted independently audited the utility to determine the is participating for consumers in the investigation of submetering entity should receive the same protections
infrastructure investment charges utility’s rate base value. OCC will continue to advocate Duke’s disconnections. for price and reliability of service that non-submetered
for the interests of consumers in this case. Ohioans receive. In December 2015, to ensure that
In 2017, Duke made several proposals to the PUCO that In another case, Duke submitted a request to the PUCO residential consumers of submetered utility service
would unreasonably raise its customers’ rates. FirstEnergy - 17-0334-EL-ATR; DP&L - 15-1830-EL- to at least temporarily waive the right of its customers are protected, the Agency intervened in the PUCO’s
AIR, et al. to receive in-person notification before electric service investigation of submetering entities. The PUCO sought
In March 2017, Duke filed a request to charge its is to be disconnected for nonpayment. The PUCO’s comments on its ruling. OCC and other consumer
customers an additional $169 million for a new smart Consumers’ Counsel enters case rules require electric utilities to provide residential advocates jointly filed comments and reply comments
meter infrastructure, including replacing all of its to protect FirstEnergy consumers consumers with in-person notice on the day their in 2017. OCC also sought rehearing of the PUCO’s
recently installed residential electric smart meters and regarding significant increases in service is to be disconnected for nonpayment. If the rulings, challenging the rulings as not providing
related communications technology. customer charges customer (or an adult resident of the household) is adequate protection to customers.
not at home, electric utilities must leave written notice
The OCC opposed Duke’s proposal to charge customers In April 2017, FirstEnergy submitted an application to at the customer’s home in a conspicuous place before In December 2016, the PUCO ruled that a submetering
for a new “smart grid” because Duke just finished the PUCO requesting an increase in the fixed-charge disconnection. Duke, which has had one of the highest entity is presumed to be a public utility if it charges
installing its current system two years ago. The Agency portion of its customers’ bills for distribution service disconnection rates in the state, sought to remove this residential utility customers more than the total bill
questioned whether Duke had spent its customers’ (with a decrease proposed for the usage-based charge). important consumer protection for consumers who of similarly situated customers on the local public
money prudently. The case is ongoing. For residential customers, the FirstEnergy proposal have smart meters that can be disconnected remotely. utility’s default service. The PUCO sought comments
would increase the fixed charge from $4 per month to The Agency opposed Duke’s request, but the PUCO on its ruling. OCC and other advocates filed joint
In its distribution rate case, Duke also asked the $25 per month over three years, beginning in 2019. approved Duke’s proposal as a two-year pilot program. comments and reply comments in 2017. OCC also
PUCO to approve a $15.4 million increase in the rates Higher fixed charges are a consumer concern because AEP Ohio filed a similar request for a pilot program sought rehearing of the PUCO’s ruling, challenging
consumers pay for its distribution service. Additionally, they deny the opportunity to consumers to save to allow disconnection without personal notice for the holdings as not providing adequate protection to
Duke asked the PUCO to increase the fixed charge on money by reducing usage. Also, higher fixed charges consumers who have smart meters, which the PUCO submetered customers.
residential customers’ bills from $6 to $22.77 (and to can hurt low-income and fixed-income consumers. approved over OCC’s objection.
decrease the usage-based distribution charge). Higher The OCC moved to intervene in the case on behalf of PUCO Submetering Investigation - 15-1594-AU-COI
fixed charges are a consumer concern because they FirstEnergy’s nearly two million customers. Duke - 16-1096-EL-WVR, 15-1588-GE-CSS,
deny the opportunity to consumers to save money by 17-2089-GE-COI; AEP - 17-1381-EL-WVR Consumers’ Counsel recommends
reducing usage. The PUCO Staff recommended that the FirstEnergy - 17-334-EL-ATA limiting charges to consumers for
PUCO reject Duke’s request and instead reduce rates by Consumers’ Counsel recommends electric utility energy efficiency
between $18.4 and $28.9 million. The PUCO Staff also Consumers’ Counsel participates in consumer protections from electric and programs
recommended a much smaller increase to fixed charges the investigation of Duke Energy’s water submetering (reselling) practices
for consumers. The Agency collected relevant discovery practices for disconnection of In 2017, the PUCO modified settlements for Duke
and deposed Duke employees in order to challenge consumers’ service A submetering entity is a third-party business that Energy Ohio (Duke) and FirstEnergy to limit what
Duke’s unreasonable requests. This case is also ongoing. provides a utility service (usually electric or water) consumers are charged for energy efficiency programs.
In 2015, the Agency and Communities United for by reselling the utility’s service to residents, such The PUCO also approved settlements for AEP Ohio
Duke - 17-0032-EL-AIR, et al., 17-1263-EL-SSO, et al. Action (CUFA) jointly filed a complaint at the PUCO as apartment tenants or condominium owners. (AEP) and Dayton Power & Light (DP&L) that included
regarding Duke’s practices for disconnection of Submeterers have charged consumers more for utility limits on what consumers are charged for energy
Consumers’ Counsel seeks consumer customers’ utility service for nonpayment. The Agency service than the consumers would have been charged efficiency programs. The Agency represented residential
protections from another DP&L- then filed a motion asking the PUCO to compel Duke as customers of the local regulated public utility. And utility consumers in these cases and recommended
proposed rate increase to respond to the Agency’s discovery (information) submetered consumers have been denied the many establishing reasonable limits to these charges.
requests, after Duke refused to respond to the Agency’s regulatory protections that exist for consumers who
On November 30, 2015, DP&L requested that the PUCO requests for information regarding its disconnection directly purchase service from a public utility, including The proposed utility charges include program costs
approve a $65.8 million increase in the rates consumers procedures. In 2017, after the PUCO did not act on protection from unreasonable disconnection. Further, and utility profits (referred to as “shared savings”). The
pay for distribution service. This proposal would the Agency’s motion for nearly two years, the Agency consumers of submetered utility service are unable to charges for these programs have been increasing. The
result in a $4.07 monthly increase for a residential asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to order the PUCO seek competitive electric service from another provider. utilities’ charges for their energy efficiency programs
customer with 1,000 kWh of usage. In 2017, the to act. The PUCO then dismissed the OCC/CUFA Up to now, submetering entities have generally not are now among the highest surcharges on consumers’
complaint. At the same time, the PUCO opened an been regulated by the PUCO. The Agency advocates electric bills. To protect customers, the Agency

10 Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Annual Report 2017 11