Page 30 - OCC-Annual-Report-2017-SPREADS

2017 Case Activity 2017 Case Activity

Case Number Party Consumer Impact Case Number Party Consumer Impact Case Number Party Consumer Impact Case Number Party Consumer Impact
16-0743-EL-POR Ohio Edison In November 2017, the PUCO modified 16-0395-EL-SSO, Dayton Power & DP&L filed an application to establish 15-1830-EL-AIR, Dayton Power & DP&L Rate Case - The Utility filed to 15-1052-EL-RDR Ohio Power Each quarter, AEP seeks to update the
Company, and approved a settlement limiting energy 16-0396-EL-ATA, Light Company an Electric Security Plan to provide 15-1831-EL-AAM, Light Company increase its distribution revenues by 65.8 amount it charges customers for renewable
The Cleveland efficiency program costs and profits to 16-0397-EL-AAM customers a standard service offer. OCC 15-1832-EL-ATA million. The proposed increase would energy costs. Renewable energy costs
Electric approximately $107 million annually (4% filed testimony opposing the application. cost the average residential customer are costs that customers pay for AEP’s
Illuminating of FirstEnergy’s operating revenues in Parties filed a settlement in the case, which $4.07 more per month. The Utility also compliance with renewable energy
Company, The 2015). Programs will run 2017-2019. (The OCC opposed. The Settlement included proposes to change the way it collects mandates. OCC raised concerns regarding
Toledo Edison PUCO Staff and OCC proposed an $80.1 $105 million per year for credit support, distribution rates from residential
Company million cap on program costs and shared a number of economic incentives for customers by increasing the fixed monthly AEP’s rates, which are substantially higher
(FirstEnergy) savings to protect consumers). And the signatory parties and other incentives for customer charge from $4.25 to $13.73. than other utilities in Ohio. In 2017, AEP’s
PUCO ruled that FirstEnergy should not signatory parties. Preliminary estimates The PUCO recently issued its Staff Report rate averaged $1.04 for customers using
be rewarded by collecting profits from are that the Settlement will cost a typical recommending, among other things, 750 kilowatt hours per month.
consumers when the utility has failed to residential utility consumer at least an an increase in distribution revenues of 15-0240-EL-RDR Ohio Power This case and a companion case
meet its statutory mandates or has used extra $6.22 per month over the six-year $23.2-$28.1 million, an increase in the (15-1513-EL-RDR) involved a review
banked energy efficiency savings from term of the ESP. Ultimately, the PUCO fixed monthly customer charge to $7.88, of the AEP Ohio gridSMART Phase I
prior years to meet its mandated levels. approved the settlement. This matter is and a rate of return of 7.33-7.82%. The investment costs (incurred through May
Rehearing requests by FirstEnergy and now on rehearing. Staff Report does not address the lower 2015) are included for future collection
environmental parties were denied by the 16-0329-EL-RDR Dayton Power & DP&L seeks to update how much it is federal tax rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs from customers in the AEP DIR rider, this
PUCO in January 2018. In March 2018, Light Company charging customers for energy efficiency. Act of 2017. The OCC will file objections case was resolved as part of the global AEP
FirstEnergy appealed this decision to the The PUCO Staff found that DP&L was to the Staff Report and submit testimony. settlement. Part of the settlement allocated
Supreme Court of Ohio. Objections and testimony are due $45 million of gridSMART expenses away
charging customers for things unrelated
16-0649-EL-POR, Dayton Power & In September 2017, the PUCO approved a to energy efficiency and recommended mid-April and the evidentiary hearing is from residential consumers.
16-1369-EL-WVR Light Company settlement limiting 2017 energy efficiency disallowing those charges. OCC further scheduled for mid-May. 14-2209-EL-ATA Duke Energy- This case involved an application filed by
program costs and profits to $33 million recommended that the PUCO not allow 15-1739-EL-RDR Ohio Edison This case involves an evaluation of the Ohio, Inc. Duke establishing the requirements and
which is 4% of the utility’s 2015 operating DP&L to continue charging customers for Company, amount of money FirstEnergy has been costs associated with sharing the granular
revenues. DP&L is also asking to charge lost revenues. The PUCO has not issued a The Cleveland authorized to collect from consumers for customer usage data that is available
customers $20 million in lost revenues decision yet. Electric its distribution capital recovery rider (DCR. through smart meters with Marketers for
from energy efficiency for 2016. OCC 16-0021-EL-RDR Ohio Power This case involves a review of the 2015 AEP Illuminating The period of time covered by the PUCO’s their use in offering time-of-use and other
applied for rehearing on this issue. OCC’s Ohio distribution investment rider (DIR) for Company, The review is between November 2014 and more innovative rate designs.
application for rehearing remains pending. accounting accuracy and prudency. The DIR Toledo Edison November 2015 for accounting accuracy 14-1693-EL-RDR, AEP AEP had asked the PUCO to approve a
16-0576-EL-POR Duke Energy- In September 2017, the PUCO modified enables AEP to expedite the collection of Company and prudency. The DCR enables First Energy 14-1694-EL-AAM power purchase agreement (PPA) where
Ohio, Inc. and approved a settlement limiting energy infrastructure modernization investment (FirstEnergy) to expedite collection of distribution customers would subsidize its uneconomic
efficiency program costs and profits to costs from consumers that it makes related investment costs. The annual spending OVEC plants. Due to a complaint filed by
$38.7 million annually (4% of the utility’s to infrastructure modernization. Through cap was $203.7 million. OCC addressed other parties and supported by OCC at the
2015 operating revenues). Duke may previous PUCO orders, a revenue cap of in comments a number of issues in this Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
exceed the cap in calendar year 2017 to $145 million was authorized for 2015. proceeding including recommending AEP's original PPA plan was abandoned.
recover program costs only, not profits. AEP, the PUCO Staff, OCC and other parties a process for determining prudency for But AEP was successful in gaining PUCO
And Duke was required to scale back its reached a Settlement in this case, as well capital investments that greatly exceed approval for a smaller PPA that covers the
program to avoid materially exceeding its as two previous DIR audits. The settlement budget and several accounting errors. two fifty-year-old plants owned by Ohio
program plan budget for 2017. Programs resulted in a reduction in the revenue 15-1513-EL-RDR Ohio Power Same as 15-0240-EL-RDR Valley Electric Corporation. OCC estimates
will run for three years (2017 - 2019) Duke requirement and improved reporting of 15-1507-EL-EDI Ohio Power The PUCO directed the Market that customers will be charged $191
filed a motion to charge customers $56 reliability data. Development Working Group to consider million over 8 years for the OVEC subsidy.
million for 2017, which OCC opposed. The options for AEP, when it bills marketer On a per customer basis this amounts to
PUCO granted Duke’s motion over OCC’s charges to buy the amount consumers owe $20 per year over the term of the electric
Objections. security plan. The case is now on appeal to
electric marketers at a discount. The plan
could affect the amount consumers pay for the Ohio Supreme Court.
electricity and could result in consumers'
electric bills containing charges for
products and services not associated with
electric service.

28 Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Annual Report 2017 29