Page 14 - OCC-Annual-Report-2017-SPREADS

recommended annual caps on the amount that utilities and profits. OCC agreed not to oppose the settlement FirstEnergy to bill its customers hundreds of millions After the Court’s ruling, DP&L filed at the PUCO to
can charge customers for energy efficiency program because of this and other consumer protections, of dollars per year for an unlawful charge called the withdraw its electric security plan and to establish
costs and utility profits. And the Agency recommended including a cap on utility profits for energy efficiency Distribution Modernization Rider (which does not replacement rates. The PUCO allowed DP&L to
limits on what utilities can charge for so-called lost programs. The PUCO approved the settlement, require even a penny to be spent on actual distribution withdraw its electric security plan and established
revenues (being revenues some utilities allege they lost including the $110.3 million annual cost cap, for 2017 modernization). The PUCO allowed the utility to replacement rates for charges to consumers. Included
due to energy efficiency). through 2020. charge customers more than $200 million per year in in the replacement rates was another stability charge to
subsidies for at least three years to support the credit of customers. During the thirteen-month period that the
In its application to the PUCO, Duke proposed a charge Duke - 16-0576-EL-POR, 17-0349-EL-AAM, 17-0781-EL- FirstEnergy’s parent company. Customers began paying unlawful replacement rates were in effect, customers
that would allow it to collect about $50 million per year RDR; DP&L - 16-0649-EL-POR, 17-1398-EL-POR, this charge on January 1, 2017. The Agency appealed paid approximately $83 million more in stability charges.
from its customers for three years for energy efficiency 17-1399-EL-WVR; FirstEnergy - 16-0743-EL-POR; AEP this issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio in November
program costs and utility profits. The PUCO Staff and - 16-574-EL-POR, 17-1266-EL-RDR 2017. The case is ongoing. OCC appealed the PUCO’s decisions allowing the utility
OCC advocated for an annual cap on program costs and to withdraw its electric security plan in response to the
utility profits of about $33.8 million. The PUCO issued AEP - OSC 2017-0749, OSC 2017-0752; FirstEnergy - OSC Court’s reversal and allowing the replacement charges.
an order setting an annual cap of $38.6 million on 2017-1664 OCC also sought to protect customers by asking for
the amount Duke could charge its customers over the the return of all money collected from customers
three-year period. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Consumers’ Counsel seeks consumer for stability charges: approximately $285 million in
Counsel generally supported that ruling; however, the Electric Consumer Issues Appealed to protection by appealing DP&L’s unlawful stability charges collected from 2012 to 2015
Agency sought additional consumer safeguards. the Supreme Court of Ohio unlawful stability and transition charges and $73 million collected in 2016 through 2017.

There were two PUCO cases related to DP&L’s energy Consumers’ Counsel seeks consumer The Agency has appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio Regarding the replacement rate appeal, the Agency
efficiency charges to customers in 2017. In the first, DP&L protection by appealing unlawful two PUCO rulings allowing unlawful transition charges asked the Supreme Court to find that the PUCO
sought PUCO approval to charge customers $20 million charges in utilities’ electric security plans to be collected from DP&L’s 462,000 customers. Both violated Ohio law when it approved DP&L’s request for
for revenues purportedly lost in 2016 from its energy appeals result from the Supreme Court’s ruling in June $73 million per year in unlawful transition charges. By
efficiency program. OCC opposed this charge as unjust In 2017, the Agency appealed three cases to the 2016, where the Court found that DP&L’s $285 million permitting DP&L to withdraw from its electric security
and unreasonable, but the PUCO ultimately approved it Supreme Court of Ohio regarding unreasonable and in rate stability charges, collected from customers from plan after charging its customers under that plan for
as part of a settlement. In the second case, DP&L agreed unlawful charges for electric service. 2012 to 2015, were unlawful transition charges. (DP&L 32 months, the PUCO has made DP&L’s customers pay
through a settlement not to charge customers more than - OSC 2014-1505) Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s unlawful charges for their utility service. The Agency
$33 million per year for energy efficiency program costs The Agency appealed two PUCO cases to protect AEP’s ruling did not result in a refund of any of the $285 maintains that Ohio consumers should not have to pay
and utility profits. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ 1.3 million customers from paying unlawful charges— million stability charges collected from customers, but unlawful charges for their utility service.
Counsel agreed not to oppose this settlement because of specifically a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Rider. it did offer the prospect of stopping the future collection
this and other benefits to consumers. AEP charges customers to subsidize two coal-fired power of millions of dollars in stability charges. An oral argument was held in December 2017. A
plants held by Ohio Valley Electric Corporation in which decision is expected in 2018.
FirstEnergy submitted a proposal to charge its AEP and other Ohio utilities have an ownership interest.
customers $333 million over three years for energy Under Ohio’s law favoring power plant competition, DP&L - OSC 2017-0204, OSC 2017-241
efficiency costs and lost utility profits. The Agency customers should not be paying subsidies for generation
advocated for an $80.1 million annual cap on this that cannot be collected in a competitive market. Last
charge. The PUCO ultimately adopted a cap of $106 year, Ohio customers paid $21.8 million in power
million per year for three years, which the Agency purchase agreement subsidies to AEP.
supports. [Note: In early 2018, FirstEnergy appealed the
PUCO’s decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming In the first case, the Agency appealed the PUCO’s
that the PUCO lacks the authority to limit or cap what decision to establish a placeholder rider that could later
consumers pay for energy efficiency.] be used to charge customers. In the second case, the
Agency appealed the PUCO’s decision that allowed AEP
AEP Ohio also proposed an update to its charges for to charge customers for the coal-plant subsidies.
its energy efficiency programs. In a settlement, AEP
Ohio agreed to limit its charges to customers to $110.3 A third appeal filed in 2017 by OCC was related to
million per year for energy efficiency program costs FirstEnergy’s electric security plan. The PUCO allowed

12 Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Annual Report 2017 13