PUC Rejects Utility's Rule Language Which Would Have Deemed Certain Behind-the-Meter, Other Customer Services As "Noncompetitive" Services
PUC Maintains Rule Obligating Utilities To Report "Unreasonable Sales Practices"
June 17, 2020 Email This Story Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
As part of a periodic review, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio re-adopted, without substantive changes, certain rules relating to utility corporate separation (Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4901:1-37)
In doing so, PUCO rejected a proposal from Dayton Power and Light, which had sought language providing that certain utility-offered behind-the-meter services and other customer services shall be deemed a noncompetitive retail electric service
As previously reported, DP&L had proposed language stating that, "Notwithstanding the above, to the extent an electric distribution utility makes a filing before the public utilities commission and receives approval to offer a regulated behind the meter service, or other similar customer service, it will be deemed a noncompetitive retail electric service under section 4928.01(B) of the Revised Code, eliminating the need to file a corporate separation plan."
DP&L had proposed the language to, "make clear that the electric distribution utilities ('EDUs') also have a place in providing a regulated option from which customers may choose innovative products and services."
PUCO rejected DP&L's language
"The Commission does not agree with DP&L’s proposed language. We find
that DP&L has not provided an adequate reason to make such a rule change and do not
believe that such an issue should be decided in a rulemaking proceeding at this time. In
addition, DP&L’s proposal may prejudge the outcome of pending matters and may be
inconsistent with current law and policy," PUCO said
PUCO also addressed an existing rule which requires that electric utilities shall report to PUCO any, "unreasonable sales
practices, market deficiencies, and market power."
Duke Energy Ohio said that it interprets this rule
as obligating an electric utility’s compliance officer to promptly report instances of the listed
problematic conduct by his or her own electric utility, but not obligating an electric utility’s
compliance officer to report problematic conduct by other entities. Duke Energy Ohio
requested that the Commission confirm this interpretation as reasonable and proper.
Duke had said that requiring electric utilities’ compliance officers to report all market participants’
problematic conduct would be improper, given that electric utilities lack the authority or ability to
monitor other entities for compliance or to investigate ambiguous circumstantial evidence
PUCO rejected Duke's interpretation
"The Commission does not agree with Duke’s interpretation of the rule and
does not believe that a change to the rule is needed. We find that the rule is clear and
unambiguous as written. A utility should report any unreasonable sales practices, market
deficiencies, and market power of which it is aware," PUCO said