|
|
|
|
|
PUC Rejects Proposed Rule Change Which Would Have Supported The Unbundling Of Utility Rates
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In adopting final rules relating to standard filing requirements for rate cases for electric and natural gas utilities, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio declined to adopt certain proposed language from Staff concerning the filing by utilities of information related to the utilities' provision of competitive services, which the Retail Energy Supply Association had said would have supported unbundling Standard Service Offer costs
Specifically, Staff had proposed that large utilities include the following information in their rate case filings:
For those utilities who are providing both competitive and non-competitive services,
provide a narrative description of the provisioning of each competitive service of the
applicant utility which includes, but is not limited to the following:
(e) Brief description of the nature of the competitive service, including the nature of
the revenues and expenses involved.
(f) Date when utility began providing the competitive service.
(g) Brief description of procedures used to separate revenues, expenses, plant in
service, and other balance sheet items between non-competitive and competitive
services. If specific allocation factors are used, provide the allocation factors and
the related computation.
(h) A listing of the accounts and their location on the income statement and balance
sheet, if separate accounts are maintained.
While RESA supported the language proposing that such information shall be required to be filed by utilities in rate cases, RESA said that the rule should further provide that, "To
the extent that revenues, expenses, or plant in service are identified, there is no provision
to adjust plant accounts, revenues and expenses, or the cost of service study to remove
them from the calculation of base distribution rates."
However, PUCO found that Staff's newly proposed language quoted above is unnecessary and, therefore, "we have eliminated the relevant
language."
"To the extent additional information is required
during Staff’s review of the [rate increase] application, it can be requested through the discovery process,
to the extent necessary. Along those same lines, we find RESA’s recommendations to be
more appropriate to raise in the actual rate case proceedings, rather than this general
rulemaking," PUCO said
Case 19-2103-AU-ORD
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please
email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited.
October 20, 2021
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Sr. Margin Optimization Analyst - Retail Energy -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Sales Executive -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Power Analyst
• NEW! -- Financial Analyst
• NEW! -- Environmental Commodity Analyst
• NEW! -- Gas Analyst
• Energy Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• Senior Account Operations Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• Energy Procurement Manager
|
|
|
|