|
|
|
|
|
Retail Suppliers Request That, "All Direct Financial Issues Tied To AES Ohio's ACE Issues Should Be Transferred From CRES Providers To AES Ohio"
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In objections to a PUC of Ohio Staff report on Dayton Power & Light's (AES Ohio) current electric rate case, the Retail Energy Supply Association said that, "the Commission should direct that all direct financial issues tied to AES Ohio’s
ACE issues should be transferred from CRES providers to AES Ohio, as they are
ultimately utility billing issues and not CRES billing and collection issues."
As discussed further below, RESA noted that the Staff report on the rate case identified "multiple issues" with DP&L's conversion to a new CIS (AES Customer Ecosystem or ACE), including issues with retail supplier billing and rates.
RESA said that although the Staff Report identified these issues, "the Staff Report is deficient because it failed to recommend any
consequences or remedial requirements."
Among other things, RESA alleged that, "CRES
providers have not been able to have customers properly billed over several months, with
some suppliers having outstanding charges of over a million dollars that AES Ohio has
still not properly billed to customers."
Among other recommendations, RESA said that PUCO should, "direct that financial
consequences of AES Ohio’s failure to timely implement the ACE conversion and inability
to timely fix issues not be borne on CRES providers who have no ability to address these
issues."
"Ultimately, RESA hopes that AES Ohio will finally correct its outstanding issues,
including correcting and issuing outstanding bills, so that there is not a direct financial
issue that needs resolved (e.g. inability to properly bill and collect charges to customers)," RESA said
"To this end, the Commission should direct that all direct financial issues tied to AES Ohio’s
ACE issues should be transferred from CRES providers to AES Ohio, as they are
ultimately utility billing issues and not CRES billing and collection issues," RESA said
RESA suggested that, after such action, PUCO can then determine, "if it is appropriate to flow through those costs through an existing
mechanism like the UEX."
RESA also said, "Based on AES Ohio’s mismanagement in the ACE rollout the Commission should
consider whether it is appropriate to set AES Ohio’s return on equity at the lower end of
the range recommended by Staff."
In separate objections, IGS Energy also recommended a reduction in ROE for DP&L due to the ACE problems
IGS alleged, "Since the CIS conversion, IGS and its customers have been adversely impacted by a variety of issues (i.e., inaccurate customer billing information, missing or incomplete historical usage information, over 1700 accounts active without usage, dropping customers back to Standard Service; etc.)."
Due to the ACE problems, IGS alleged that, as of July 11, 2025, IGS currently has 1752 active accounts without usage.
IGS alleged, "Although IGS has devoted approximately 4,000 employee hours across its IT, Operations, and Billing departments thus far to update its systems and to address issues associated with the conversion, many supplier-related issues remain unresolved dating back to October of 2024."
IGS alleged, "In April 2025, at a peak, IGS had over 10,000 invoices outstanding totaling almost $3,000,000 in customer bills that AES failed to place on customer’s bills."
IGS said, "Given the time, expense, and frustration that IGS and other suppliers have absorbed in an ongoing effort to comply with the CIS conversion, Staff should have recommended a reduction to AES’s return on equity. AES acted imprudently in the implementation of its CIS migration and this reflects poorly upon the management performance of AES. AES’s imprudent implementation increased IGS’s costs significantly and negatively impacted not only our business but our customers."
IGS recommended that the Commission authorize DP&L to recover an ROE of 9.13%, which reflects the lower range of the Staff report
RESA and IGS in their separate objections also addressed other retail market issues
RESA and IGS both said that PUCO in the rate case should require that DP&L shall provide CRES providers with hourly interval data for their
customers
Although retail supplier access to such interval data was a provision of an earlier phase I DP&L smart grid proceeding, such access has yet to be implemented, and subsequent developments (including the withdrawal of DP&L's phase II smart grid plan, which was to further address CRES access) have stalled such access
Both RESA and IGS welcomed Staff's recommendation that rebate and program costs for EV-related rebates and smart thermostat rebates offered by DP&L under utility programs should not be allowed, but both RESA and IGS objected to the continuation of the programs, arguing that such programs are inappropriate offerings for a monopoly distribution utility. Staff had recommended removal of the rebates and program costs because the costs do not fall within the test year
IGS said, "The Staff Report correctly recommends removal of AES’s Electric Vehicle Program. However, the Staff Report fails to recommend AES discontinue any Electric Vehicle Rebate program in accordance with Commission precedent."
IGS also said, "IGS believes that energy efficiency and demand response programs are an inappropriate offering from an electric distribution utility. EE/PDR programs should not be offered by the electric distribution utility, especially when the cost of the offering is subsidized by all customers."
Case No. 24-1011-EL-ATA et al.
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
July 29, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|