|
|
|
|
|
Utility Agrees On Lack Of Clarity Regarding PUC's Order Regarding POR, Gives Interpretation
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Enbridge Gas Ohio (East Ohio Gas, or EOG, and f/k/a Dominion East Ohio) has agreed with retail suppliers that a recent PUC of Ohio rate case order should be clarified to address what specific PUCO Staff recommendations concerning "service quality" were adopted in the rate case order. Implicated by PUCO's order, and what Staff "service quality" recommendations were adopted, is the future of the purchase of receivables program at EOG
As first reported by ECM, PUCO Staff had originally, "recommend[ed] a discount rate be applied to competitive suppliers to offset," uncollectible and other costs of EOG's purchase of receivables (POR) program.
See more background here
As reported by ECM, PUCO in its rate case order did not specifically address the POR program or related issues
PUCO did adopt Staff's "recommendations regarding service quality," but due to differences in wording (a Staff recommendation instead included a section on "service monitoring and enforcement") as well as varying pagination references, it was unclear to ECM how PUCO disposed of the POR issue in such written rate case order
PUCO's order did specifically discuss and endorse certain Staff recommendations on service monitoring and enforcement, unrelated to the retail market, and it was not clear if PUCO's adoption of Staff's recommendations were limited to these specifically listed issues, or if PUCO's adoption of Staff's recommendations more broadly encompassed all of Staff's, "recommendations regarding service quality".
See more discussion here
In a rehearing request, RESA and IGS had said that, "the Opinion and Order adopts Staff’s 'recommendations regarding service quality' without clearly identifying which of the multiple recommendations it intends to adopt."
"The Opinion and Order identifies and discusses only a portion of the customer service audit recommendations made in the Staff Report and Staff testimony and yet concludes that it is adopting Staff’s 'service quality' recommendations, which could be read to be all service quality recommendations including those not even described or addressed in the Opinion and Order," RESA and IGS had said
RESA and IGS had said, "The Commission should grant rehearing to clarify it is adopting only those Staff recommendations directly discussed and not rejected in the 'Service Quality' section of the decision and also affirmatively state that other Staff recommendations addressed in the Staff Report and in Staff testimony are not adopted (specifically, the Commission is not adopting the recommendations addressing the purchase of receivables program)."
EOG in response agreed that PUCO's order, "should be clarified as referring only to the specific recommendations being adopted."
"This is how EOG understood this portion of the Order," EOG said
EOG said, "Given the
many modifications and adjustments of Staff Report positions in written testimony and on the
stand, a broader adoption could lead to confusion and unreasonable outcomes."
EOG opposed a separate issue on which RESA and IGS sought rehearing, for reasons articulated by EOG in prior briefing
RESA and IGS had also sought rehearing of PUCO's decision that EOG should annually educate vacillating customers (whose usage hovers around the threshold for large vs. non-large service classification) about the availability of alternative tariffs, including the availability, if the customer drops below the threshold, of the default Standard Choice Offer. As more fully discussed in our prior story, RESA and IGS, at a minimum, sought what RESA & IGS view as improvements in the educational materials, and for a collaborative to participate in the development of the materials. PUCO did not require that a collaborative be used to develop the materials
EOG said that PUCO Staff's review of materials will address any concerns that any materials should be competitively neutral and fair
EOG further said, "requiring call-center training to be developed through an existing customer-education
collaborative, as RESA and IGS desire, would similarly prove unreasonable and
burdensome. EOG often must introduce new training for its call-center representatives quickly and
on short notice in response to changing circumstances. Requiring EOG to navigate a collaborative
process for call-center training would lead to needless delays and an inability to function in a time-sensitive
manner, harming customers and not helping them."
Case 23-0897-GA-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
August 8, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|