|
|
|
|
|
PUC Denies Elimination Of Fees, Tariff Changes Sought By Retail Suppliers
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In an order in the FirstEnergy Ohio utilities' distribution rate case, the PUC of Ohio denied most of the relief sought by retail suppliers, including suppliers' sought elimination of the switching fee, and elimination of fees associated with accessing customer usage data
PUCO reiterated its precedent that, "unmodified tariffs are not generally the subject of
review in a rate case".
As the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs did not propose to change the current $5 fee for switching a customer from SSO to retail supplier service, PUCO saw no reason to adopt suppliers' petition to eliminate the switching fee
RESA and IGS Energy had argued that the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs collected $2 million in switching fees
during 2023 and 2024
However, PUCO said that the suppliers, "provided no evidence showing that
circumstances in the retail market have changed in a way that sufficiently warrants a change
in the switching fee."
While PUCO Staff has noted that the $5 switching fee may no longer be necessary, PUCO said that, "the more
appropriate proceeding to review such fees would be in an SSO proceeding."
PUCO's repeated reluctance to change the switching fee (and other supplier fees) in a rate case is notable given that, earlier this week, in a separate rate case at AEP Ohio, retail suppliers generally sought the same relief with respect to elimination of a switching fee and various other fees for customer usage data, and related data issues
In the instant FirstEnergy utilities rate case, RESA and IGS had argued that PUCO should, in the rate case order, require the FirstEnergy utilities to update their tariffs to eliminate the customer data access fee for retail providers, in compliance with a prior
order in the Grid Mod II case
PUCO acknowledged that, although the approved stipulation in the Grid
Mod II case did not specifically reduce the fees for data access, the stipulation did, "contemplate providing
certified CRES providers with access to interval data without cost."
However, PUCO again cited its precedent that unmodified tariffs generally are not subject to review
in rate cases, and declined to order a change in the fees for retail suppliers to access customer data at this time
PUCO also denied RESA/IGS’s proposal that the assessment, to fund PUCO and the OCC, which is based in part on SSO revenues recorded at the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs, should be unbundled and made bypassable.
Currently, the PUCO/OCC assessment related to SSO revenues are recovered in distribution rates, meaning that shopping customers pay generation-related PUCO/OCC assessments twice -- once in delivery rates for SSO-related assessments, and a second time in paying their retail supplier's rate, as the supplier must also pay a PUCO/OCC assessment and reflect such assessment costs in the supplier's rate
PUCO said of the PUCO/OCC assessment issue, "We find that this issue is not appropriately resolved in a
contested distribution rate case but should be addressed in a different, appropriate
proceeding instead."
While the unbundling of the PUCO/OCC assessment has occurred at certain utilities, PUCO noted that such unbundling occurred through stipulations which were specifically not binding with respect to the issue in future cases
PUCO denied the FirstEnergy Ohio EDCs' EV
Charger Rebate Program, which would have provided rebates to multifamily housing properties and public serving
locations for each EV charging port, as PUCO cited cost concerns, with the cost for the EV
Charger Rebate program approaching $1 million annually
PUCO did adopt, with conditions, a new Electric Vehicle Charging Rider (Rider
EVC), which may also result in cost shifting. PUCO said that adding the EV
Charger Rebate Program on top of Rider
EVC was too great a cost
"[T]he Commission, at this time, believes the projected $990,000 in annual costs of the
rebate program -- in addition to the potential costs related to Rider EVC -- exceed our
appetite for the potential level of cross-subsidization other rate classes would shoulder for
a limited benefit," PUCO said
Rider
EVC aims to modify the billing impact of the otherwise applicable general service demand-based rates
for customers who operate publicly available EV chargers by transitioning the charges to an energy-only
rate structure, assuming a load factor of 15 percent
Rider EVC is to be available to any customer taking service under the general service rate
schedules that qualifies as a publicly available (i.e., EV charging available to the general
public and where access is not restricted or conditional on criteria such as membership or
residency) EV charging customer and has a separately metered EV charging load
PUCO denied a proposal from the FirstEnergy EDCs to add language to their tariffs to only allow paralleling customer generation upon written consent of the EDC and approval of the interconnection design. Retail suppliers, among other parties, had raised concern with the proposed parallel operation tariff language additions
Case 24-471-EL-UNC et al
ADVERTISEMENT 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
November 19, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|