|
|
|
|
|
Utility Proposes Working Group On Future Of Purchase Of Receivables Program
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Enbridge Gas Ohio (aka East Ohio Gas or EOG) has proposed that a working group be established, after the conclusion of its current Ohio rate case, to consider potential changes to EOG's purchase of receivables (POR) program
Enbridge Gas Ohio was responding to a PUC of Ohio Staff rate case report in which Staff has again proposed that EOG should impose a cap or other limit on purchased receivables in EOG's purchase of receivables program, or alternatively should "wind down" the POR program
See background on Staff's recommendation here
EOG did not propose any changes to the POR program in its rate case. EOG's POR program has had a 0% discount rate for approximately 20 years
Staff has described Staff's proposed changes to the POR program as being consistent with a 2025 order in EOG's prior rate case
However, EOG stressed that PUCO's prior order only directed EOG to consider changes to the POR program, and did not mandate any specific filing or timeline for EOG to report on proposed POR changes
In supplemental rate case testimony, Enbridge Gas Ohio said that, "at
this time, the Company has not concluded that any changes to the POR program should be
made."
"EOG does not want to make any presumptions about what modifications are necessary until after the Company has had
sufficient opportunity to review the POR program," Enbridge Gas Ohio said
EOG also said that consideration of POR should occur in a separate proceeding and not the rate case
Acknowledging Staff's ongoing concerns about POR, Enbridge Gas Ohio proposed that a working
group be created to evaluate the POR program and potential changes
Enbridge Gas Ohio proposed that the work group start within 60 days of a final order in the current rate case, and meet
at least once a month for at least six months and no more than one year.
Enbridge Gas Ohio proposed that, within 90 days of the work group's conclusion, Enbridge Gas Ohio would file an application at PUCO for changes to the POR program, or alternatively a compliance report on the workgroup process and its discussions, to the extent EOG does not believe changes should be made to the POR program
In separately filed testimony, IGS Energy and the Retail Energy Supply Association objected to Staff's POR recommendations, arguing that Staff mischaracterizes PUCO's prior direction on POR.
RESA/IGS said that the, "Staff Report claims the PUCO directed Enbridge Gas Ohio to review and
examine the POR Program 'to protect ratepayers from exorbitant competitive charges
passed through to all ratepayers in the UEX[,]'" but RESA/IGS said that, "PUCO’s decisions in Case No. 23-894-GA-AIR et al. made no such statement in its decisions."
RESA/IGS also noted that, as reported in ECM's prior story, Staff’s own bill sample shows that distribution charges and
commodity charges are essentially equal contributors to a disconnected customer’s bill
(26% each), with the largest single component of the arrearage being transfer and
miscellaneous charges (45%), not competitive supply charges
RESA/IGS said, "Staff’s own data does not
show that commodity charges are disproportionately large compared to the Company’s
own distribution charges, undercutting the basis for singling out the POR Program while
leaving distribution-side cost recovery unaddressed."
In separately filed testimony, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel supported PUCO Staff's recommendations on POR
In separate objections, RESA also opposed Staff's previously reported proposed changes to EOG's General Transportation Service (GTS) tariff
RESA stated: "Staff proposed revisions to Enbridge Gas Ohio’s GTS tariff.
The proposal would require GTS customers who do not have gas supplied from a supplier to either
receive their gas supply under the Standard Choice Offer ('SCO') or the Market Retail Rate
('MRR'). Staff’s revisions appear to mandate that a GTS customer who does not 'maintain,'
'obtain' or 'arrange for' its natural gas supply from a competitive supplier default for a minimum
period to the Large Volume General Sales Service ('LVGSS'). That LVGSS schedule places the
LVGSS customer on the SCO or the MRR, depending on their usage level. After that minimum
stay period and 'if eligible,' the converted GTS customer will be served by the Large Volume
Energy Choice Transportation Service ('LVECTS'). If not eligible for LVECTS, however, the converted GTS customer must receive service from LVGSS (SCO or MRR). The Staff proposal
would also include language that precludes any unpaid GTS charges from being collected in the
UEX Rider."
RESA said, "The Staff Report appears to limit the ability of GTS customers from entering into a
bilateral supply contract with a supplier. At a minimum, after initially converted
into an LVGSS customer, a GTS customer’s ability to sign with a supplier is limited
for a period of time. In addition, if not eligible for LVECTS, the Staff’s language
mandates that the converted GTS customer 'shall receive all of their natural gas
requirements' pursuant to LVGSS -- apparently forcing the former GTS customer
into receiving either the SCO or MRR only."
RESA also objected to the continued inclusion of various choice-related charges in EOG's tariff, such as a $0.048 fee per name and
address provided in an initial customer information list, and a $4.78 Customer Conversion Charge, applied to each End Use Customer when the End Use Customer initially receives commodity service
from a Supplier after having been served in the prior Customer Billing Cycle by another Supplier.
RESA and IGS also proposed that EOG increase EOG's level of contracts for firm transportation pipeline capacity at EOG's city gate on a peak day to be 100% of peak day requirements, from the current level of about 60-65% of peak day requirements
RESA and IGS proposed such increase, in part, due to the expansion of data centers and data centers' use of dispatchable gas-fired generation
"That growing [data center] demand places additional
pressure on the same upstream pipeline capacity and delivered gas supplies that
Enbridge and CRNGS [retail suppliers] rely on to serve retail customers," RESA and IGS said
"Because electric
generation demand is often greatest during periods of extreme weather -- which
may coincide with peak natural gas demand -- reliance on interruptible capacity or
spot market purchases becomes less reliable and more costly. Requiring Enbridge
to hold firm capacity equal to no less than 100 percent of peak day requirements
ensures that retail gas customers are served with reliable, contractually assured
delivery rights at the city gate, regardless of competing demands on pipeline
infrastructure," RESA and IGS said
Case 25-1097-GA-AIR et al
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 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 7, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|