Dayton Power & Light Seeks to Remove POR Language from Tariff

Dayton Power & Light filed tariff revisions with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to remedy what DP&L termed a "clerical" error and remove the current language regarding Purchase of Receivables from the tariff.

Currently, tariff G8 indicates that an alternate generation supplier may sell its receivables to DP&L under certain circumstances. DP&L said that this provision existed in the original G8 tariff which was filed in 2000 as a result of SB 3.

However, in 2004, DP&L said that it was authorized to modify its tariff G8 to remove the language concerning the sale of supplier receivables to DP&L. An adopted stipulation in Case 03-2245-EL-UNC provided that, "[i]n lieu of purchasing [supplier] accounts receivables, DP&L shall modify its current partial payment posting priority," with past-due supplier charges taking precedence over past-due distribution charges.

As a result, DP&L filed a revised tariff G8 reflecting the new process with respect to supplier accounts receivable, and also updated its billing services agreement to explicitly state that DP&L will not purchase the receivables of a supplier's customers.

However, in a compliance filing in an unrelated matter, DP&L inadvertently re-inserted the former language in tariff G8 stating that DP&L would purchase supplier receivables. In practice, DP&L has never purchased supplier receivables since this error, and suppliers have continued to sign the billing services agreement stating that there would not be POR.

DP&L is seeking to correct this error, and state in the tariff that POR will not be offered.

Additionally, DP&L is proposing to add language to tariff G8 relating to supplier-consolidated billing, to ensure any supplier using supplier-consolidated billing is capable of complying with applicable billing rules and regulations.

Furthermore, DP&L would add language to the tariff specifying fees for various supplier services. DP&L describes these changes as consistent with the past stipulation in Case 03-2245-EL-UNC, and it is unclear if their inclusion in the tariff is merely memorializing current practice, or a change in current practice.

For example, DP&L would modify the tariff to state that a supplier using dual billing shall be charged 12 cents per bill to cover EDI costs.

Additionally, DP&L will charge 20 cents per bill for rate ready consolidated billing, with a $5,000 set-up charge. No charge would apply for increases or decreases in previously established rate ready elements, but any changes to a supplier's rate structure for rate ready billing would be charged $1,000 per change, up to a maximum of $5,000 per request.