OPAE Moves to Dismiss Stipulation that Would Remove Dominion East Ohio from Merchant Function

The Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy has moved to dismiss a joint stipulation signed by several parties under which Dominion East Ohio would exit the merchant function for certain customer classes.

As only reported by Matters, the joint stipulation filed with PUCO would provide that, beginning in April 2013, the availability of Standard Choice Offer (SCO) service to Choice-eligible General Sales Service-Non-Residential, Large Volume General Sales Service, Energy Choice Transportation Service-Non-Residential and Large Volume Energy Choice Transportation Service customers would be discontinued.

Non-shopping customers in these classes would be assigned to the next retail supplier on a rotating list maintained by Dominion East Ohio, to be served at that supplier's monthly variable rate.

See prior story for more details on the process

The stipulation was signed by Dominion East Ohio, the Ohio Gas Marketers Group, and Ohio Consumers' Counsel.

OPAE said that the stipulation was inconsistent with Ohio policy under the Revised Code, which instructs PUCO to promote, "effective competition and transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers." [emphasis added]

"Customers who have not chosen a marketer clearly do not want to choose a marketer," OPAE said. "The state's energy policy is to achieve effective competition, not to force customers to choose a marketer and certainly not to allow Dominion to choose a marketer for them. The promotion of competition requires an SCO option that gives customers the choice not to choose a marketer. Taking away that choice serves no one but the marketers. The interest of marketers is clear; they want to have more customers and to make more money," OPAE said.

OPAE further called a motion by the stipulating parties to modify PUCO's prior exemption order with respect to default service at Dominion East Ohio procedurally deficient.

OPAE said that stipulating parties have not been adversely affected by the prior exemption order, and therefore lack standing to move for a modification. Furthermore, OPAE said that none of findings of the Commission's prior exemption order have been shown to be invalid, and thus modification cannot be justified.