Direct Energy Files Complaint Against Utility Over Inaccurate Meter Data, Seeks Resettlement

Direct Energy Business has filed a complaint at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio against Duke Energy Ohio regarding inaccurate meter data submitted by Duke to PJM.

Direct said that, for the period January 2013 through July 2013, Duke reported load data to PJM for Direct's loads that included approximately 27,000 MWh per month attributed to Direct's customer SunCoke Energy. However, under dual billing, Duke invoiced SunCoke for utility charges during the same period based on average monthly usage of approximately 4,275 MWh per month.

According to Direct, Duke corrected the meter data submitted to PJM for the months of March through July within the respective sixty-day resettlement windows. The months of January and February remain outstanding.

"Duke acknowledges that the meter data Duke provided to PJM were erroneous and that Duke's own invoices to SunCoke reflected the correct meter data. However, Duke has failed to initiate the PJM resettlement process for this customer in a timely manner for the January 2013 and February 2013 time period," Direct alleged

As a result of the errors, Direct estimates that it overpaid PJM by approximately $7 million for this period. Direct noted that it is not permitted to withhold payments from PJM. The amount overpaid remaining after corrections for March through July is approximately $2 million for January and February.

"Duke initially promised to provide PJM with the correct meter data and assist Direct in obtaining a resettlement by PJM for the January 2013 through July 2013 period. However, Duke has failed to diligently pursue the matter," Direct alleged

"Due to Duke's delay in resettlement, the PJM process now requires unanimous agreement of all load serving entities for PJM to resettle. Despite Duke's delay resulting in the inability to resettle within the sixty-day process, Duke's last position was that the burden falls on Direct to obtain the unanimous consent of nearly forty other retail suppliers doing business with Duke before Duke will transmit the correct meter data to PJM and initiate the resettlement process. In other words, Duke believes that Direct must convince its competitors that Direct deserves a refund, even though the metering error is plainly Duke's. Duke sent a request to market participants for consent to resettlement. The request indicated a potential cost to those participants. However when only 4 of the 39 participants responded, Duke took no further action," Direct alleged

Direct asked that PUCO direct Duke to immediately submit corrected meter data to Direct and to PJM with respect to Direct's customer loads for the January 2013 through February 2013 period, "directing Duke to initiate resettlement with PJM for that period, directing all affected CRES providers to consent to resettlement, and further directing Duke to provide Direct and PJM with timely accurate meter data going forward."

As an alternative to resettlement, Direct proposed that PUCO direct Duke to pay restitution to Direct in the amount of approximately $2 million, plus additional restitution in the amount of $383 per day, from March 1, 2013 through the date Direct is made whole for excess PJM charges, either by way of refund from PJM or by restitution from Duke, to compensate Direct for Direct's cost of capital stemming from the PJM overcharges, plus Direct's attorneys' fees and related costs.

Direct also suggested that PUCO fine, "for the inadequate service that Direct experienced, in an amount up to $10,000 for each day that Duke has provided inadequate and discriminatory service, multiplied by the number of violations that the Commission finds have occurred."