An Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Office representative said his office declined to sign that settlement.
“The only thing standing between DP&L consumers and the higher rates they have been forced to pay is the law, which is supposed to protect them and assure they pay just and reasonable rates,” the OCC said in its Nov. 29 filing. “And that law has been disregarded by the PUCO. The court needs to step in and provide justice that is long overdue for DP&L consumers.”
The office argues that Dayton-area consumers have been paying “unjust and unreasonable rates” to the utility for business stability, which the OCC said the Supreme Court has “consistently struck down.”
AES Ohio has said the stability charge lets it make investments in its transmission and distribution system “to support basic reliability in the short-term.”
A schedule for briefs in the case has not yet been set, a spokeswoman for AES Ohio said Wednesday. AES Ohio will respond in compliance with the schedule set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court, said the spokeswoman for the utility, Mary Ann Kabel.
The OCC noted that the then-DP&L withdrew from an earlier electric security plan — a plan for the supply and pricing of service — after the PUCO, in response to a Supreme Court order striking down a distribution modernization charge for Ohio utility FirstEnergy, ordered an end to DP&L’s similar distribution charge.
According to the OCC, the amount levied against consumers for the stability charge is $76 million per year.
A spokesman for the PUCO said his office does not comment on pending court cases.
About the Author
