News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Party Comments Continue To Reveal Mixed Support Of SCB
In the most recent round of comments, parties filed positions reiterating much of the same positions either in supporting or objecting to the merits of implementing supplier consolidated billing (SCB).
As previously reported, Duke recently filed a report on the SCB collaborative in which Duke Energy Ohio recommended to the PUC of Ohio that SCB not be implemented for Duke’s customers.
Also, several parties including Duke, PUCO Staff, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, retail suppliers (RESA, NRG, and ICG) and others have attended numerous collaborative meetings addressing this topic and discussed RESA’s SCB proposal.
Excerpts from PUCO Staff Comments:
“Staff is opposed to implementing SCB in Duke’s service territory. Staff believes that the billing process for electric distribution utilities (EDUs) and local distribution companies (LDCs) should remain with them. The implementation of a SCB program for Duke, even the simplified billing-only program presented by the Joint Suppliers, 4 is unnecessary, costly, likely to increase customer confusion and frustration and does not enhance the customer experience. The distribution utility needs to maintain its primary communication with its customers and that is at a minimum through its monthly bill.”
Excerpts from OCC Comments:
“SCB offers little to consumers that is not already available through Duke. Residential consumers who contract with an energy marketer for supply have the option to receive a consolidated bill through Duke. Duke’s consolidated bill provides all the marketers line-item charges, including non-jurisdictional products and services. Also, consumers who participate in electric and/or natural gas government aggregation have the option to receive a consolidated bill from Duke. The PUCO should adopt OCC’s consumer protection recommendations.
Excerpts from OLEC Comments:
“Extending highly regulated billing responsibilities to a complex space of dual service would significantly alter dynamics between the Commission, Duke, suppliers, and consumers. The SCB proposal lacks sufficient oversight and benefits to justify implementing SCB in Duke’s service territory at this time.”
Excerpts from RESA Comments:
“The Commission should adopt RESA’s proposed framework for SCB and order Duke to implement SCB in its service territory. SCB is a viable market-based solution to the persistent billing problems Duke’s customers have been experiencing. It is also consistent with Commission precedent supporting market-based solutions, innovation, and customer choice, as well as Ohio policy and the Commission’s own mission.”
OCC’s Initial Comments (09/06/2024)
OLEC Initial Comments (09/06/2024)
PUCO Staff Initial Comments (09/06/2024)
RESA Comments (09/06/2024)
23-0867-EL-UNC (09/23/2024)
In the Matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
