Client in Dayton got hit with a new "Regulatory Compliance Fee" on their Duke Energy Ohio bill starting this month. $4.50 flat fee, not percentage-based. Tariff shows it as approved but I can't find any PUCO docket that actually authorized this specific charge. Anyone else in Duke territory seeing this? Smells fishy to me.
Duke Energy adding mystery "regulatory fee" - $4.50/month
Kevin - I've got Duke customers in Cincinnati with the same charge. Started appearing in April. Dug through PUCO filings and found it buried in case 16-1852-EL-SSO. They got authorization to recover "regulatory compliance costs" but the language was pretty vague. Might be worth challenging the interpretation.
Chuck's right about 16-1852 but there's more to it. FirstEnergy tried similar language here in Ohio and got smacked down by PUCO for being too broad. The commission said "regulatory compliance" costs have to be specifically itemized, not lumped together. Duke might be overreaching with this blanket fee.
Frank, can you point me to that FirstEnergy case number? I want to use it as precedent when I file the complaint. Also, has anyone tried calling Duke directly about what specific costs this fee covers? Might get some useful admissions if we press them on details.
FirstEnergy case was 15-1830-EL-SSO, decided in March 2016. PUCO specifically said utilities can't use generic "compliance fee" language. Kevin, I'd also suggest filing an open records request with PUCO for Duke's supporting workpapers on this fee. Sometimes the backup documents tell a different story than the public filing.
Good strategy Frank. I actually called Duke's regulatory affairs department last week. The rep couldn't explain what specific costs the fee covers, just kept referring to "various compliance activities." That kind of vague response usually means they're fishing. Definitely file that records request.
Jumping in from Wisconsin - we had WE Energies try something similar a few years back. PSC here made them provide detailed breakdowns of every cost component before approving any "compliance fee." Ohio PUCO should have similar requirements. Don't let them get away with blanket language.
Update: Filed the complaint with PUCO last month citing the FirstEnergy precedent. Duke came back with more detailed cost justification but still pretty weak. They're claiming it covers EPA compliance, reliability standards, and cybersecurity measures. Problem is, most of that stuff should already be in base rates. PUCO staff seems interested.
Kevin, that's exactly the kind of double recovery we need to highlight. If these costs were already approved in their last rate case, they can't charge them again as a separate fee. PUCO hates double dipping. Push hard on that angle and you might get the whole fee thrown out.
Chuck's absolutely right. Double recovery is PUCO's biggest hot button. Make sure you cross-reference Duke's rate case testimony about these same cost categories. If they claimed them in base rates and now want a separate fee, that's a slam dunk violation.
Final update: PUCO ruled in our favor! They found that Duke was indeed double recovering certain costs and ordered them to eliminate the fee and provide refunds. Got about $180 back for my client plus interest. Thanks everyone for the strategy help - the FirstEnergy precedent was key to winning this one.