|
|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier Files Complaint Against Utility
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Eligo Energy, LLC filed a complaint at the PUC of Ohio against Dayton Power and Light (AES Ohio), alleging that AES Ohio has erroneously reported Eligo's aggregate usage data to PJM, which Eligo alleged resulted in PJM requiring Eligo to post "significantly more" cash collateral with PJM than would otherwise be required had AES Ohio not reported the allegedly incorrect usage amounts
"Despite being notified of the issues in September 2024, and admitting to its error, AES Ohio as [sic] not remedied the error, and in fact, has exacerbated it with its subsequent actions," Eligo alleged
As more fully detailed below, AES Ohio said in an answer at PUCO that AES Ohio has, at all pertinent times, complied with regulation and its tariff.
Eligo alleged that, "AES Ohio has acknowledged that it has been erroneously reporting Eligo’s aggregate electric usage amounts to PJM since September 2024, and has been unable to remedy the errors despite multiple promises to do so."
Eligo alleged, "For instance, on September 17, 2025 [sic] and September 22, 2024, AES reported usage that was nearly 10 times the average usages across the rest of the month."
Eligo alleged, "While PJM was made aware that the usage was erroneously reported and that AES Ohio was at fault, PJM’s tariff did not permit it to waive the additional collateral requirements triggered by the erroneous usage reports."
Eligo alleged, "AES Ohio has definitively acknowledged its errors, and has promised to correct the issue, but the incorrect usage reporting has continued through October, November, December and January."
Eligo alleged that, on December 20, 2024, an AES Ohio representative responded to Eligo via email stating the following:
"I apologize for the delay and certainly understand the frustration. We have been looking into this issue and working with our vendor and the development team for Settlement B (60-day reconciliation). High level, what we found was that while we were utilizing the correct data, applying any losses and UFE in the correct manner, and aggregating the data properly into a format for PJM it was discovered that the inverse of the delta was being submitted. Essentially, the delta was being calculated correctly just in the opposite direction. For your example, your delta number was correct, though instead of being submitted as a positive delta resulting in a charge, it should have been a negative delta resulting in a credit. Essentially the code was backwards and was Sett B – Sett A, and should have been Sett A – Sett B. We are implanting a code fix now, before the next reconciliation is run and submitted so October will be correct. We are looking into our options right now to fix August and September and will be in contact when that decision is made."
Eligo alleged that, "Despite implying that AES Ohio was implementing a code fix 'now', no new reconciliation has yet taken place."
Eligo alleged that, "It has now been five months since AES Ohio acknowledged its usage reporting errors, and despite promising to correct the errors, AES Ohio has not only failed to correct the usage reporting errors, their actions actually mistakenly doubled the error and worsened the severity of the issue."
Eligo alleged, "AES Ohio has violated its own tariff with not meeting the timelines for the reconciliation process and creating these errors without redress, and its actions violated, and continue to violate, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s requirements for coordination with CRES providers."
In addition to correcting the errors and completing the reconciliation, Eligo petitioned PUCO to order AES Ohio to pay a civil forfeiture, of not more than $10,000 for each day that AES Ohio’s alleged violations continued, and to direct that AES Ohio reimburse Eligo for, "reasonably incurred costs to address the AES Ohio’s erroneous reporting, including the costs to bring and prosecute this complaint."
In its answer, AES Ohio generally denied most of the allegations stated in the complaint from Eligo, though AES Ohio did admit that language of the December 20, 2024 email, alleged by Eligo and quoted above, was stated to Eligo via email sent by a representative of AES Ohio
AES Ohio said in its answer that, "At all pertinent times, AES Ohio has provided adequate service and coordination with Eligo in accordance with all applicable provisions of Title 49 of the Ohio Revised Code and regulations promulgated thereunder, and in accordance with AES Ohio’s filed tariffs."
AES Ohio argued that Eligo has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under R.C. 4905.26 or 4928.06, Ohio Adm.Code 4901-9-01 or 4901:1-10-29, and AES Ohio’s tariffs, including but not limited to AES Ohio Tariff G8. AES Ohio argued that Eligo has otherwise failed to state reasonable grounds for the complaint.
AES Ohio argued that Eligo has not stated any request for relief that can be granted by PUCO
"To the extent that Eligo seeks monetary damages, such relief is beyond the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction," AES Ohio argued
AES Ohio requested that the Commission deny all relief requested by Eligo and dismiss Eligo’s complaint. AES Ohio further requested that the proceeding be set for mediation.
Case 25-0235-EL-CSS
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
April 4, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|