DP&L earlier this year rebranded as AES Ohio, but still operates legally under the earlier name.
A writ is a relatively rare legal filing, comparable to a complaint or a request of a government body to take action, filed with a court. The action names members of the PUCO as respondents. Although the case involves AES Ohio charges, the utility is not a respondent in the complaint.
The history of the case is a long one. OCC contends the PUCO has not moved on a case involving what the OCC says was DP&L’s “switching out” of one “unlawful subsidy for another” — a distribution modernization rider (or charge) for a rate stabilization charge.
The consumers’ office, in seeking resolution, argued that: “This is the second time in four years that the PUCO has permitted DP&L to withdraw from its electric security plan in response to a ruling protecting customers from paying for an unlawful charge (the so-called ‘distribution modernization rider.’) And like the last time, DP&L used Ohio law to deprive customers of the full rate reduction they should have received [by implementing the rate stabilization charge].”
“The PUCO is preventing OCC from appealing a PUCO decision to this court, which is preventing justice for Dayton-area consumers,” the OCC said. “Meanwhile, DP&L continues collecting from consumers a charge we assert is unlawful.”
A PUCO spokesman said he expects the commission will respond via a filing to the court within the 21 day procedural deadline.
A message seeking comment was sent to a representative of AES Ohio.
AES Ohio serves more than 527,000 customer accounts, representing 1.25 million people in West Central Ohio. Its service area covers 24 counties within 6,000 square miles.