In an entry on rehearing, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio denied all of the assignments of errors contained in a rehearing request from IGS Energy concerning PUCO's recently adopted revisions to the rules governing utility energy efficiency and peak demand reduction (EE/PDR) programs
Among other things, IGS said that PUCO's prior Finding and Order is unjust and unreasonable because it allows EDUs to omit the amount of rebates or incentives included in their annual EE/PDR program portfolio plans.
IGS stated that it currently uses its own funds to advertise and promote the rebates and incentives
offered through portfolio plans and needs to know an EDU's rebate amount in its annual
program portfolio plan. It further states the purpose of the annual filing is to inform
stakeholders and the ratepayers of the energy efficiency/ peak demand reduction (EE/PDR)
opportunities offered by their EDU and omitting them conflicts with the purpose of the
program portfolio plan filing.
PUCO denied rehearing on this issue
"The Commission notes that existing Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-39-04 does not
require EDUs to disclose costs. Furthermore, disclosure of rebate and incentive amounts
prior to program implementation would not allow EDUs to be flexible and respond to
changes in market conditions throughout the year. We agreed with AEP Ohio when it first
suggested in its comments that EDUs should not be required to disclose the amount of
rebates or incentives offered through each of its programs and continue to find that the
annual filing will only need to list whether the EDU is utilizing such rebates and incentives. Consequently, the Commission denies rehearing on this
assignment of error," PUCO said