Update: On August 7, 2013, OMA staff and counsel prepared and sent the following proposal to DP&L and awaits DP&L’s response:
“B. Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group (OMAEG)
- DP&L will work with the OMAEG to communicate energy efficiency programs to manufacturers. To assist in the development of comprehensive communication tools and strategies to promote DP&L’s energy efficiency/peak demand reduction (EE/PDR) programs with its members, assist in their participation, and conduct energy efficiency training, DP&L shall provide the OMA $50,000 annually for the term of DP&L’s Program Portfolio. To the extent the OMA is able to assist DP&L in educating its members on DP&L’s programs and gain participation of the OMA’s members, it is expected that this funding will offset DP&L’s promotional costs. The OMA will work with DP&L to verify energy savings totaling one half of a percent or more of combined retail annual energy sales averaged over the OMA members’ 2010-2012 baseline.
- As a part of the pilot program budget, DP&L will allocate $30,000 of funding toward cost-sharing research with the OMA. Topics of investigation with the seed funding may include:
a) Point-of-sale cogged v-belt program;
b) Industrial insulation prescriptive measure; and
c) “New Production” program, similar to “New Construction” for commercial buildings.”
- OMA agrees to report to the collaborative at least twice during the term of DP&L’s 2013-2015 Program Portfolio regarding baseline savings and the cost-sharing research described above.”
Counsel also participated in a conference call on August 7 with DP&L and numerous intervening parties about the settlement status. DP&L indicated that it believed a settlement was very close and cautioned all parties that it was not likely to make greater concessions as it was already agreeing to more than the PUCO would likely require if the matter went to hearing. Based on the PUCO’s recent rulings in EE/PDR cases involving other utilities, Counsel agrees with DP&L’s assessment.
However, because settlement seemed very possible, DP&L filed a motion to extend the deadline for intervening parties to file comments and objections in the case. The attorney examiner issued an entry on August 8, 2013 extending the deadline to file comments and objections to August 22, 2013. We will continue to participate in settlement discussions and will provide updates accordingly.
