Update: On December 17, 2014, the Commission issued a finding and order on proposed rules promulgated pursuant to SB 310. The Commission made several findings, as noted below.

The Commission found that including a temporary, short, informational statement on bills that the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction charges are not new would alleviate confusion. Accordingly, the Commission approved the following statement or another along the same lines for use in customers’ utility bills: “New information on your bill shows specific charges for the costs of energy efficiency, peak demand reduction, and renewable energy. These charges are not new, but previously were consolidated with other charges on your bill.”

The Commission also found that it was it appropriate to specify that the requirements set forth in proposed Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-10-35(B) apply to consolidated bills sent by an EDU that include supplier charges.

Importantly, the Commission found that, if an EDU overcomplies with the statutory EE and PDR requirements as a result of budgeted and approved EE and PDR programs, causing a shared savings expense, it is reasonable to count that shared savings expense as part of the cost of compliance in the year it is incurred. The Commission also determined that EDUs are permitted to use banked savings from overcompliance toward future years’ compliance, as it causes no additional cost to ratepayers during the year it is used. The Commission agreed, however, that that certain other costs, including lost distribution revenue and interruptible tariff credits, although included in some EDUs’ EE/PDR riders, are not related to EDUs’ compliance with the EE and PDR requirements and should not be included in the calculations for the EE and PDR cost disclosure line items.