|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/enrgy/statelin/ |
Upload File : |
<html>
<head>
<title>May 2003: Stipulation Filed With Ohio PUC To Resolve Dispute Over
Consolidated Billing</title>
</head>
<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a>
<img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" width="229" height="100"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
<tr>
<td width="15%" valign="top" align="center">
<!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="sl_sidebar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->
<table border="2" cellpadding="8" width="15%" id="table1" bordercolor="#FFFF00" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0_I1">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
<area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map><img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0_I1" width="110" height="350"><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
<p align="left"><strong><small><font face="Arial">About The Author:</font></small></strong></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 9pt">Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of
Brown, Olson & Gould, P.C. which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law,
public utility law and related commercial transactions.</font></p>
<p><small><font face="Arial"><font style="font-size: 9pt">He can be reached at:</font><br>
<br>
<b><font color="#0000FF">Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</font></b><br>
2 Delta Drive<br>
Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br>
(603) 225-9716<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></font></small></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="45188" endspan --></td>
<td width="68%" valign="top">
<img src="../images/statelin.gif" alt="STATELINE by Robert Olson" border="0" width="375" height="75">
</center><p align="left"><b><u><br>
</u></b></p>
<p align="left"><b><u>May 2003</u></b><font size="6"><b><br>
Stipulation Filed With Ohio PUC To Resolve Dispute
Over Consolidated Billing<br>
</b></font><strong>by Robert Olson -- Brown, Olson and Wilson, P.C.<br>
</strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
200</em>3/06/14)</font></p>
<center>
<center>
<font SIZE="3">
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">A stipulation is now pending before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
(the "PUC") to settle a dispute between several competitive retail electric
service providers (the "Complainants") and several electric distribution
utilities (the "Respondents"). WPS Energy Services, Inc., et al. v.
FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Case No. 02-1944-EL-CSS (April 24, 2003) (the
"Stipulation"). The Complainants generate electricity for sale to retail
customers and distribute the electricity over the Respondents’ distribution
system. The Complainants’ fee for supplying electricity is included in a
consolidated bill for services issued by the Respondents. The dispute
concerns collection of payment of amounts owed to the Complainants. </p>
<font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
</font>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In their complaint (July 31, 2002), the Complainants
allege that PUC privacy rules prevent the Complainants from obtaining
customer information from the Respondents, such as payment history, social
security numbers and phone numbers, that is essential "to mount efficient
collection efforts." For this reason, the Complainants allege, the PUC
ordered the Respondents to purchase the Complainants’ accounts receivables
at a negotiated discount. The Complainants contend that the Respondents
failed to negotiate an accounts receivable purchase agreement in good faith.
</p>
<font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
</font>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The Complainants further allege that many customers have
fallen in arrears, that PUC rules assign priority to payment of the
Respondents’ portion of the consolidated bills such that no portion of the
payment is applied to the Complainants’ portion of the bill until all past
and current charges owed to the Respondents are paid in full, and that "tens
of thousands" of customers have been returned to standard offer service for
failure to pay Complainants’ portion of the consolidated bill. In a recently
filed motion for investigation and audit (April 15, 2003), the Complainants
specify that they have obtained payments for approximately 92% of the
amounts billed, as compared the Respondents, whose "recovery of their own
receivables approaches 100%," and that the shortfall for one of the
Complainants is "about $14 million." </p>
<font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
</font>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The Respondents dispute many of these allegations,
including the allegation that they are required to purchase the
Complainants’ accounts receivable or that they have failed to negotiate an
accounts receivable purchase agreement in good faith. The parties were
careful to specify in the Stipulation that the Stipulation "does not
necessarily reflect the position which [the parties] would have taken if
[the] issues had been fully litigated." Among other things, the Stipulation
provides that the Respondents need not purchase the Complainants’ accounts
receivable, but that they will instead modify the partial payment priority
scheme to first pay all past due amounts owed to the Complainants, then all
past due amounts owed to the Respondents, then all current amounts owed to
the Respondents, and then all current amounts owed to the Complainants. </p>
<font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
</font>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The Stipulation is subject to PUC approval and is
contingent on waiver by the PUC of rules and orders to the extent necessary
to implement the Stipulation, including any requirements relating to the
purchase of the Complainants’ accounts receivable and partial payment
priority.</p>
</font><!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="sl_bottom.htm" tag="BODY" startspan -->
<hr color="#FFFF00">
<blockquote>
<p align="left"><font face="Arial">
<small>Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of Brown, Olson &
Gould P.C.
which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law, public utility law and related
commercial transactions. He can be reached at:</small></font><p align="center">
<font face="Arial"><small><font color="#0000FF"><b>Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</b></font><br>
2 Delta Drive, Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301 <br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> | (603) 225-9716<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></small></font>
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="27861" endspan --></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>