CINCINNATI — Around 15,000 Duke Energy customers saw an increase in their gas bills this summer, as the company sought lump sum payments for monthly “gas cost recovery charges” it failed to collect in the 12 months ending August 2024.
It’s the latest impact of a billing system that made more than 100,000 mistakes after the utility installed it in 2022. That led to an investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, which authorized the back-billing approach in April under a settlement with consumer groups.
WATCH: How these charges are impacting customers
Duke Energy estimates the settlement will enable it to recoup about $8 million in lost payments from 3% of its customers, who received a $75 credit to offset the impact of the new billing effort.
The settlement also requires Duke Energy to offer interest-free payment plans of up to 24 months.
“I think it’s pretty unfair for Duke to say, ‘Hey, this is our mistake but you’re on the hook for it,’” said Nathan Lutz, a Walnut Hills resident whose July bill nearly tripled to $540, thanks to a $400 gas recovery charge. “We are currently renters. We’d love to be homeowners someday. And you know, things like this are steps back from being able to make those down payments on a house or anything like that.”
Lutz and his wife have a son who will be two in October. They’re planning to move to Columbus next month, and they’re worried they’ll have to pay the entire $540 bill before they leave.
“We will certainly work with customers that have a need for a payment plan after they move out,” said Duke Energy spokesman Jeff Brooks. “Customers can contact us to discuss their account needs.”
For residential customers who take full advantage of the credit and the payment plan, the average monthly cost impact would be $12, Brooks added.
But Duke Energy wasn’t offering payment plans or bill credits a year ago, when it first tried to settle complaints over its billing mistakes with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, said J.P. Blackwood, public affairs liaison for the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.
“Originally, there was a settlement between Duke and the PUCO cut behind closed doors that was not very favorable to consumers,” Blackwood said. “Our office fought that, and we joined forces with the Legal Aid Society down there in the Cincinnati area and Pro Seniors and other advocacy organizations.”
The WCPO 9 I-Team has been following Duke’s billing mistakes since last August, when PUCO proposed a $1.45 million fine for repeatedly violating state administrative code with a billing system known as “Customer Connect.” Installed in 2022, the system racked up more than 100,000 billing errors in its first year.
It led to a proposed class-action lawsuit that was dismissed in January by Hamilton County Judge Robert Goering, who ruled PUCO had “exclusive jurisdiction” over “service-related billing” disputes involving utilities.
It also led to a PUCO order that Duke bills must contain monthly beginning and end meter readings, instead of an estimated usage tally that customers repeatedly challenged as inaccurate.
And it led to an April settlement, in which Duke agreed to invest $1.2 million in bill credits to offset the lump sum payments that Duke sought from customers beginning last month.
Duke also spent $2.3 million to indirectly reimburse all Duke Energy customers whose gas bills would be slightly higher over time because payments from the 15,000 unbilled customers “were excluded from the rate calculation,” said PUCO Matt Schilling.
Finally, Duke agreed to contribute $250,000 to the Share the Light Fund, which helps families struggling to pay utility bills.
In exchange for those contributions, PUCO eliminated the $1.45 million fine it proposed against Duke last August.
“We tried to cut the best deal we could for consumers,” Blackwood said, while recognizing utilities are permitted by Ohio law to correct bills up to 365 days from when a mistake is discovered.
Schilling also notes that the settlement “provides for a 24-month payment plan, which is above and beyond what is required by regulations.”
Given all that, Blackwood advises anyone back-billed by Duke Energy to request a payment plan and complain to the PUCO if they aren’t satisfied with Duke’s response.
Duke insists it is ready for the challenge.
“We're trying our very best to be as flexible as we can,” Brooks said. “We're personally reaching out, sending bill messages, sending texts, sending phone calls. Our goal there is to get them to contact us, to work with us so that we can find a solution that, that recognizes that this is not the experience we want them to have.”
For Duke customers like Nathan Lutz, whose July bill came as a complete surprise, Duke’s offer to help is met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
“Who’s to say that in six months, once we’ve left Cincinnati and moved on to another city, that they don’t realize, ‘Oops, we actually accidentally re-charged them too much,” said Lutz. “It definitely affects the trust that we have in this corporation.”
