Was DPL planning to move from Dayton?

So was DP&L planning to move?

RELATED: DP&L criticized for bonuses, expenses paid from customer revenue

Here are three things to know about the filing.

1. DP&L says it was never planning to move.

A spokeswoman for the utility, Mary Ann Kabel, said Tuesday morning that parties to the case sought assurance from the company that it would stay in Dayton.

“We were asked by the parties to confirm that DP&L’s headquarters would remain in Dayton,” Kabel said. “There was never a question. They just wanted to confirm that.”

RELATED: DP&L hailed for restoration work

She declined to say who wanted that confirmation.

Asked point-blank if DP&L was weighing some kind of move from its current location off Woodman Drive, Kabel said, “No.”

Signatory parties to the filing include Dayton city government, Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition, the Sierra Club, the Ohio Hospital Association, Honda of America Manufacturing Inc. and a few others. (The PUCO docket for the case is here.)

RELATED: DP&L expands development role

2. If DP&L wants to move, it must give notice.

In the settlement, there’s this sentence: “(DP&L corporate parent) AES agrees to maintain DP&L’s operating headquarters in the city of Dayton, Ohio. DP&L agrees to discuss with the city of Dayton any plans to move DP&L’s operating headquarters from MacGregor Park to an alternate location within the city of Dayton, at least ninety (90) days before any move is to occur.

“If DP&L’s operating headquarters are moved out of the MacGregor Park facility to an alternate location within the city of Dayton then the city of Dayton shall have an option to purchase the approximately one hundred twenty five (125) acres and improvements comprising DPL’s MacGregor Park facility,” the settlement adds.

3. Rates will go up

If the PUCO agrees to the settlement, electricity will get a bit pricier in the Dayton area.

The average residential customer in DP&L service territory, using 1,000 kilowatt hours, would see an increase of $2.39 a month, DP&L said in it release.

A final decision by the PUCO is expected by March 31.