In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.

134 Ohio St. 3d 392, 2012-Ohio-5690 (Ohio 2012) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 6, 2012 · No. 2011-0751

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed a Public Utilities Commission of Ohio order finding that Columbus Southern Power Company had significantly excessive earnings under R.C. 4928.143(F). The court held that the statutory standard was not unconstitutionally vague and that the commission reasonably excluded certain off-system-sales revenue from its earnings review. The court also rejected challenges concerning the treatment of other earnings and transmission assets.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 4928.143(F) is not unconstitutionally vague. It is a civil economic regulation in a highly regulated industry, is subject to a less strict vagueness test, provides substantial guidance concerning the earnings comparison, and gave Columbus Southern Power fair notice that choosing an electric security plan would subject it to excessive-earnings review.
  2. The commission reasonably interpreted R.C. 4928.143(F) to permit exclusion from the excessive-earnings review of earnings that the utility showed were not tied to the electric security plan, including the off-system-sales revenue at issue.
  3. The Ohio Energy Group did not establish that the commission's exclusion of off-system-sales revenue required reversal.
  4. Industrial Energy Users-Ohio failed to demonstrate prejudice, evidentiary support, or reversible factual error concerning the requested jurisdictional allocation and exclusion of additional transmission assets.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether R.C. 4928.143(F), which requires review of whether an electric utility's earnings are significantly excessive compared with companies facing comparable business and financial risk, is unconstitutionally vague.
  2. Whether the commission reasonably interpreted R.C. 4928.143(F) to permit exclusion of earnings not shown to be tied to the electric security plan, including revenue from off-system sales.
  3. Whether the commission erred by failing to require a comprehensive jurisdictional allocation of earnings and by allegedly failing to exclude additional transmission assets.
  4. Whether the appellants demonstrated prejudice or a factual record sufficient to warrant reversal of the commission's order.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (21)

  • In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 128 Ohio St. 3d 512, 2011-Ohio-1788, 947 N.E.2d 655(followed)
  • Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163 (1993)(followed)
  • Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1982)(followed)
  • Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St. 3d 353, 2006-Ohio-3799, 853 N.E.2d 1115(distinguished)
  • Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 177 L. Ed. 2d 619 (2010)(followed)
  • State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (1991)(followed)
  • Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1971)(followed)
  • Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin, 117 Ohio St. 3d 122, 2008-Ohio-511, 882 N.E.2d 400(followed)
  • United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 95 S. Ct. 710, 42 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1975)(followed)
  • Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court