In re Complaint of Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Public Utilities Commission orders requiring a customer who voluntarily left the Percentage of Income Payment Plan while maintaining utility service and later reenrolled within 12 months to make up missed PIPP installments, less payments made at standard rates. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments concerning HEAP and HWAP eligibility, regulatory interpretation, evidentiary rulings, posthearing exhibits, agency jurisdiction, and counsel designation.

Holdings

1. A PIPP customer who voluntarily leaves the program, maintains utility service, and reenrolls within 12 months must make up the PIPP installments that would have been due during the period outside the program, less payments made at the utility's standard rate.
2. Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-18-12(D)(2)(b), including its limitation concerning the customer's arrearage, applies to missed PIPP payments incurred while the customer was disconnected from gas service and does not govern a customer who voluntarily left PIPP while remaining connected.
3. Toliver failed to demonstrate that the commission's orders were unlawful or unreasonable, against the manifest weight of the evidence, or unsupported by the record.
4. Rules governing expert testimony did not apply because the commission did not qualify Vectren's witness as an expert, and Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-26(A) makes prehearing conferences discretionary rather than mandatory.
5. The commission did not abuse its discretion by striking exhibits submitted with Toliver's posthearing brief after the evidentiary hearing had ended.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a customer who voluntarily leaves PIPP, remains connected to utility service, and reenrolls within 12 months must make up missed PIPP installments, less payments made at the standard rate.
2. Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-18-12(D)(2)(b), concerning missed PIPP payments and arrearages for customers disconnected from service, limited Toliver's obligation.
3. Whether the commission's Energy Assistance Resource Guide required a different result.
4. Whether the commission lacked jurisdiction to enforce PIPP requirements or reverse incentive credits.
5. Whether the commission erred by permitting testimony without qualifying the witness as an expert and by declining to impose sanctions.
6. Whether the commission abused its discretion by striking exhibits submitted after the evidentiary hearing.
7. Whether Vectren's counsel violated Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-08(F), now Ohio Adm.Code 4901-1-08(E).

Disposition

affirmed