In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of Its Fourth Amended Corporate Separation Plan

148 Ohio St. 3d 510 (Ohio 2016) · Supreme Court of Ohio · November 1, 2016 · No. 2014-1651

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio's approval of Duke Energy Ohio's fourth amended corporate separation plan, which authorized Duke to offer nonelectric products and services. The court held that the commission violated R.C. 4903.09 by failing to sufficiently explain how the plan complied with the relevant provisions of R.C. 4928.17. The court reversed the commission's orders and remanded the matter for further proceedings and a more detailed explanation.

Holdings

  1. The commission violated R.C. 4903.09 because its orders did not sufficiently explain how Duke's fourth amended corporate separation plan complied with the specific requirements of R.C. 4928.17(A), (C), or (D).
  2. The court would not accept appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations as a substitute for reasoning and statutory findings that were absent from the commission's orders.
  3. The court declined to resolve the disputed meaning of R.C. 4928.17(C) or (D) or make findings under those provisions in the first instance, and instead remanded to the commission.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Public Utilities Commission violated R.C. 4903.09 by failing to explain how Duke's amended corporate separation plan complied with R.C. 4928.17.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the disputed meaning of R.C. 4928.17(C) or (D) and order Duke to provide the nonelectric products and services only through a fully separated affiliate.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (25)

  • Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm., 117 Ohio St. 3d 486, 2008-Ohio-990, 885 N.E.2d 195(followed)
  • Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St. 3d 305, 2007-Ohio-4164, 871 N.E.2d 1176(followed)
  • Migden-Ostrander v. Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio St. 3d 451, 2004-Ohio-3924, 812 N.E.2d 955(followed)
  • Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St. 3d 530, 2004-Ohio-6767, 820 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 50(followed)
  • Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St. 3d 571, 2004-Ohio-6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 29(followed)
  • Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 121 Ohio St. 3d 362, 2009-Ohio-604, 904 N.E.2d 853, ¶ 13(followed)
  • Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 78 Ohio St. 3d 466, 469, 678 N.E.2d 922 (1997)(followed)
  • Allnet Communications Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 70 Ohio St. 3d 202, 209, 638 N.E.2d 516 (1994)(followed)
  • In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 128 Ohio St. 3d 512, 2011-Ohio-1788, 947 N.E.2d 655, ¶ 71(followed)
  • Gen. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 30 Ohio St. 2d 271, 277, 285 N.E.2d 34 (1972)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…