Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s order allowing Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. to recover through natural-gas distribution rates costs associated with retiring its propane caverns. The court held that the deferred costs could be treated as costs of rendering public-utility service under R.C. 4909.15(A)(4), rather than being subject to the used-and-useful standard in R.C. 4909.15(A)(1).
Holdings
- The commission did not err by refusing to apply R.C. 4909.15(A)(1)’s used-and-useful standard because the deferred amount had been removed from Duke Energy’s plant account and treated as an expense rather than as a capital investment in rate-base property.
- The commission reasonably and lawfully determined that the entire deferred amount associated with retiring the propane caverns was a cost to Duke Energy of rendering public-utility service under R.C. 4909.15(A)(4).
- The court did not decide the OCC’s challenge to the commission’s alternative used-and-useful finding because that issue was moot, and it rejected the refund argument because the OCC could not show harm or prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the commission unlawfully or unreasonably permitted Duke Energy to recover the deferred retirement-related costs under R.C. 4909.15(A)(4), rather than applying the used-and-useful standard in R.C. 4909.15(A)(1).
- Whether the commission’s alternative finding that the propane caverns were used and useful was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the commission abused its discretion by declining to make the challenged rates subject to refund while the appeal was pending.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (24)
- In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility & Public Need for the C314V Cent. Corridor Pipeline Extension Project, Power Siting Bd. No. 16-253-GA-BTX(followed)
- In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3301(followed)
- In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Authority to Change Accounting Methods and to Abandon Certain Propane-Air Facilities, PUCO Nos. 21-1035-GA-AAM and 21-986-GA-ABN, 2022 WL 7431401(followed)
- In re Application of Ohio Edison Co., In re Application of Ohio Edison Co., 2019-Ohio-4196, ¶ 4(followed)
- Entergy Texas, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Texas, 490 S.W.3d 224, 229 n.2 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016)(persuasive)
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Dept. of Pub. Util. Control, 279 Conn. 584, 594 (2006)(persuasive)
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2004-Ohio-6767, ¶ 50(followed)
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 51 Ohio St.3d 150, 154 (1990)(followed)
- In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-2555, ¶¶ 12, 14-16(followed)
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 1997-Ohio-196, ¶ 16(followed)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…