Did PUCO Err In Barring Recovery of 'Last Resort' Charges from Users Barred from Shopping for Power?
In the Matter of the Application of Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation for Approval of a Unique Arrangement with Ohio Power Company and Columbus Southern Power Company, Case no. 2009-2060
Appeal from order of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
In the Matter of the Application of Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company to Adjust Their Economic Development Cost Recovery Rider Rates, Case no. 2010-0722
Appeal from order of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
In the Matter of the Application for Establishment of a Reasonable Arrangement Between Eramet Marietta, Inc. and Columbus Southern Power Company, Case no. 2010-0723
Appeal from order of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
[NOTE: These three cases have been consolidated for oral argument before the Court. They involve appeals filed by electric utility companies owned by American Electric Power Co. (AEP) and seek the reversal of similar orders issued by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The parties in all three cases address the same legal issues and advance virtually identical arguments.]
ISSUE: Did the PUCO act unlawfully or unreasonably when it approved arrangements in which electric utility companies owned by AEP were required to grant discounted rates to two large industrial users, and the utilities were denied recovery from their other customers for the portion of foregone revenue claimed by the utilities as their cost of providing Provider of Last Resort service to the customers receiving the discounts?
