[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Supreme Court reverses PUCO ruling ordering FirstEnergy to refund $43M to customers 

Credit:  By Tristan Navera, Staff reporter | Columbus Business First | Jan 24, 2018 | www.bizjournals.com ~~

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a state regulatory agency can’t order an Akron utility to refund $43 million to its customers.

The court ruled in a years-running case after the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio had ordered the refund to customers of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE), which includes Ohio Edison Co., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. and Toledo Edison Co., after the PUCO found the utility had overcharged customers.

“FirstEnergy agrees with the court’s reversal of the commission’s order that required a refund,” FirstEnergy spokesperson Doug Colafella said in a statement.

The state requires electric utilities to generate a portion of their electricity for retail customers from renewable sources including solar and wind power, or else to buy renewable energy credits. Utilities can pass some of the higher costs of renewable energy, or credits in their place, to customers.

The PUCO had ordered an audit of renewable energy credit purchases made by FirstEnergy from 2009 to 2011, and after a hearing, it found the utility company hadn’t buy some credits in a “prudent” manner. FirstEnergy overpaid and then overcharged customers when it then recovered the cost of the credits, warranting the refunds, the PUCO said. The move had been cheered by environmental advocates.

FirstEnergy appealed. The Environmental Law and Policy Center and Ohio Consumers’ Counsel also cross-appealed, challenging protective orders that granted trade secret protection to certain information on FirstEnergy’s purchases of renewable energy credits. The PUCO ruling concerned certain in-state non-solar energy credits bought in August 2010, but the names of the companies it purchased them from, as well as the prices, had been hidden from public view as trade secrets.

The court sided with FirstEnergy, determining that a refund would be unlawful retroactive ratemaking, violating a doctrine that a utility can only charge rates based on the current, commission-approved tariff.

“We have recognized that application of the no-refund rule has been perceived as unfair and has even sometimes resulted in a windfall for a utility company,” Justice William O’Neill wrote for the majority. “But we have also recognized that it is the statutory scheme that requires this result, and therefore, it is a matter for the General Assembly to remedy, not this court.”

The court said the rule means the commission cannot order a refund or adjust rates to make up for overcharges under previously collected rates, effectively barring the PUCO from enforcing some kinds of refunds.

“While the PUCO is reviewing the court’s decision, we are concerned that today’s ruling will have negative impacts on the agency’s ability to protect Ohio’s utility customers,” the commission’s chairman Asim Haque said in a statement. “Our ability to effectively audit utility expenses is one of our most important regulatory responsibilities.”

As for the information hidden from the public, the court remanded the decision, which would require the PUCO to release them or better explain why they are trade secrets. This part had been particularly controversial, as FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., a subsidiary of FirstEnergy, had been one of the bidders. PUCO had said disclosing information about bidders and prices could discourage participation in the bidding process.

“While trade secrets may continue to be protected if the information retains some measure of value, the commission failed to show that to be the case here,” O’Neill wrote.

Source:  By Tristan Navera, Staff reporter | Columbus Business First | Jan 24, 2018 | www.bizjournals.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)


e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon