Case Title: State ex rel. Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1472

Docket Number: 2012-1494

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-
1472.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-1472 
THE STATE OF OHIO EX REL. INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USERS-OHIO v. PUBLIC 
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.  
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm., 
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1472.] 
Mandamus and prohibition—Motion to intervene granted—Motions to dismiss 
granted. 
(No. 2012-1494—Submitted March 13, 2013—Decided April 16, 2013.) 
IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} The motion to intervene of the Ohio Power Company is granted.  
The motions to dismiss of the Ohio Power Company and the respondents are 
granted. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, 
JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 2} I would grant an alternative writ and order briefing and oral 
argument in this case.  This court has held that prohibition is appropriate when a 
tribunal has “clearly disregarded applicable law.”  E.g., State ex rel. Upper 
Arlington v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 119 Ohio St.3d 478, 2008-Ohio-5093, 
895 N.E.2d 177, ¶ 18.  It also appears that denial of the writ in this case may 
“ ‘result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary 
course of law.’ ”  State ex rel. Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio 
St.3d 301, 2004-Ohio-2894, 809 N.E.2d 1146, ¶ 17, quoting State ex rel. Hunter 
v. Summit Cty. Human Resources Comm., 81 Ohio St.3d 450, 451, 692 N.E.2d 
185 (1998).  The relator alleges that the Public Utility Commission’s order is 
illegal and results in $144 million in increased electric rates for Ohio consumers; 
a bond in that amount to stay the rate increase pursuant to R.C. 4903.16 is 
unrealistic.  Under the normal appellate process, this court cannot order a refund 
of previously approved rates.  In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 128 
Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-1788, 947 N.E.2d 655, ¶ 16.  A prohibition action 
affords this court a broader range of available remedies. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
McNees, Wallace & Nurick, L.L.C., Samuel C. Randazzo, Frank P. Darr, 
Joseph Oliker, and Matthew Pritchard, for relator. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William Wright, John H. Jones, 
and Thomas W. McNamee, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents. 
 
Steven T. Nourse and Matthew J. Satterwhite; and Porter, Wright, Morris 
& Arthur L.L.P., James A. King, and James B. Hadden, for intervening 
respondent Ohio Power Company.  
______________________