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

Citation: 2008-Ohio-990

Docket Number: 20061594

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 486, 2008-Ohio-990.] 
 
 
 
THE INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USERS-OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC 
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm.,  
117 Ohio St.3d 486, 2008-Ohio-990.] 
Public Utilities – Electric-distribution utility cannot use revenues from its 
noncompetitive distribution service to subsidize the cost of providing a 
competitive generation-service component. 
(No. 2006-1594 — Submitted October 9, 2007 — Decided March 13, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, No. 05-376-EL-UNC. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} The Industrial Energy Users-Ohio (“IEU”), FirstEnergy Solutions 
Corporation, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”), and Ohio 
Energy Group appeal as of right from orders of the Public Utilities Commission 
of Ohio approving the application of Columbus Southern Power Company and 
Ohio Power Company (collectively, “AEP”) to build an electric-generating 
facility in Meigs County, Ohio.  Specifically, the commission’s approval allows 
AEP to collect approximately $24 million for research and development of the 
generating facility from its customers and further contemplates that AEP will be 
permitted to recover the construction and maintenance costs of the facility from 
its distribution customers upon completion. 
{¶ 2} Appellants contend that because Am.Sub.S.B. No. 3, 148 Ohio 
Laws, Part IV, 7962 (“S.B. 3”), separated electric generation, which is an 
unregulated competitive service, from electric distribution, which is a regulated 
noncompetitive service, the commission’s order permitting AEP, an electric-
distribution utility, to build a generation plant should be reversed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} AEP contends, however, that because R.C. 4928.14 permits an 
electric-distribution utility to be involved in building an electric-generating 
facility to satisfy the utility’s provider-of-last-resort (“POLR”) and standard-
service-offer obligations, it therefore may recover the cost of designing and 
constructing such a facility from its distribution customers. 
{¶ 4} We agree that provisions of S.B. 3 prevent an electric-distribution 
utility from using revenues from noncompetitive distribution service to subsidize 
the cost of providing a competitive generation-service component; however, there 
may be merit to the commission’s regulation of the design, construction, and 
operation of the proposed generation facility as a distribution-ancillary service 
related to AEP’s POLR obligation, but this record is not fully developed in that 
regard.  Accordingly, we remand this matter to the commission for further 
findings.  Because the matter is being remanded for further development of the 
record and because the commission has already issued a conditional refund order 
that remains in effect, we decline to rule at this time upon IEU’s request for a 
refund of costs already collected from AEP’s customers. 
HISTORY OF DEREGULATION 
{¶ 5} S.B. 3 restructured Ohio’s electric-utility industry to foster retail 
competition in the generation component of electric service.  As we have 
repeatedly recognized, S.B. 3 altered the traditional rate-based regulation of 
electric utilities by requiring the three components of electric service – generation, 
transmission, and distribution – to be separated.  See, e.g., Migden-Ostrander v. 
Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 451, 2004-Ohio-3924, 812 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 3-4. 
{¶ 6} Pursuant to R.C. 4928.03 and 4928.05, electric generation is an 
unregulated, competitive retail electric service, while electric distribution remains 
a regulated, noncompetitive service pursuant to R.C. 4928.15(A).  R.C. 
4928.02(G) provides that it is the state’s policy to “[e]nsure effective competition 
in the provision of retail electric service by avoiding anticompetitive subsidies 
January Term, 2008 
3 
flowing from a noncompetitive retail electric service to a competitive retail 
electric service or to a product or service other than retail electric service, and 
vice versa.”  This provision “prohibits public utilities from using revenues from 
competitive generation-service components to subsidize the cost of providing 
noncompetitive distribution service, or vice versa.”  Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. 
Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 305, 2007-Ohio-4164, 871 N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 50.  In 
the context of S.B. 3 electric-utility deregulation, each service component must 
stand on its own.  Id., citing Migden-Ostrander at ¶ 4. 
AEP APPLICATION AND PROCEEDINGS 
{¶ 7} On March 18, 2005, AEP filed an application with the commission 
for approval of a mechanism to recover the expected expenditures for the design, 
construction, and operation of a 629-megawatt integrated-gasification-combined-
cycle (“IGCC”) electric-generation facility in Meigs County, Ohio. 
{¶ 8} On April 10, 2006, the commission issued its opinion and order 
approving the application.  In its order, the commission determined that it had the 
authority to regulate the design, construction, and operation of the proposed 
generation facility because it was a distribution-ancillary service related to AEP’s 
statutory POLR obligation.  Accordingly, the commission’s order permitted AEP 
to charge its customers an estimated $23.7 million to fund AEP’s preliminary 
research for the proposed construction of the IGCC electric-generation facility.1  
Additionally, the commission declared that it has the authority to approve a plan 
that would permit AEP to recover the construction and operation costs of the 
generating plant from distribution customers.  In its application, AEP estimated 
                                                 
1.  AEP argued that the IGCC process is a favored technology because it burns coal in an 
environmentally friendly manner.  The IGCC process uses gas and steam turbines to generate 
electricity without releasing contaminants associated with traditional coal-burning plants.  This 
process has the environmental benefits of a natural gas-fired plant while using coal, a more readily 
available fuel source.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
that the cost of the project could reach $1.27 billion.  However, at oral argument, 
the parties represented that the overall cost could exceed $2 billion. 
{¶ 9} On June 28, 2006, the commission issued an entry, following a 
motion for a rehearing, in which it reiterated its authority to establish a charge 
related to the overall construction and operation of a generating plant as proposed 
in AEP’s application.  However, because the commission also determined that 
elements of the design and engineering might be transferable to other facilities in 
other states, it ordered AEP to be prepared to refund the charges collected from its 
customers for all transferable research if AEP has not commenced a continuous 
course of construction of the proposed IGCC plant by June 28, 2011. 
{¶ 10} FirstEnergy Solutions, IEU, OCC, and the Ohio Energy Group all 
appealed the commission’s order to this court, contending, inter alia, that the 
order was contrary to law because it improperly regulated competitive electric-
generation service in violation of R.C. Chapter 4928 and it authorized an increase 
in electric-distribution rates without complying with the provisions of R.C. 
Chapter 4909.  Further, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy filed an amicus brief 
on behalf of the appellants.  AEP intervened as an appellee, and the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 972, Ironworkers Local 787, 
Parkersburg-Marietta Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and 
Murray Energy Corporation filed amicus briefs on behalf of appellees. 
{¶ 11} The issues presented to this court are whether the commission 
properly designated an unregulated competitive generation service as a regulated 
distribution-ancillary service in order to exercise regulatory jurisdiction, whether 
the commission properly determined that AEP’s POLR obligation justifies a rate-
based recovery to build and operate a generation facility, and whether the 
commission properly denied the requested refund of $24 million in generation-
plant research-and-development costs that AEP has collected from its customers 
pursuant to the commission’s order. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
{¶ 12} “R.C. 4903.13 provides that a PUCO order shall be reversed, 
vacated, or modified by this court only when, upon consideration of the record, 
the court finds the order to be unlawful or unreasonable.”  Constellation 
NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 530, 2004-Ohio-6767, 820 
N.E.2d 885, ¶ 50.  We will not reverse or modify a commission decision as to 
questions of fact when the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show 
that the commission’s decision was not manifestly against the weight of the 
evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show 
misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty.  Monongahela Power Co. 
v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 571, 2004-Ohio-6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 29.  
The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the commission’s decision is 
against the manifest weight of the evidence or is clearly unsupported by the 
record.  Id.  We will not reverse a commission order absent a showing by the 
appellant that it has been or will be harmed or prejudiced by the order.  Myers v. 
Pub. Util. Comm. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 299, 302, 595 N.E.2d 873. 
{¶ 13} Although we have “complete and independent power of review as 
to all questions of law” in appeals from the commission, Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. 
Util. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 466, 469, 678 N.E.2d 922, we may rely on the 
expertise of a state agency in interpreting a law where “highly specialized issues” 
are involved and “where agency expertise would, therefore, be of assistance in 
discerning the presumed intent of our General Assembly.”  Consumers’ Counsel 
v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 108, 110, 12 O.O.3d 115, 388 N.E.2d 
1370. 
DISTRIBUTION-ANCILLARY SERVICE 
{¶ 14} IEU and the other appellants argue that the commission has 
approved an effort by AEP to ignore the current statutory process and to recover 
from its distribution customers the costs of planning, building, and maintaining a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
competitive generation facility.  FirstEnergy Solutions points out that the 
commission acknowledged in its order that retail electric-generation service is 
competitive under R.C. 4928.03 and therefore it is not subject to commission 
regulation. 
{¶ 15} The commission contends that its current order regulates only 
noncompetitive electric retail “ancillary services.” 
{¶ 16} R.C. 4928.01(A)(1) defines “ancillary service” as: 
{¶ 17} “Any function necessary to the provision of electric transmission 
or distribution service to a retail customer and includes, but is not limited to, 
scheduling, system control, and dispatch services; reactive supply from generation 
resources and voltage control service; reactive supply from transmission resources 
service; regulation service; frequency response service; energy imbalance service; 
operating reserve-spinning reserve service; operation reserve-supplemental 
reserve service; load following; back-up supply service; real-power loss 
replacement service; dynamic scheduling; system black start capability; and 
network stability service.” 
{¶ 18} The commission found that most of the ancillary services 
enumerated in the statutory definition require a generating plant.  Therefore, the 
commission concluded that S.B. 3 contemplates that an electric-distribution utility 
will provide ancillary service from a generating plant, making the recovery of 
costs associated with that generating plant a distribution-ancillary service subject 
to the commission’s regulation. 
{¶ 19} Appellants dispute the commission’s analysis, asserting that the 
construction and maintenance of an electric-generating facility is fundamental to 
the generation of electric service.  The Ohio Energy Group opposes the 
commission’s determination that it is able to regulate the proposed electric-
generating facility by classifying the service as a regulated distribution-ancillary 
service rather than what it really is – a competitive electric-generation service.  
January Term, 2008 
7 
The Ohio Energy Group further contends that the commission is permitting AEP 
to recover and earn a return on its investment in a power plant, which was 
previously guaranteed by regulating the electric utility prior to deregulation.  It 
notes that, since the enactment of S.B. 3, utilities no longer have any guarantee 
that they will either recover costs or earn a return on their power-plant 
investments through cost-based rates.  OCC contends that the commission’s 
findings move the state closer to re-regulation and that, left undisturbed, the 
commission’s exercise of jurisdiction over generation, under the guise of 
distribution-ancillary services, could circumvent R.C. Chapter 4928 by permitting 
the commission to exercise jurisdiction over all generation functions. 
{¶ 20} It is well settled that the generation component of electric service 
is not subject to commission regulation.  In Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., 104 
Ohio St.3d 530, 2004-Ohio-6767, 820 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 2, we stated that S.B. 3 
“provided for restructuring Ohio’s electric-utility industry to achieve retail 
competition with respect to the generation component of electric service.”  R.C. 
4928.03 specifies that retail electric-generation service is competitive and 
therefore not subject to commission regulation, and R.C. 4928.05 expressly 
removes competitive retail electric services from commission regulation.  
Moreover, R.C. 4928.14(A) requires an electric-distribution utility to provide a 
market-based standard service offer of all competitive retail electric services, 
including electric-generation service. 
{¶ 21} Thus, the issue presented here is whether the commission properly 
identified the subject matter of AEP’s application as a distribution-ancillary 
service subject to its regulatory jurisdiction. 
{¶ 22} The statutory definition of ancillary service, set forth in R.C. 
4928.01(A)(1), contains examples of services that involve the control and 
regulation of the flow of electricity, not the planning and construction of 
generation facilities.  Because R.C. 4928.03 explicitly declares electric generation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
to be a competitive retail electric service and R.C. 4928.05 expressly provides that 
electric generation is no longer subject to the commission’s regulation, the 
classification of AEP’s proposed electric-generation facility as a distribution-
ancillary service is contrary to law. 
{¶ 23} The commission’s holding blurs the legislative distinctions 
between electric transmission, generation, and distribution.  Adoption of its 
rationale may result in these three functions all being subject to commission 
regulation, which would negate the legislature’s deregulation of the electric-utility 
industry.  While we appreciate the commission’s concern with respect to the 
future reliability of the electric-generation market as Ohio’s market-development 
period comes to an end, a laudable and practical concern for all Ohio utility 
consumers, we have previously stated that a concern for the future of the 
competitive market does not empower the commission to create remedies beyond 
the parameters of the law.  Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 109 
Ohio St.3d 328, 2006-Ohio-2110, 847 N.E.2d 1184, ¶ 38.  The existing legislation 
sufficiently segregates generation of electricity from distribution, and in order to 
permit the commission to regulate generation services, additional legislative 
authority is necessary. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, we reverse the commission’s finding, which 
approved, as a distribution-ancillary service, AEP’s application. 
POLR – STANDARD-SERVICE OFFER 
{¶ 25} The commission further found that, as an electric distributor, AEP 
has a duty under R.C. 4928.14 to provide retail electric service to consumers as a 
POLR, and that this duty provides additional justification for rate-based recovery 
to build and operate a generation facility.2  AEP contends that our decision in 
                                                 
2.  R.C. 4928.14 speaks of an electric-distribution utility providing competitive retail electric-
generation service through a “standard service offer.”  Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-35-03, Appendix 
A,  defines “standard service offer” as “the provision of a market-based variable-rate firm 
January Term, 2008 
9 
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 530, 2004-Ohio-6767, 820 N.E.2d 
885, ¶ 39-40, supports its position that it is permitted to recover costs associated 
with fulfilling its POLR responsibility.  While the statute imposes a duty on an 
electric-distribution utility to become a POLR, it fails to specify the manner in 
which such a distribution utility is to ensure the availability of energy.  In this 
regard, AEP contends that the commission may authorize the recovery of its costs 
from its distribution customers in order to fulfill its statutory POLR responsibility. 
{¶ 26} FirstEnergy Solutions argues that AEP and the commission 
overextend the electric-distribution utility’s POLR obligation and standard-
service offerings.  It acknowledges that R.C. 4928.14 requires AEP to provide 
generation service as a POLR, but it contends that there is a distinction between 
securing electric service from the competitive market and the planning, building, 
and maintaining of a facility to produce generation service.  FirstEnergy Solutions 
points to the testimony of AEP’s own witness, Bruce Braine, to demonstrate that a 
distribution utility is not required to build the plant that provides the electricity 
necessary to satisfy its POLR obligation.  IEU and OCC argue that in order for the 
commission to approve AEP’s application as a POLR charge, it needs to establish 
the rates in accordance with its traditional ratemaking authority. 
{¶ 27} R.C. 4928.14 does require an electric-distribution utility to be 
prepared to provide retail electric service to consumers through a standard-service 
offer.  Regardless of how the service is provided, the electric-distribution utility 
will incur noncompetitive costs associated with the fulfillment of its POLR 
obligation.  We have previously stressed the importance of distinguishing 
between the regulated and unregulated costs associated with the POLR obligation, 
                                                                                                                                     
generation service offered by the [electric-distribution utility] as the provider of last resort” and 
further defines “POLR” as “the statutory responsibility of the [electric-distribution utility] to 
provide electric supply service to its customers on a comparable and nondiscriminatory basis 
within its certified territory.  This responsibility may be fulfilled by the [electric-distribution 
utility] providing standard service offer and by providing all other retail electric services necessary 
to maintain essential electric service to consumers.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
stating that “the commission should carefully consider what costs it is attributing 
as costs incurred as part of an electric-distribution utility’s POLR obligations.”  
Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-
4276, 872 N.E.2d 269, ¶ 26.  Pursuant to R.C. 4928.15, all noncompetitive retail 
electric-distribution-service rates and charges shall be established in accordance 
with the procedures set forth in R.C. Chapters 4905 and 4909. 
{¶ 28} R.C. Chapter 4905 governs the commission’s general power to 
regulate public utilities, while R.C. Chapter 4909 governs the commission’s 
power to set utility rates and charges. 
{¶ 29} Notably, R.C. 4909.15 provides that any property sought to be 
included in the calculation of utility rates must be used and useful in rendering the 
public-utility service or it must be at least 75 percent complete.  We have 
previously refused to include in a utility ratebase property that was not yet used 
and useful for service to consumers, noting, “Incorporated in this statutory 
language is the generally accepted principle that a utility is not entitled to include 
in the valuation of its rate base property not actually used or useful in providing 
its public service, no matter how useful the property may have been in the past or 
may yet be in the future.”  Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 
58 Ohio St.2d 449, 453, 12 O.O.3d 378, 391 N.E.2d 311 (refusing to permit a 
nuclear plant that was still in the testing stages to be included in the valuation of a 
public utility’s ratebase because the plant was not useful or used in supplying 
service to ratepayers). 
{¶ 30} We also have held that “[i]n order to meet the requirements of R.C. 
4903.09, * * * the PUCO’s order must show, in sufficient detail, the facts in the 
record upon which the order is based, and the reasoning followed by the PUCO in 
reaching its conclusion.” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. 
(1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 306, 312, 513 N.E.2d 337.  Although strict compliance with 
the terms of R.C. 4903.09, which requires the commission to file a written 
January Term, 2008 
11 
opinion setting forth its reasons for its decision, is not required, “ ‘[a] legion of 
cases establish that the commission abuses its discretion if it renders an opinion 
on an issue without record support.’ ”  Tongren v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 87, 90, 706 N.E.2d 1255, quoting Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. 
Util. Comm. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 163, 166, 666 N.E.2d 1372. 
{¶ 31} While the commission may allow recovery of an electric-
distribution utility’s noncompetitive costs that are associated with its effort to 
secure competitive retail electric service in furtherance of its statutory POLR 
obligation, the commission’s approval must be given in accordance with R.C. 
Chapters 4905 and 4909. 
{¶ 32} The evidence does not support the order permitting AEP to recover 
the costs associated with the research and development of the proposed generation 
facility.  To warrant its conclusions regarding AEP’s POLR obligation, the 
commission may supplement the record with evidence to support its order and 
must verify that AEP has complied with the application requirements under R.C. 
4909.18.  Also, because AEP has not yet begun construction of the generation 
facility, compliance with the 75 percent used-and-useful standard should also be 
addressed. 
{¶ 33} Additionally, we note that while the commission details potential 
problems with the fleet of existing generation facilities, it fails to make any 
findings regarding the amount of generation that AEP needs to guarantee its Ohio 
distribution responsibilities.  Nor does the record demonstrate what portion of the 
facility’s costs should be attributed to AEP’s POLR obligation versus what costs 
should be recovered through competitive rates when the facility begins generating 
electricity.3  Accordingly, the record before us is incomplete in these respects and 
                                                 
3.  The commission argued in its merit brief that a power plant can fill numerous roles “even after 
the primary function of those power plants has been deregulated.”  (Emphasis added.)  The 
commission admits the primary purpose of the plant is for the unregulated provision of electric 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
the commission is instructed to make additional findings in support of its 
conclusions in this regard.  We remand the case to the commission for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT COSTS 
{¶ 34} IEU and OCC seek an order to refund the $24 million in IGCC 
plant research-and-development costs that AEP has already recovered from its 
customers.  IEU acknowledges this court’s holding in Keco Industries, Inc. v. 
Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Tel. Co. (1957), 166 Ohio St. 254, 2 O.O.2d 85, 141 
N.E.2d 465, paragraph two of the syllabus:  “Where the charges collected by a 
public utility are based upon rates which have been established by an order of the 
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the fact that such order is subsequently 
found to be unreasonable or unlawful on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, in 
the absence of a statute providing therefor, affords no right of action for 
restitution of the increase in charges collected during the pendency of the appeal.” 
{¶ 35} The commission argues that we should deny the request because 
IEU had an opportunity to request a stay of the commission’s order but failed to 
do so, and it notes that it ordered AEP to refund all charges collected for 
expenditures that are transferable to other projects if AEP has not commenced a 
continuous course of construction of the plant within five years of its entry on 
rehearing. 
{¶ 36} In view of our remand of this matter to the commission, we need 
not reach the matter of refund.  Therefore, we decline to deviate from Keco to 
create an exception based on these facts. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 37} The provisions of S.B. 3 prevent an electric-distribution utility 
from using noncompetitive distribution revenues to subsidize the cost of 
                                                                                                                                     
generation. Yet, the record presented to the court places the entire cost for planning, building, and 
maintaining the plant with the distribution customers in the category of noncompetitive service. 
January Term, 2008 
13 
providing competitive generation-service components.  However, on a properly 
supported record, the commission may, in accordance with R.C. Chapters 4905 
and 4909, approve recovery of an electric-distribution utility’s noncompetitive 
costs associated with its effort to secure competitive retail service in furtherance 
of its POLR obligation.  Here, the record does not demonstrate the extent to which 
recovery should be permitted in this case or whether the appropriate statutory 
procedures for obtaining such recovery were followed.  Accordingly, we remand 
this case to the commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
Because we remand this case to the commission, and because the commission’s 
conditional refund order remains in effect, we need not reach the issue of a 
refund, and we decline to create an exception to our precedent of denying claims 
for refund from approved orders of the commission. 
Order affirmed in part 
and reversed in part, 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 38} I concur fully in the opinion and the judgment.  I write separately 
solely to state that I would be willing to order a refund without remanding that 
issue to the commission. 
__________________ 
McNees Wallace & Nurick, L.L.C., Samuel C. Randazzo, Lisa G. 
McAlister, and Daniel J. Neilsen, for appellant Industrial Energy Users of Ohio. 
Kathy J. Kolich, for appellant FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
Jeffrey L. Small, Kimberly Bojko, and Janine L. Migden-Ostrander, for 
appellant Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel. 
Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry, David F. Boehm, Kurt J. Boehm, and Michael L. 
Kurtz, for appellant Ohio Energy Group. 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Thomas W. McNamee, Duane L. 
Luckey, William L. Wright, and John H. Jones, Assistant Attorneys General, for 
appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. 
Marvin I. Resnik and Kevin F. Duffy; and Porter, Wright, Morris & 
Arthur, L.L.P., and Daniel R. Conway, for intervening appellees Columbus 
Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company. 
David C. Rinebolt and Colleen Mooney, urging reversal for amicus curiae 
Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy. 
Scott W. Schiff & Associates and Scott W. Schiff, urging affirmance for 
amici curiae International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 972, 
Parkersburg-Marietta Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and 
Ironworkers Local 787. 
Michael B. Gardner, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Murray Energy 
Corporation. 
______________________