Opinion ID: 2691342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prospective studies/rush to judgment

Text: {¶ 38} Finally, OCC claims that the PUCO’s decision to impose the SFV rate design was in sharp contrast to other policy changes of the commission that employed more open, deliberate processes and included participation by all stakeholders. OCC argues that the failure to devote the necessary time to study 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the impact of SFV demonstrates that the commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 39} OCC made a similar “prospective studies” argument in the Dominion case, which we rejected. Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 125 Ohio St.3d 57, 2010-Ohio-134, 926 N.E.2d 261, ¶ 53-57. This claim is not well taken for the same reasons. Moreover, the voluminous record in this case contradicts OCC’s claim that there was a rush to judgment. Likewise, OCC fully and extensively participated in all proceedings before the commission in Vectren’s rate-design case, and we find no evidence that it or any other stakeholder was excluded.