Opinion ID: 2691342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impact on low-use customers

Text: {¶ 33} OCC contends that the PUCO offered no record citation to support its conclusion that low-usage customers had not been paying the entirety of their fixed costs under the previous rate design. Likewise, OCC maintains that there is no record support for the PUCO’s “allegation” that high-use customers were overpaying fixed costs under the previous rate design. {¶ 34} OCC is mistaken that there was no record support for the conclusion that low-use customers were subsidized under the prior rate structure – several witnesses testified to this end. Moreover, we have accepted the commission’s finding that the SFV rate design was intended to remedy inequities in the prior rate structure caused by high-use customers overpaying their own fixed costs and subsidizing low-use customers. See Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 125 Ohio St.3d 57, 2010-Ohio-134, 926 N.E.2d 261, ¶ 30, 33, 46.