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

Heading: Impact on low-income, low-use customers

Text: 10 January Term, 2010 {¶ 35} OCC also contends that the commission-approved SFV design is bad public policy for Vectren’s low-use, low-income residential customers. According to OCC, the one known effect of the SFV rate design is that some of Vectren’s low-income and low-use customers will now be forced to subsidize high-use residential customers. {¶ 36} OCC’s assertions of unfair cost subsidization are unfounded. In order to remedy inequities in the prior rate plan, some low-use residential customers – including some who are low-income – will pay more under the new rate design. But low-income and low-use customers will pay more because they will no longer be subsidized by higher-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. It does not automatically follow that low-income and low-use customers will now be subsidizing high-use customers under SFV. And OCC has offered no compelling evidence to the contrary. {¶ 37} As to OCC’s claim that the PUCO failed to justify terminating Vectren’s pilot program for low-income customers after one year, OCC misconstrues the commission’s order. The commission did order that the program be made available for one year. But the commission also stated that at the end of the first year, it would “evaluate the program for its effectiveness in addressing our concerns relative to the impact on low-usage, low-income customers.” Thus, OCC’s challenge to the pilot program is speculative and does not demonstrate that the commission’s approval of SFV was against the manifest weight of the evidence.