Supreme Court of Ohio - Case No. 2013-0513 In the Matter of Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and the Toledo Edison Company for Authority to Provide for a Standard Service Offer Pursuant to Section 4928.143, Revised Code, in the Form of an El
-Did the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) follow the proper statutory procedure for determining whether a proposed electric security plan (ESP) was more favorable than a market-rate offer (MRO)?
-Did the PUCO unlawfully approve items in a company's proposed ESP when the specific language of the relevant statute excludes the items?
-If the PUCO is permitted to consider qualitative factors, did it consider inappropriate qualitative factors because they fall outside the relevant statutes?
-Was the PUCO-approved ESP less favorable in quantitative terms than the expected MRO price?
-May the PUCO take administrative notice of testimony offered in the company's hearing for its prior ESP application to support its application in the current case?
-Did the company applying for an ESP fail to show that the stipulation it offered was the result of serious bargaining among the parties and represented the broad interests of the customers?
-Did the company's application comply with Ohio Admin. Code 4901:1-35-03(C)(1), requiring applications to include a "complete description of the ESP and testimony explaining and supporting each aspect of the ESP"?