Was PUCO Order Cutting Charges to Gas Company's Customers Reasonable?

In the Matter of the Application of the East Ohio Gas Company for Approval of Tariffs to Adjust its Automated Meter Reading Cost Recovery Charge, Case no. 2012-2117

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

ISSUES:

Did the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) have sufficient evidence to order the reduction of a gas company's automated meter reading (AMR) cost recovery charge by $1.6 million?

Did the PUCO act unreasonably when it ordered the $1.6 million reduction?

Was the commission's 2010 order to reduce the AMR charge an unlawful, retroactive modification of a previous 2009 order?

Did the PUCO's 2010 order violate the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel, which prohibits parties from litigating issues that have already been decided?

Did the commission err when it denied the gas company's request to suspend the 2012 order, which imposed the $1.6 million reduction in charges, until an appeal was heard?