(A) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, the failure of a supplier to provide retail electric generation service to customers within the certified territory of an electric distribution utility shall result in the supplier's customers, after reasonable notice, defaulting to the utility's standard service offer under sections 4928.141 and 4928.142 of the Revised Code until the customer chooses an alternative supplier.
(B) A supplier is deemed under this section to have failed to provide retail electric generation service if the commission finds, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, that any of the following conditions are met:
(1) The supplier has defaulted on its contracts with customers, is in receivership, or has filed for bankruptcy.
(2) The supplier is no longer capable of providing the service.
(3) The supplier is unable to provide delivery to transmission or distribution facilities for such period of time as may be reasonably specified by commission rule adopted under division (A) of section 4928.06 of the Revised Code.
(4) The supplier's certification has been suspended, conditionally rescinded, or rescinded under division (D) of section 4928.08 of the Revised Code.
(C) If an electric distribution utility has an electric security plan that was approved under section 4928.143 of the Revised Code as that section existed prior to the amendments to this section by this act, the failure of a supplier to provide retail electric generation service to customers within the certified territory of that utility shall result in the supplier's customers, after reasonable notice, defaulting to the utility's standard service offer under that electric security plan until the customer chooses an alternative supplier or until the utility's standard service offer is authorized under section 4928.142 of the Revised Code.
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 16דThe commission stated that (1) R.C. 4928.14 allowed it flexibility in approving methods for determining market-based rates for standard service offers, (2) the stipulation was negotiated among five suppliers and other organizations representing various categories of consumers,…”
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 104 Ohio St. 3d 530 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 6ד” {¶ 45} The commission refutes Constellation’s argument as follows: {¶ 46} “Constellation’s assertions notwithstanding, the Stipulation also complies with the language of R.C. 4928.14(B): ‘The commission may determine at any time that a competitive bidding process is not…”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 109 Ohio St. 3d 328 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 47ד{¶ 14} The issue for our determination here, however, concerns whether the rate-stabilization plan conforms to the statutory requirements as set forth by the General Assembly in R.C. 4928.14. {¶ 15} R.C. 4928.14(A) provides: “After its market development period, an electric…”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1608 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4דAccording to OCC, the commission erred when it failed to apply the statutory definition of “default service” set forth in R.C. 4928.14. We find that OCC has forfeited this argument.”
Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 3ד3, incumbent electric-distribution utilities like the FirstEnergy companies are entitled to charge market-based retail generation rates that permit them to recover their costs of buying power at wholesale for resale to their customers.”
Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2004 Ohio 6896 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 2דR.C. 4928.14. {¶ 3} On June 22, 2000, in its restructuring case, Mon Power entered into a settlement agreement, styled a “Stipulation and Recommendation” (“the Stipulation”), with the commission’s staff and with representatives of Mon Power’s Ohio retail customers.”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2011 Ohio 1788 (Ohio 2011). “” R.C. 4928.14. This obligation to stand ready to accept returning customers makes the utility the “provider of last resort,” or “POLR.”
Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 117 Ohio St. 3d 486 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 6ד{¶ 3} AEP contends, however, that because R.C. 4928.14 permits an electric-distribution utility to be involved in building an electric-generating facility to satisfy the utility’s provider-of-last-resort (“POLR”) and standard-service-offer obligations, it therefore may recover…”
In re Application of Ohio Power Co., 2024 Ohio 2890 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2דR.C. 4928.14. Electric utilities can establish their SSO for electric-generation service in one of two ways: through a “market-rate offer,” R.”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 340 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 6ד{¶ 34} The voluntary-enrollment procedure was set out in the MDP-extension stipulation as one part of the proposed alternative to the competitive-bidding requirement of R.C. 4928.14(B). In addition to the voluntary-enrollment procedure, DP&L’s proposed alternative to competitive…”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 121 Ohio St. 3d 362 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 4ד(“Duke,” formerly named “CG & E”) filed an application to provide a market-based standard service offer and to establish a competitive bidding process as required under R.C. 4928.14. Duke filed a supplemental application on January 26, 2004.”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 110 Ohio St. 3d 394 (Ohio 2006). “R.C. 4928.14. Regardless of which provider the customer selects, the electricity generated by the provider is delivered over wires owned and maintained by the electric utility, and that company can continue to charge for the delivery service.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4928.14(A) — 4 cases
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “The commission stated that (1) R.C. 4928.14 allowed it flexibility in approving methods for determining market-based rates for standard service offers, (2) the stipulation was negotiated among five suppliers and other organizations representing various categories of consumers,…”
Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2007). “3, incumbent electric-distribution utilities like the FirstEnergy companies are entitled to charge market-based retail generation rates that permit them to recover their costs of buying power at wholesale for resale to their customers.”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 109 Ohio St. 3d 328 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 14} The issue for our determination here, however, concerns whether the rate-stabilization plan conforms to the statutory requirements as set forth by the General Assembly in R.C. 4928.14. {¶ 15} R.C. 4928.14(A) provides: “After its market development period, an electric…”
Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 117 Ohio St. 3d 486 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 3} AEP contends, however, that because R.C. 4928.14 permits an electric-distribution utility to be involved in building an electric-generating facility to satisfy the utility’s provider-of-last-resort (“POLR”) and standard-service-offer obligations, it therefore may recover…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4928.14(B) — 4 cases
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 104 Ohio St. 3d 530 (Ohio 2004). “” {¶ 45} The commission refutes Constellation’s argument as follows: {¶ 46} “Constellation’s assertions notwithstanding, the Stipulation also complies with the language of R.C. 4928.14(B): ‘The commission may determine at any time that a competitive bidding process is not…”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 109 Ohio St. 3d 328 (Ohio 2006). “{¶ 14} The issue for our determination here, however, concerns whether the rate-stabilization plan conforms to the statutory requirements as set forth by the General Assembly in R.C. 4928.14. {¶ 15} R.C. 4928.14(A) provides: “After its market development period, an electric…”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “The commission stated that (1) R.C. 4928.14 allowed it flexibility in approving methods for determining market-based rates for standard service offers, (2) the stipulation was negotiated among five suppliers and other organizations representing various categories of consumers,…”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 340 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 34} The voluntary-enrollment procedure was set out in the MDP-extension stipulation as one part of the proposed alternative to the competitive-bidding requirement of R.C. 4928.14(B). In addition to the voluntary-enrollment procedure, DP&L’s proposed alternative to competitive…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4928.14(C) — 3 cases
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “The commission stated that (1) R.C. 4928.14 allowed it flexibility in approving methods for determining market-based rates for standard service offers, (2) the stipulation was negotiated among five suppliers and other organizations representing various categories of consumers,…”
Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2007). “3, incumbent electric-distribution utilities like the FirstEnergy companies are entitled to charge market-based retail generation rates that permit them to recover their costs of buying power at wholesale for resale to their customers.”
Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 114 Ohio St. 3d 340 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 34} The voluntary-enrollment procedure was set out in the MDP-extension stipulation as one part of the proposed alternative to the competitive-bidding requirement of R.C. 4928.14(B). In addition to the voluntary-enrollment procedure, DP&L’s proposed alternative to competitive…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.