by - supreme court of ohio joseph p. serio (reg. no. 0036959) assistant consumers' counsel ......

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In the Matter of the Application of DukeEnergy Ohio, Inc. for an Increase in ItsNatural Gas Distribution Rates.

)) Case No. 2014-0328)

In the Matter of the Application of DukeEnergy Ohio, Inc., for Tariff Approval.

In the Matter of the Application of DukeEnergy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of anAlternative Rate Plan for Gas DistributionService.

In the Matter of the Application of DukeEnergy Ohio, Inc., for Approval to ChangeAccounting Methods.

) Appeal from the Public Utilities) Cominission of Ohio

Public Utilities Commission of OhioCase Nos. 12-1685-GA-AIR

12-1686-GA-ATA12-1687-GA-ALT12-1688-GA-AAM

,^^;-.^< ^

^'^^`^^,îr^^

MOTIONTO EXPEDITE RULING ON APPEAL

BYTHE KROGER COlVIPANY,

THE OFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS' COUNSEL,THE OHIO iVIAllTUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, AND

OHIO PARTNERS FOR ^'FORDABLE ENERGY

Bruce J. Weston (Reg. No. 0016973)Ohio Consumers' Counsel

Mike DeWine (Reg. No. 0009181)Attorney General of Ohio

Larry S. Sauer (Reg. No. 0039223)Counsel of RecordJoseph P. Serio (Reg. No. 0036959)Assistant Consumers' CounselOffice of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel10 West Broad Street, Suite 1800Columbus, Ohio 43215-3485(614) 466-1312 - Telephone(614) 466-9475 - Facsimilel arry. s auer @ occ. ohio. govjoseph.serio @ occ.ohio.gov

Attorneys for Appellant f °Office of the Ohio Consi^rners' Co^rt^^t ; ;s

^̂,̂̂ ^^; ... , _ .

William L. Wright (Reg. No. 0018010)Counsel of RecordSection Chief, Public Utilities SectionDevin D. Parram (Reg. No. 0082507)Public Utilities Commission of Ohio180 East Broad Street, 6`^ FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215-3793(614) 466-4397 - Telephone(614) 644-8767 - Facsimilewill iam. wright @ puc. state. oh. usdevin.parramC puc.state.oh.us

ys for AppelleeUtilities Commission of Ohio

} ; o ^ ^̂{ ' :' e fi"s'.e^ Fi.,°4 _^ ..lP %î9! .. .

^f: ^t j ' ^ j^ G r^ f ^- FL>.^^^f.e,'s<.t. e%;;y.f.,.. :ll.le^. f^. .;4AôL'

Mark R. Weaver (Reg. No. 0065769)Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & TeetorTwo Miranova, 7th floorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 221-2121- Telephone(614) 365-9516- [email protected]

Outside Counsel for AppellantOf.fice of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel

Kimberly W. Bojko (Reg. No. 0069402)Counsel of RecordJonathan A. Allison(Reg. No. 0062720)Carpeiiter Lipps & Leland LLP280 North High Street, Ste. 1300Columbus, Ohio 43215(614) 365-4124 - Telephone(614) 365-9145 - FacsimileB oj ko @ C arpenterLipps. [email protected] f i)r AppellantThe Kroger Company

Robert A. Brundrett (Reg. No. 0086538)Counsel of RecordOhio Manufacturers' Association33 North High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 629-6814 - Telephone(614) 224-1012 - [email protected]

Attorney for Appellant

Ohio Manufacturers' Association

Amy B. Spiller (Reg. No. 0047277)Counsel of RecordElizabeth H. Watts (Reg. No. 0031092)Associate General CounselDuke Energy Ohio, Inc.139 East Fourth StreetCincimiati, Ohio [email protected]@duke-energy.com

Attorneys for Intervening AppelleeDuke Energy Ohio, Inc.

James W. Burk (Reg. No. 0043808)Counsel of RecordFirstEnergy Service Company76 South Main StreetAkron, Ohio 44308(303) 384-5861 -Telephone(303) 384-3875 - Facsimileburkj @firstenergycorp.com

James F. Lang (Reg. No. 0059668)Sarah M. Antonucci (Reg. No. 0089132)Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLPThe Calfee Building1405 East Sixth StreetCleveland, Ohio 44114-1607(216) 622-8200 - Telephone(216) 241-0816 - [email protected]@calfee.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Ohio EdisonCompany, the Toledo Edison Contpany andthe Cleveland Illuminating Company

Colleen L. Mooney (Reg. No. 0015668)Counsel of RecordOhio Partners for Affordable Energy231 West Lima StreetFindlay, Ohio 45839(614) 488-5739 - Telephone(419) 425-8862 - [email protected]

Attorneyfor AppellantOhio Partners for Affordable Energy

Gretchen J. Hummel (Reg. No. 0016207)2330 Brookwood RoadColumbus, Ohio 43209(614) 235-5352 - Telephone(614) 235-5352 - [email protected]

Attorney forAmicus CuriaeIndustrial Energy Users - Ohio

Michael Kurtz (Reg. No. 0033350)Counsel of RecordDavid Boehm (Reg. No. 0021881)Jody Kyler Cohn (Reg. No. 0085402)Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510Cincinnati, Ohio [email protected]@[email protected]

Attorneys ofAmicus CuriaeThe Ohio Energy Group

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO


)) Case No. 2014-0328)




) Appeal from the Public Utilities) Commission of Ohio



MOTIONTO EXPEDITE RULING ON APPEAL

BYTHE KROGER COMPANY,

THE OFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS' COUNSEL,THE OHIO 1VIANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, AND

OHIO PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE ENERGY

To protect nearly 420,000 Ohio utility consumers, the Appellants ask this Court to

consider this appeal "out of [its] order on the docket," meaning to expedite it, as allowed by R.C.

4903.20. Each residential consumer affected by this appeal risks paying the natural gas utility

about $20 per year over the next five years if the stay is lifted. And these consumers risk being

denied a refund of these charges, if the Court rules in our favor.

The Court initially stayed the order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO"

or "Appellee") without requiring a bond from Joint Appellants, the Office of the Ohio

Consumers' Counsel ("OCC"), the Kroger Company ("Kroger"), Ohio Manufacturers'

Association ("OMA"), and Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy. But after reconsidering, the

Court required a $2.5 million bond to continue the stay. Joint Appellants were allowed until

November 18, 2014 to post the bond. The Appellants did not post a bond, given the costs.

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. ("Duke" or "Utility") will collect $925,000 from customers for

each month the appeal remains before the Court. Joint Appellants ask the Court to consider this

appeal expeditiously in order to mitigate the potential for irreparable injury to customers if the

Court reverses the PUCO's decision.

Respectfully submitted,

BRU E. WESTON (Reg. No 0016973)OH ON.S^ERS' COUNSEL

9rr S!Sauer (Reg. No. 0039223)ui se1 of Record

Jose h P. Serio (Reg. No. 0036959)Assistant Consumers' Counsel

Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel10 West Broad Street, Suite 1800Columbus, Ohio 43215-3485Telephone: Sauer (614) 466-1312Telephone: Serio (614) 466-9565larry. sauer C^ occ.ohio.govjo:seph.serio @occ.ohio. gov

2

AIJ4 04-

imerly . Boj (Reg. No. 069402)Counsel of RecordJonathan A. Allison (Reg. No. 0062720)Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP280 North High Street, Suite 1300Columbus, Ohio 43215(614) 365-4124 - Telephone(614) 365-9145Boiko@Ca enterLi [email protected]

Attorney for Appellant77ae Kroger Company

"4'Robert A. Brundrett (Reg.1Vo. 0486538)Counsel of RecordOhio Manufacturers' Association33 North High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 629-6814 - Telephone(614) 224-1012 - Facsimilerbrundrett @ ohiomfa. cona


Ohio Manufactatrers' Association

olleen L. Moon (Reg. o. Q015668)Counsel of RecordOhio Partners for Affordable Energy231 West Lima StreetFindlay, Ohio 45839(614) 488-5739 - Telephone(419) 425-8862 - Facsimile

cmggpe,[email protected]

Attorney for AppellantOhio Partners for Affordable Energy

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................2

A. Under Ohio law the Court has authority and discretion to dispose ofappeals out of their order on the docket ...................................................................2

IIL CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................4

i

IN THE SUPRFME COURT OF OHIO


)) Case No. 2014-0328)




) Appeal from the Public Utilities) Commission of Ohio



MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

Duke has sought authority to collect from customers environmental clean-up costs for

two long-defunct manufactured gas plants ("MGP"). Joint Appellants appealed the PUCO's

decision authorizing Duke to collect $55.5 million in clean-up costs. On May 14, 2014, this

Court granted the Appellants' Joint Motion for Stay, and did not require the Appellants to post a

bond. Thirty days later, Duke implemented tariffs removing the clean-up costs from customers'

bills.

The Court reconsidered its decision upon complaint from utilities, and anvited briefs on

the bond issue. On November 5, 2014, the Court reversed its earlier ruling, and required

Appellants to post a $2.5 million bond to maintain the stay. Less than 24 hours later, Duke filed

to resume collecting the cleanup costs from customers.l For reasons explained in the briefs, the

Joint Appellants could not post the bond required for the stay.

II. ARGUMENT

Under S.Ct.Prac.R, 4.01, the Joint Appellants respectfully note that, under R.C.

4903.20, "actions and proceedings in the supreme court" under the Revised Code Title 49

"shall be taken up and disposed of by the court out of their order on the docket." This

case has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument. Appellants respectfully request

the Court to schedule oral argument in January 2015, and decide the merits of the case

expeditiously. That timeline would mitigate the potential for irreparable harm to Duke's

customers if the Court reverses the PUCO's decision.

A. Under Ohio law the Court has authority and discretion to dispose of appealsout of their order on the docket.

Joint Appellants note that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from PUCO

orders. R.C. 4903.12. Joint Appellants further note that there are significant dollars at stake

($55.5 million) - both for Duke Energy Ohio and its 420,000 utility customers. R.C. 4903.20

permits this Court to take up and dispose of appeals from PUCO orders "out of their order on the

docket." Joint Appellants do recognize the Court's considerable case load. The unfortunate limit

on an adequate remedy for consumer refunds, as determined in a recent appeal, makes this case

worthy of an expedited treatment by the Court.

In the November 5, 2014 Entry, the Court ordered the Appellants to "post a bond within

ten days (of the date of the Entry) otherwise, the stay will be lifted." While the Court required a

bond amount significantly less than the excessive level requested by Duke the Court,

1 Duke's Motion to Reinstate the Tariff (November 18, 2014) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2

unfortunately, still required Joint Appellants to post a significant bond -- $2,506, 295. That bond,

however, is outside the reach of the Joint Appellants. While the $55.5 million in clean- up costs

are to be collected from all Duke's natural gas customers, the required bond must be posted by

the Joint Appellants. The Joint Appellants are either representative agencies or individual

customers which represent only a portion of Duke's customers that are ultimately responsible for

the total $55.5 million in clean-up costs. Joint Appellants could not post the bond necessary to

maintain the stay, nor should they be required to bear responsibility for all of the 420,000 Duke

customers.

To date, that stay has protected all customers from paying Duke the charges that are

being appealed. Unfortunately, the Court did not accept Joint Appellants' principal proposals for

a zero bond or a nominal bond. Joint Appellants cannot bear the financial burden for all

customers, including the payment for the bond and potential further liability if the Court does not

overturn the PUCO's decision.

If the Court lifts the stay, Duke will collect approximately $925,000 per month from

customers.2 By granting the Motion the Court could mitigate the potential harm to consumers if

the Court overturns the PUCO's decision authorizing the charges. Joint Appellants, therefore,

request the Court take up and dispose of this case out of its order on the docket, on an expedited

timeline, as provided in R.C. 4903.20. This approach would mitigate the potential irreparable

harm to customers, if the Court overturns the PUCO's decision and determines that Duke cannot

collect the clean-up costs from its customers.

2 Assuming eqtial collection per month: $55.5 million/60 =$925,000 per month.

3

III. CONCLUSION

Under S.Ct.Prac.R, 4.01 and R.C. 4903.20, Joint Appellants respectfully move

this Court for an Order expediting oral argument and consideration of the merits of this

appeal. If the Court lifts the stay, Duke will collect approximately $925,000 per month

from customers.3 Granting this Motion will mitigate the potential for irreparable future

harm to Duke's customers if the Court reverses the PUCO's decision.

Respectfully submitted,

BRUCE J. WESTONOHIO NSUMERS' COUNSEL

La y. Sauer (Reg. No. 0039223)Counsel of RecordJoseph P. Serio (Reg. No. 0036959)Assistant Consumers' Counsel

10 West Broad Street, Suite 1800Columbus, Ohio 43215-3485(614) 466-1312 - Telephone (Sauer)(614) 466-9565 - Telephone (Serio)[email protected]@occ.ohio.gov

Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel

Mark R. Weaver (Reg. No. 0065769)Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & TeetorTwo Miranova, 7th floorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 221-2121- Telephone(614) 365-9516- [email protected]

Outside Counsel for AppellantOffice of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel

3 Assurning equal collection per month: $55.5 million/60 =$925,000 per month.

4

/;O^' 41re. •-4^^ W,14Kimberl W. Bojko, (Reg. No. 0069402)Counsel of RecordJonathan A. Allison (Reg. No. 0062720)CarpenterLipps & Leland LLP280 North High Street, Ste. 1.300Colunibus, Ohio 43215(614) 365-4124 - Telephone(614) 365-9145 - [email protected]@CarpenterLipps.com

Attorneys for Appellant

The Kroger Cornpany

Robert A. Brundrett (Reg. No. 0086538)Counsel of Record33 N. High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 629-6814 - Telephone(614) 224-1012 - [email protected]


Ohio Manufacturers' Association

(4-0^k^pColleen L. Moon (Reg. No 0015668)Counsel of RecordOhio Partners for Affordable Energy231 West Lima StreetFindlay, Ohio 45839(614) 488-5739 - Telephone(419) 425-8862 - [email protected]

Attorney for AppellantOhio Partners for Affordable Energy

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion of

Joint Appellants has been served upon the below-named persons via electronic transmittal this

20th day of November 2014.

William L. WrightSection Chief, Public Utilities SectionDevin D. ParramPublic Utilities Commission of Ohio180 East Broad Street, 6a' FloorColumbus, Ohio [email protected] @puc.state.oh.us

David BoehmMichael KurtzJody Kyler CohnBoehm, Kurtz & Lowry36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510Cincinnati, Ohio [email protected]@bkllawfirm.comjkylercohn C' bkllawfirm.com

James W. BurkFirstEnergy Service Company76 South Main StreetAkron, Ohio 44308(303) 384-5861 - Telephone(303) 384-3875 - Facsimileburkj @firstenergycorp.com

i

La S SauerAssist t Consumers' Counsel

SERVICE LIST

Amy B. SpillerElizabeth H. Watts (0031092)Associate General Counsel139 East Fourth StreetCincinnati, Ohio [email protected] @ duke-enery.com

Gretchen J. Hummel2330 Brookwood RoadColumbus, Ohio [email protected]

James F. LangSarah M. AntonucciCalfee, Halter & Griswold LLPThe Calfee Building1405 East Sixth StreetCleveland, Ohio [email protected] antonucci @ calfee. com

:^ÊFORET^^^ PUBLIC UTILIfiiEiS CONnAISSI(3N OF Oi'i.tIO

In the TIViatter of tP7e Application of DukeEnergy Ohio, Inr:., for an Inr`.rease rrt its )Case i"gto. 1%1685-GA°AIRNatural Gas Distribution I^'̂ .ates. }

T̂ n. the Matter of the Application of Duke, ) Case No. 12-1636-GA-A'i;AEnet-^^.^ Ohio, Inc., f^^r î :â•if^ ^.pprov;^, )

In the Matter of the Application of Daike )k^nergy Obif.x, ^îc. for AppriDval of an ) Case No, fl 2-1^87aGA-AIdTAIteritative Rate Plan fcyr Cias )Distribution Service. j

in tÔ Matter Of t^^ Application of T3u#ce )Energy Ohxcs. Inc., for Appr^vJa to ) Case No, l2-14688-GA-AAMChange Accourting Methor.is. }

DUKE ENERGY OHiO, INC.'S MOTION TO REINSTATE TARIFF ANDREQUEST FOR EXPEDITED T REATMENT

Now co£^nes Duke FneeRy Ohio, Jr;c., (ivljjke Energy (--)hio or Compa.i1y) and

herMbv respec:tfu#3Y MMfes tê Plibiic, f.7tiiities Commission ()f ()hi0 (Cc)t=issito

xir2state tariffs that wc-ye ianal,fiied .pursc,arit to the CoEnynissir,n's ^'rrtry in these

proceedings on May 22& 2014, Duke Encrov Ohio rcquests that the Carnraiisioat pextnit it

to reinstate the tariffs at rates being recovered at the tirne the cat'iff:; were saspen:-Jede

Duke Energy C-)I'Zisa fufl-rlier respect;ul1}r request that tl^^ff- Cc7riaxrrissio;l order the

ar:institutiun of the tariffs commensurate with .ê Company's first i7illi:tle cycIe .s.frcr the

order is approved. Duke Er3er-y Ohio r^ûests that the CoMcrtilssiort OrLtnt this mation c?n

ari expedit^,d basis pursuant t9y R;.rl^ 490i-1-12(C), so dhat tli^ Carnpazgv may reitts3itut.s

the Ridcr with the December billir^^ cycle.

Duke Energy Ohio ts:nders di^:. 176liowing meznormduzn, in Sup1ort uf its Te(IiICSt,

Rea:êafu11y submitted,DUKE ENERGY CkfIi0, C.

^ ' 'r^^îly ;. Spi€1er (00471 1777)

Dcputy Gener:d CounselAssociate Genera( CounseiElizabetli H. W6ftis (0031042)Associat^ General CounsdDuke E4yergy Busirtess..Sei-=dees LLC139 Eust Fourth SircetCi:aLQnnati, Ohio 452025' 3-2974359 (telepône)51 3-2974385 (tacsimfle)

2

IMEMORAND^.^M IN SUPPORT

Energy C3îo submitted an application for an incr.°.ase in jistrib,stir?^ 0,j,

tztes i: tllese proceedirs;_5 on June 7, '2012, On April 155, :`013, the pa^-ties

SiiptrlaLion and Recrzmrrendatior; that served to resolve aIl issues in tlic case but lc,r Duke

Energy tJliso's request to rccover lawfully ie;Q:urred business expenses f^.^r rernedis.tion of

i^-^rr;ier m:zriufactured. ,ias plant (MGP) sites. Tiic i5srec of the recovery of eaavir^nm,:wrstal

rernediation costs was litigate in May 2013. By Opinicaî and Order issued on November

13, :2023, thz:, Commission approved the Stipulation sind RecommMndation and fl.irther

found that the Company had sustained its bLirden of proof thr.zt it had ptvdently incurred

MGP investiâti^.^n ^.cid rcira^^diatitîi costs, and a.âtk^=.^razec] tlie ^"oinlâny to liie proposed

tariffs reflectir-q the ar-natant to be included in Rider MGP for review and approval,

Duke Energy Ohio fiied such taril'fs on Ncve-mbG-r G7, 2011, and beg an collecting under

Rider MGP on Noaen-lêr 27p 2013,

Issues related tc.a the E'o-mmis.sion's approval of Duke Energ-y Oizio's recovery of

?..owfully iiteur-red costs for ^mvironmental Mvesti;;ation and f-tirr:cdiation of MGP sites

wam appea[ed to tlac Ohio Suprtrne Caut-t by Oti:o Partners for Affordable Energy, The

Office of the Qfiio Coz^sunaers" Cou€isel, Ohio Manufacturers' Assoc'iatiov, and Ttic

rnpa^-fl^ (Loilective1v, appcIlant.5}. Appeilams :;so moved to stasr the

Commission's order in the Ohio S^-,prRrê Cotirt on March 17, 2014. The Court granted

the motion on -May 14, 2014, 'wi.tr:eut r^quiring that a bond be posted ui-ider R.C.

4903.16. This rulin.c was chaliznged by Duke Ener^y Ohio.

On May 28, `^014, €;le Cramraassionf in dener^.nr,:e to the Coz€rt's Nft:zy 14, '2014,

ruding, a^:rluiresl Duke Energy Ohio to file tariffs in accordance °rVida the courVs ruling.

Duke Eneroy Ohio filed the required ►ariffs on June 13, 2014,

Ori Jul}r '29, 2014, the Oliio Sa^re€r€e Court rtiu€ad that appeIlarats "vure obligated

to post abor€d ir, order to effacctuate the stay and further i€xvited argu€serAt froan the pai-ties

As t0 the annourit of the bWnd. On November 5, 2014, the Ohio Supreme C:c^urz ruled that

t4€R:, apPCllant,s in tliat 1;roccelir€;g, must post bond by iNov^rrber 17, 2014, in tkle a€-nou€at

of S2,506,295 with the clerk c.^f'tiae iDhio Supreme Court ii ord.,-r to ccpritiz€t€e the stay that

had h, een ;ranted in May of?ol-€.

App'Itants have €1()t la()saed abrn€1 in the req€.gir^d ^€^;Ouni, Accordi €91y, Duke

E€ crluy 3t€ao r^sF,,ectft€Iiy re;uest^ that the Commission reinstate the ra€°3ffis tiiat :^

1^r^ Vi0t€Sly appr€^^veci.. The ^'.^'^>rr;p:^ny requests ^h^^t th, C^.m:xaissi on, order rcqpstate ticrt

of rates being recovered at the time the tariffs '.^cre suspanded. eD€ske. E'€ae€-gv ()l€i()

fi.^^.^her reyl;-le:rul1ly reqtiest tiiat the Coxjjr-niSsi0r, OrdC€• thC rCir€stitujion of the tariffs

C0€71Men;:ursl€C c.vltla tilae (::Orr€p;znlv's fi.St billing ;:tircle after the order is approved. Duke

Erse r^y Ohio requests that tlie t3orrimissgon grant this €-notion (3n ari expedited basis

pursuant te Rule 4901w1912(C) ial order to reir:stitute ri€tes with the Decer€"'sl^ec bitli.^^

Respectfully sLibi-n:tted,

.,^y;ss^,^^<: ,/.: _,^.._.. ^...^ ..-w: `a^'^,..._.,.. ....... ...... . . . . .

^x^'j'^. Spiller ft?Q4`7277)Deputy Gcntt'al CounsdAssociate General CounselElizabeth H. Watts (003 109?)Associate Ccncrai CounselDuke Energy Business Services LLC139 East Fourth StreetCi tiel :znati, Ohio 45202? 13-287-4359 (telephone)513-287-4385 (facsimile)

5

CERTIFIC-,VfE OF SERVICE

The un(iers^gred certifies that, on this 18t^ ^^^^ of i^^êmk-r, 2€314, a copy of theforegoing Nlotion to Reinstate Tariff was served by ordinary mail, o€^r, ^bc, foldowin g:

v 4^'^.^âwth H. Watts

Thornas J. O'Brien Vincent ParzsiBricker & Ect;ler LLP Niatthew White100 ôuthThxrd Street lnterstate Gas Supply, ?ncrCoIutnbas, Ohio 43215 6100 Emerald Par4^^âyiobrien@brzcker;com Dublin, Ohio 43016

rrpariSi@ ? gseLiergy.cort3Counsel for the City of Cincinnati r^^^wtiat^ ^ ig-senergY.com

Attorneys for Interstate Gas SupplY,fiic.

Brian M:;IntoshMcI.ntosh &NIcInto.sh1136 SaafiC Gregory StreeiSuite 100Ciracinnati, Ohio 45202brian @Dtrcintosh1awxr?,-n

Counsel for Stand Eirlies°gy Coa-pfirrstion

Joseph P. S,rio, cour ►s^!] of RecordU'Irry S. Sauer

Assistant ^^^suaners' Counsel^}frce of the Ohio C,^n^^mer^' Counsel10 Wesx Broati :3,treet. Suite 1800Columbus, Ohio 432 ! [email protected] @occ;state. ch. u3

Colleen I . MooneyOlaio PartneE> far Affordable Ener-,gy231 West Li:iaa St.Findlay, 01•I 458:39-1793î-r)i)ortey"-^^coluinbus.rr,corn

^ûaseI for ^^ÂE

Douglas E. Hart^ I Vine Street, Suite 4192Cincinnati, OH 45,202

iihart @douglaschai txam

Attorney for `f fie C3êati-rC-lucinnati I'leaIth Council and theC 9*rscir^nats Bel1 TeIephoiie Conipany

Attorneys foa^ the Ohio ^4.)nsurrazzs'Counsel

Thomas ;^^^cNarneeê^tin ParramAssrstank A.ttpr neys GeniraiPlibtic Utafit;es Section180 East Brnad Sr.. 6'^` FfoorColumbus, Ohio 43215^'hîna^.rt^^^,sarn<:^ i^ pr:^.st;ate.rsYr. rr^

031111sel for Staff of the Commission

Ednnu;ad J. £ crL-er6035 Red Wiue5apWayDubling OH 4' )Oi 61berger'i4occ:.srate.ofa,tas

Attorney for the Obio Coaism-flers2Crar3nselJoseph M. Clark21 East State Street, Suite 1900(u'o:u mbais, OR 43215jc.)[email protected]

Attoraiey for Direct Energy .173ervir:es,LLCg and Direct Esêrgy Business, LLC

Andrew. J. SondermanKegler, Brown, Hill & Rittc-r- LPA+Capitoi Square, S€rite 180065 East State StreetCoiurrtb3^s, Ohio 43215

Attorney for People WorkingCooperati^^ly, Inc.

^.g

Kimberly W. BojkoiV1 ai lor vM.Mcs i alerCarpenter Ltpps, & Leland LLP'?80 North High Street #I3Q^^Co1uiirbus, OH 4321 5i'-3sjko@c=arpe.n:^.°rlipp.s.corrrMohier,44'carpe nteriiiags.c^,^ra:

Attorneys for The Kroger Co.

Robert A, Brtrrtdrett33 N. High StreetCciIuenbus, Obio 43215

Attorneys for Ohio .^^^ûf^^turers"Association

M. Howard Petriôff,'I`rial CounseiStophen M. Howard52 East. Gay StreetP. 0. Box 1008

C,-Aumbus, Ohio 43'2 16wl 00$n111PetriC^^[email protected]

sr!i1a^ward @-4. orys. com

Attorneys for Interstate Gas Suppl3's lnc,

This foregoing document was electronically filed with the Public Utilities

Commission of Ohio Docketing Information System on

11118i21D14 1:15:'! f PM

in

Case No(s). 12-1 685-GA-,AI R, °I 2-°1686-GA-ATA, 12-1687-CA-ALT, 12-1+iy88-GA-AAM

Summary: Motion DUKE ENERGY OHIO, iNC: S MOTION TO REiNSTATETARlFE ANDREQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT electronically filed by Carys Cochern on behalf ofWatts, Elizaheth H. Ms.

by - supreme court of ohio joseph p. serio (reg. no. 0036959) assistant consumers' counsel ......

Documents