Update:  The Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, denied Duke’s motion to lift the stay and granted Duke’s motion to require bond.  The parties are to submit briefs on the appropriate amount of bond required by Ohio Revised Code Section 4903.16 by August 13, 2014.  The parties will also have an opportunity to file reply briefs which will be due on August 25, 2014.  The majority and concurring opinions simply state that Ohio Revised Code Section 4903.16 requires a bond when the court grants a stay.  Justice Pfeifer’s dissent, with Justice O’Neill concurring, stated that the Court already decided this issue in its May 14, 2014 Entry.  Justice Pfeifer argues that Duke is requesting that the Court reverse its earlier ruling and that this type of motion is procedurally improper.  Supreme Court Practice Rule 18.02 does not authorize a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a decision granting a stay with or without bond.  Justice Pfeifer argues that Duke should not be permitted to circumvent the rule by calling it a motion to lift the stay instead of a motion for reconsideration.  In his dissenting opinion, Justice Pfeifer went on to state that “[b]ecause of the unwillingness of this court to order refunds when they are justified, parties must seek to stay orders of the Public Utilities Commission on the front end in order to prevent unreasonable fees from being collected.”  Justice Pfeifer states that the court-create rule in Keco Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Tel. Co., 166 Ohio St. 254, 141 N.E.2d 465 (1957) is preventing the fair and orderly administration of utilities cases in Ohio.  He reasons that until Keco is overturned, consumers will be required to seek stays and that the court should allow those stays without bond where appropriate.

The Supreme Court also denied East Ohio Gas Company d.b.a. Dominion East Ohio, Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc., and Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.’s (“East Ohio Gas”) joint motion for leave to intervene and for leave to file a memorandum in support of Duke’s motion to lift the stay.  The appellants’ joint motion to strike Duke’s motion to lift the stay was denied and their joint motion to strike East Ohio Gas’ memorandum in support of Duke’s motion to lift the stay was granted.