Update: Both the PUCO and Duke filed memoranda contra opposing Appellants’, OMA and Kroger, joint motion for reconsideration. The PUCO asserted that Appellants’ argument that service related costs must benefit customers was previously argued and denied by the Court. However, the PUCO acknowledged that the Court never addressed this argument. The PUCO also asserted that the cost to clean up pollution benefits the health, safety, and economic development of the public at large. It did not, however, otherwise explain how the environmental cleanup of two manufactured gas (MGP) plants, at a cost of $55.5 million, directly benefits Duke’s distribution customers. Further, although the PUCO alleged that the Court cannot re-weigh evidence of how much of the MGP plants were actually used to provide distribution service, it ignored the fact that the Court can reverse factual findings and ignored the mass of evidence Appellants discussed in their motion that showed most of the MGP sites were vacant and not used to provide distribution service. Duke made a similar rebuttal argument and also failed to explain why cleanup costs are justified for property that was not connected to providing distribution service to customers during the test year. The Court’s decision on the motion for reconsideration is pending.
July 21, 2017, Volume 6, Issue 70
07/21/2017