# In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of its Fourth Amended Corporate Separation Plan (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 1, 2016 · 148 Ohio St. 3d 510

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837697

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of Its Fourth Amended Corporate Separation Plan Under R.C. 4928.17 and Ohio Adm.Code 4901:11-37; Interstate Gas Supply, Inc., Appellant; Public Utilities Commission Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 1, 2016
- **Citations:** 148 Ohio St. 3d 510; 71 N.E.3d 997; 2016 Ohio 7535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by O'Donnell
- **Judges:** O'Neill, O'Connor, Lanzinger, French, O'Donnell, Kennedy, Pfeifer
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837697

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that the rationale advanced by the commission in its order establishes the boundaries of our review on appeal

## Opinion text

O’Donnell, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 30} Although I concur in the majority’s determination that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio violated R.C. 4903.09 by failing to sufficiently explain the basis for its decision, I dissent from the decision to remand this case to the commission. I would adhere to the Public Utilities Commission’s obligation to set forth the reasons for its decisions and to comply with the corporate separation plan statute by permitting Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (“Duke”) to offer nonelectric products or services to its customers only through a fully separated affiliate.
{¶ 31} R.C. 4928.17(A) states in pertinent part:
[N]o electric utility shall engage in this state, either directly or through an affiliate, * * * in the businesses of supplying a noncompetitive retail electric service and supplying a product or service other than retail electric service, unless the utility implements and operates under a corporate separation plan that is approved by the public utilities commission under this section * * * and achieves all of the following:
*519 (1) The plan provides, at minimum, for the provision of * * * the nonelectric product or service through a fully separated affiliate of the utility* * *.
{¶ 32} In accordance with the statute, I would issue an order directing Duke to amend its corporate separation plan to require that it provide nonelectric products or services to its customers through a fully separated affiliate of the utility.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837697. Public record. Not legal advice.