Consumers’ office hails Supreme Court ruling on AES Ohio ‘overearnings’

The case now returns to state regulators, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, or the “PUCO,” where the consumers’ advocates say they will push for $61 million to be refunded to AES Ohio customers.

The Office of the Ohio Consumers Counsel contends that these customers were charged too much in 2019 and 2020.

State law at the time said that if a utility makes profits deemed too high under an electric security plan — an operating plan for Ohio electric utilities — it must give the money back, according to the consumers office.

In its ruling earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case back to the PUCO for further analysis.

In its opinion, the court said the PUCO had no authority to allow AES to offset profits against future investments.

“The word ‘offset’ is noticeably absent from (that section of state law),” the Supreme Court wrote at one point in its ruling. “We must give effect to the words used in the statute and may not add to nor delete from the words chosen by the General Assembly.”

“What a ruling,” Maureen Willis, agency director of the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, said in a statement. “It comes at a time when AES consumers could use a break. The PUCO should do right by consumers and order the full $61 million refund.”

The court expects the PUCO to conduct a new SEET (“significantly excessive earnings test”) analysis that considers the capital requirements for AES Ohio’s future investments.

“While the company is still reviewing the decision, the court has directed the PUCO to conduct a new SEET analysis for those years. We expect that the PUCO will establish a process to conduct that review before issuing a new decision,” a spokeswoman for AES Ohio said.

A timeline for the PUCO to reconsider the matter is uncertain, and a spokesman for Willis cautioned that refunds are not a certainty.

If, ultimately, the PUCO agrees with the consumers office, then about $125 per customer may return to AES consumers, a spokesman for Willis said.

But he said said a settlement of the case with the utility is also possible.

“We’re reviewing the case and will follow the court’s directive,” said Matt Schilling, a spokesman for the PUCO.

The case is Ohio Supreme Court case 2021-1473.