Ohio Judge dismisses all-electric homeowner class-action suit
Geauga County Common Pleas Judge David L. Fuhry dismissed a class-action lawsuit from owners of all-electric homes against electric companies.
Fuhry said that only the Public Utility Commission of Ohio, not him, had the authority to oversee the matter.
The lawsuit stems from FirstEnergy’s rate increases earlier this year.
Previously, the company had offered reduced rates to those with all-electric homes, electric hot water heating systems or electric load management systems. First, the electric company said it would abandon the reduced rates. Then, after homeowners protested, the company decided to gradually phase out its reduced rates during the next eight years.
State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Chester Township, filed a lawsuit in February on behalf of those who were affected by the rates change.
He claimed that FirstEnergy, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. and Ohio Edison Co. breached their contract with homeowners.
When the suit was filed, Mark Durbin, a spokesman for FirstEnergy, said nobody had promised that the preferred rates would last forever.
However, Fuhry’s decision to dismiss the case did not hinge on whether FirstEnergy had a commitment to maintain the reduced rates or if a contract had been breached. Instead, he concluded that he did not have jurisdiction over the decision.
“Ordinarily, this would not be an issue because the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction,” Fuhry said in his decision. “As such it is generally empowered to hear all types of disputes including declaratory judgments, breach of contract, as well as fraud and injunctive actions.”
Fuhry noted that there were exceptions to that authority, and one of those exceptions was PUCO’s jurisdiction of matters involving public utilities.
Fuhry said that PUCO had jurisdiction over utility rates and services, citing state law and previous decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court.
To further complicate matters, PUCO’s exception has an exception. If the accusation does not involve rates or service issues, then it is considered a “pure” contract or tort, and Fuhry could rule.
But the judge ultimately decided the suit did pertain to rates.
“The dispute between the companies and the plaintiffs is over the rate increases. There is no separate rate ‘contract’ between the utility and the plaintiffs,” the judge said.
Fuhry dismissed the suit, adding that the plaintiffs could still take their case to PUCO or the Ohio Supreme Court.
Under contract law an offer was made, acceptance by both parties and payments made and accepted. Also The Illuminating Company stated “At that time, customers who received service under those discounted rates were “grandfathered,” meaning they would still receive their discounts as long they remained at the same residence.”
How could the judge make this decesion?