Here's more evidence that public utilities, with the help of the General Assembly, call the shots at Ohio's Statehouse:

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ordered FirstEnergy Corp., the giant electric utility based in Akron, to give its customers a $43.4 million refund. Naturally, FirstEnergy (the Illuminating, Ohio Edison and Toledo Edison companies) appealed.

And the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that FirstEnergy can keep the money because, in so many words, Ohio law and earlier state Supreme Court decisions say it can. It's as if the Internal Revenue Service owes you an income tax refund, refuses to pay it, and federal courts and Congress say that's OK.

"Ohio utility consumers have lost hundreds of millions of dollars for lack of refunds," Ohio Consumers' Counsel Bruce Weston told an Ohio House committee earlier this week. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel represents 4.5 million residential utility customers.

Writing the Supreme Court's lead opinion, Democratic Justice William O'Neill, who left the court Friday so he may continue running for governor, said he and the other justices who sided with FirstEnergy recognize "that the no-refund rule has been perceived as unfair and has even sometimes resulted in a windfall for a utility," as it was in a 2014 decision.

In that 2014 case, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Columbus Southern Power and Ohio Power (units of Columbus-based American Electric Power) didn't have to make a $368 million refund to customers. Reason? A 1957 Supreme Court decision that was anchored to an Ohio rate-making law that appears to still be in effect.

The logic behind the no-refund law, if logic it is, seems to be that if utilities may charge only state-approved rates, it's unfair for the state to turn around and decide such rates are unfair and order them refunded. But that ignores two things: New data may come to light. And Ohio public utilities, like Ohio banks and Ohio insurance companies, always make sure they have "understanding" state regulators in Ohio.

Law books aside, billion-dollar public utilities are in a far better position to weather economic and regulatory ups and downs than Ohio households, whose median income, the Census says, is $50,674.

Then-Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, a Bucyrus Republican, denounced the 2014 Columbus Southern (AEP) windfall. Pfeifer wrote in a dissenting opinion that "allowing AEP to retain the $368 million that it collected based on charges that were not justified is unconscionable. Doing so because of a 50-year-old case that is not supported by the statute on which it is based is ridiculous. The ratepayers of Ohio deserve better."

O'Neill cited the 2014 case this week as a reason why FirstEnergy is entitled to duck refunds. About the no-refund law, he said this: "It is a matter for the General Assembly to remedy, not this court."

As it happens, a remedy is pending in the Ohio House's Public Utilities Committee, House Bill 247. It's sponsored by Rep. Mark Romanchuk, a Mansfield-area Republican.

Overall, Romanchuk's bill, Weston testified this week, would reform electric utility ratemaking, "solving a lot of problems and doing a lot of good for Ohioans." Weston said part of Romanchuk's bill would also "enable refunds for consumers when the Ohio Supreme Court or the PUCO [Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] later find utility charges to be unlawful."

This election year, voters should ask Ohio General Assembly candidates where they stand on Romanchuk's bill. Until it passes, and clears the way for utility refunds to consumers, Ohio should rewrite its motto. It's now, "With God, all things are possible." Given this week's Supreme Court ruling, it should be, "Heads, we win - tails you lose."

Thomas Suddes, a member of the editorial board, writes from Athens.

To reach Thomas Suddes: tsuddes@cleveland.com, 216-999-4689

Have something to say about this topic? Use the comments to share your thoughts, and stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the Notification Settings (in blue).