"Regarding the July 13 article "Consumer agency nearly halves its staff," about budget cuts for the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel: I found this very disappointing and very unfavorable to all of Ohio's utility customers.

The agency's call center closed June 30. I called it many times with a comment, question or complaint."

Dave Patete, Canton Township

Letter to the Editor
"Counsel cuts won't be good for Ohioans"
Canton Repository
July 21, 2011

"The Kasich administration proposed cutting the consumers' counsel's $8.5 million budget in half, even though doing so would do nothing to help balance the state's budget.The proposal seemed to reflect hostility toward the agency. That hostility is strange because if the consumers' counsel succeeds at its job of keeping utility rates down, it presumably helps make Ohio a more attractive place to live and do business. The governor is always talking about the need to keep costs down in Ohio.

Having a consumer advocate involved in the regulatory game is obviously desirable. Utility issues are complicated fights that take place in a courtroom-like setting, with the PUCO as the judge. Utilities should have to worry about an expert, well-funded voice on the other side."

Editorial
"Senate needs skepticism on this cut"
Dayton Daily News
June 2, 2011

Editorial
"Ohio Senate should consider this cut carefully"
Hamilton Journal News
Middletown Journal
June 2, 2011

Editorial
"Senate should take closer look at this mistake"
Springfield News-Sun
June 2, 2011

"Most of us are aware that without such government activities as protecting consumers, residents whose fundamental well-being depends on reliable and consistently priced sources of home heating would be at the mercy of unpredictable gas markets and unregulated gas profiteers."

"With heavy prodding from gas industry lobbyists, they want to place a legal gag order on the one state agency whose sole purpose is to advocate on behalf of the state's citizens."

"At a time of turbulence for utilities, the question of deregulation front and center, the consumers' counsel would be required to keep mum. This is contrary to the spirit of the law creating the office and to current realities, informed and varied voices necessary for a productive discussion. The hope is that the Ohio Senate will remain true to this first purpose in its budget plan. The consumers' counsel doesn't expect to escape the budget squeeze. What the office and Ohioans deserve are the resources required to get an important job done."

Editorials
"Protect the voice and resources of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel"
Akron Beacon Journal
May 11, 2011

"COMMENT The consumers' counsel"
Cambridge Daily Jeffersonian
May 13, 2011

"An agency charged with advocating on consumers' behalf hardly can do so if it's forbidden from disagreeing with the government or others who seek to influence public policy. The Ohio Senate should drop this language from its version of the budget."

Editorial
"No gag order"
Columbus Dispatch
May 11, 2011

"If Ohio legislators force a bit into the agency's mouth, Migden-Ostrander and staff would have to stay mum even if utility companies came up with "competitive" ideas whose fine print robbed residential and business consumers blind. This is incomprehensible. Competitive markets don't need protection, but Ohioans do. They need a public advocate who understands complicated utility markets and is dedicated to making sure that consumers get the best and fairest price."

Editorial
"Ohio Senate must rescue consumers' counsel"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
May 10, 2011

"House Republicans want to further tighten Kasich's clamps on the Office of Consumers' Counsel, which speaks up for residential utility customers. That GOP move demonstrates that, while faces may change in the legislature, the clout of its utility lobby doesn't."

Editorial
"The Ohio House version of the budget: fixes and flaws"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
May 2, 2011

"We need to keep utility rates affordable. The work of the counsel is critical. especially in these hard economic times. We need a balanced playing field for Ohio's utility customers. We need a fully funded Ohio Consumers' Counsel to protect our interests."

Joseph Funai, Hanoverton

Letter to the Editor
"Consumers endangered"
Lisbon Morning Journal
April 27, 2011

"In late February, my AT&T landline developed severe static -- making calls impossible to hear. Then it went dead, which made it impossible to get a DSL connection for Internet use. It took about 11 days to restore service. I couldn't help but wonder how this could affect the older adults I work with, who would not have access to emergency services without their telephone. I filed a complaint with the PUCO. On the next business day, I received a call from "the president's office," but that did not expedite any repairs.

When I began to question my rights, I found that all the time I spent at the AT&T website and Googling still did not answer my questions. Visiting the OCC website, I received instant results and answers, and my follow-up phone call brought a swift and knowledgeable response from the representative I spoke with. I only wish the OCC were in charge of more areas."

Robin Rosner, Lyndhurst

Letter to the Editor
"Don't slash consumers' counsel budget; slash PUCO's"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
April 11, 2011

" The Lima Allen Council on Community Affairs staff knows firsthand how often the Ohio consumers' counsel needed to intervene on a customer's behalf because of mistakes that a utility provider made.

Before we just assume that cutting the budget for the Ohio consumers' counsel will save taxpayers dollars, consider this: The state's budget does not cover the costs for this service. Its operation is funded by the state's utilities and costs about $1 per year on utility bills for each household. If the Ohio consumers' counsel is no longer funded, will customers get their $1 back? I think we all should know the answer to that before we decide whether we need an advocate to fight the big utility companies. After all, this service exists to protect consumers rights, eliminating it for no budgetary reason seems like a deal for the utility companies."

Jackie Fox, Executive Director
Lima Allen Council on Community Affairs

Letter to the Editor
"Ohio consumers need utility advocate"
Lima News
April 11, 2011

"Many people think the Ohio Consumers' Counsel and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio are a duplication of service. This is completely inaccurate. PUCO is a regulator - it decides what Columbia gas and FirstEnergy can charge customers for their utilities. The OCC is the agency that argues for the consumer to pay only what can be justified and protect the consumers' ability to afford the utility."

Sue Daugherty
Executive Director
Save Our Seniors

"Do seniors really need Ohio Consumers' Counsel?"
Sandusky Register
March 30, 2011

“The proposal in the governor’s budget to cut funding for the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel by more than half can’t be justified as a  move to shrink the projected state revenue shortfall.  The agency is funded entirely through a fee levied on utilities – electric, telephone gas, and water. It gets nothing from the state’s general fund.  Cutting the agency’s funding from $8.5 million this year to $4.1 million in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 … would erode its ability to fight for Ohio’s 4.5 million residential utility customers.”

Editorial
“Muzzling a watchdog”
Toledo Blade
March 21, 2011

“Founded in 1976, the OCC has proved to be a strong advocate for residential phone, gas, and electric customers in Ohio. The agency isn’t funded by tax dollars, but from a fee on utility companies amounting to $1 per household … Kasich is wrong in his contention that the OCC cut is aimed at avoiding redundancy with the mission of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.  The agencies fill different roles … OCC focuses solely on defending residents, a role that shouldn’t be jeopardized.” Kasich would be wise to side with Ohio consumers in this matter.”

Editorial
“Ohio residents poorly served by halving budget of Consumers’ Counsel
The (Lorain) Morning Journal
March 19, 2011

“… the agency claims over a two-year period, its work has saved customers about $54.4 million that would be saved, invested or otherwise injected into the state’s economy.  If that’s true, lawmakers should consider maintaining funding for the OCC.”

Editorial
“OCC budget cut might not save money”
March 18, 2011
Tiffin Advertiser Tribune

"In a budget as challenging as the one for the next biennium, every dollar of savings counts. Yet the consumers' counsel doesn't depend on a penny from the general revenue fund, where the $8 billion deficit resides. The office runs on fees charged to utilities.

The consumers' counsel hardly amounts to an excessive fiscal burden. Bargain may be the better description. The office points out that the past two years, it has provided consumers with roughly $54.5 million in savings. All told, it has saved customers more than $10 billion since its creation in 1976." -

Editorials
"A bargain for consumers"
Cambridge Daily Jeffersonian
March 24, 2011

"Advocate for the Consumer"
Akron Beacon Journal
March 22, 2011

"… the (proposed) budget (cuts) of the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel -- charged with protecting the interests of electric, gas, water and phone customers -- is aimed at an agency that has zero impact on the budget yet a big impact on customers' utility bills. The Ohio General Assembly should fully fund the office."

Editorial
"Office of Consumers' Counsel cut is a glaring error in Kasich's budget"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
March 18, 2011

"… the consumers’ counsel’s job is to keep utility costs down for Ohio residents. Why should that be considered any different from trying to keep taxes down? Moreover, the counsel works without adding to the state’s budget woes.  Its operation is funded by the state’s utilities and costs the equivalent of about $1 a month on utility bills.

Energy is a commodity that consumers are obliged to buy. When the counsel office was created, people had no choices about whom to buy from. That was a big part of the rationale for creating the office.

To this day, no real competition exists for DP&L in the realm of electricity, and Vectren is the sole deliverer of natural gas locally, though consumers can purchase the gas from other companies.

So original rationale for the consumers’ counsel stands…"

Editorials
"Case for gutting consumers’ counsel awfully weak"
Dayton Daily News
Monday, April 4, 2011

"Case for gutting consumers’ counsel awfully weak"
Springfield News Sun
Monday, April 4, 2011

"Case for gutting consumers’ counsel weak"
Hamilton Journal News
April 5, 2011

"Case for gutting consumers’ counsel weak"
Middletown Journal
April 5, 2011

"With the advocate weakened by a smaller budget, the system of checks and balances between ratepayers and companies that control the flow of electricity and natural gas would be compromised. If anything, ratepayers need a vigorous defender more than ever as lawmakers attempt to deregulate and diversify Ohio’s energy markets. The OCC has saved utility customers - many of them companies - nearly $55 million in the past two years. On a modest operating budget of $8.5 million a year, that means Ohioans get their money’s worth from the consumers’ counsel. Government’s obligation is to every citizen. Disabling the OCC would leave many Ohioans without a voice when they need to be heard the most. The legislature should ensure the agency remains financially healthy under the next budget."

Editorial
"Crippling consumers' counsel weakens voice"
Columbus Business First
April 8, 2011

"The PUCO has a adjudicatory function … the utilities clearly have their advocates or lawyers in the process. Ohioans and consumers need their advocate – the consumers' counsel."

Catherine Turcer
Legislative Director
Ohio Citizen Action

Business First
“Utility consumer advocate strives to prove relevance as Kasich proposes to slash budget”
April 1, 2011

"OCC is a voice of reason when utility companies are unreasonable and demand excessive rate increases or unjustified relief from regulations."

Mike Turner
Executive Director
United Seniors of Athens County, Inc.

Hannah Report
Ohio Consumers' Counsel
April 7, 2011

"The OCC fights large rate increases that the utility companies want to charge us. They have been very successful over the years keeping rates lower. They also help citizens resolve disputes with utility companies."

Marie H. Canterbury, Lorain

Letter to the Editor
"Keep Ohio's consumer protections"
Lorain Morning Journal
March 24, 2011

"The need for the OCC's involvement before the Public utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) cannot be overstated. Participation before the Commission requires time and financial resources, and a working knowledge of the legal rules and political dynamics that drive Commission decision-making. And Commission proceedings regarding the rates, rules and regulations that govern the delivery of utility service are usually dominated by utility companies, their lawyers and consultants. Through the 0CC' s effective participation, residential consumers have won enhanced energy and economic security through more affordable utility service, more efficient energy usage, and regulatory protections against harsh service termination or credit and collections policies."

W. Lee Hammond, President
Addison Barry Rand, Chief Executive Officer
AARP

Testimony of AARP Before the House Public Utilities Committee
Opposing House Bill 95
March 23, 2011

"The notion that the public utilities commission is going to represent the consumer when it is hearing from companies and not from consumers is horse puckey … If the commission is supposed to be the judge and arbitrator in these cases and is capable of deciding without the input of the most directly affected constituency, the consumer, then they ought to be capable of deciding without the input of companies."

Mark Cooper
Consumer Federation
of America

"Proposed cuts to Ohio public utilities consumer watchdog group brings criticism"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
March 16, 2011

"[T]he premise of Kasich's proposal -- that the consumers' counsel is redundant -- could not be more wrong … Its outrageous and unprecedented … and ultimately harmful to the people of Ohio. No other state is looking at cuts this deep."

Charlie Acquard
Executive Director
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates

"Proposed cuts to Ohio public utilities consumer watchdog group brings criticism"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
March 16, 2011

"Without (the Consumers' Counsel) having the capacity to do the complicated analysis of utility filings, we won't be able to protect customers from unreasonable rate increases," said Dave Rinebolt, head of Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy. "It translates into real dollars for real people."

Dave Rinebolt,
Executive Director
Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy (OPAE)

"Counsel says cuts will cost consumers"
Columbus Dispatch
March 17, 2011

"The PUCO is the judge, jury and executioner in utility cases. How can it fairly represent the interests of both FirstEnergy and the consumer? It cannot and will not. Just in the last two years, the OCC (acting completely independently of the PUCO) has saved Ohio consumers more than $55 million. We need consumer protection."

Sherry Guidetti, Chagrin Falls

Letter to the Editor
"Kasich's budget: Squelching the true voice for consumers"
Cleveland Plain Dealer
March 20, 2011