. . . .
{¶2} Vectren is a natural gas company as defined by R.C. 4905.03(A)(6). Pursuant to R.C. 4905.302, a natural gas company may recover costs incurred in obtaining the gas it sells to customers by adjusting the rates it charges under the gas-cost-recovery clause in the company's rate schedules. The commission has authority to review a company's gas-procurement policies and practices. R.C. 4905.302(C). The PUCO reviewed the gas costs reflected in Vectren's gas-cost-recovery rates and ordered Vectren to refund some costs to the company's customers, as described below.
. . . .
{¶4} Pursuant to R.C. 4905.302 and Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-14-07(A), the commission ordered an audit to investigate Vectren's gas-cost-recovery rates for the audit period covering November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002. Liberty Consulting Group ("Liberty") conducted the audit of Vectren and filed a report with the commission on August 15, 2003.
. . . .
{¶9} R.C. 4903.13 provides that we may reverse, vacate, or modify a PUCO order only when, upon consideration of the record, we find the order to be unlawful or unreasonable. We will not reverse or modify a PUCO decision as to questions of fact where the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show that the commission's decision was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty. Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St. 3d 571, 2004-Ohio-6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, at ¶29. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the PUCO's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is clearly unsupported by the record. Id. Although we have "complete and independent power of review as to all questions of law" in appeals from the PUCO, Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 466, 469, 1997 Ohio 196, 678 N.E.2d 922, we may rely on the expertise of a state agency in interpreting a law where "highly specialized issues" are involved and "where agency expertise would, therefore, be of assistance in discerning the presumed intent of our General Assembly." Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 108, 110, 12 O.O.3d 115, 388 N.E.2d 1370.
. . . .
Rule 1. Opinions and Syllabus of the Supreme Court; Syllabus of Opinions by Courts Other Than the Supreme Court; Numbering or Lettering of Paragraphs of Text and Footnotes.
. . . .
(D) All opinions of the Supreme Court shall have paragraphs of text and footnotes consecutively numbered or lettered to assist in the "pinpoint" citation of specific portions of the opinion in electronic format. Numbering and lettering shall exclude paragraphs of the syllabus and editorial content from legal publishers. In all respects, the format of opinions shall conform to the conventions adopted by the Supreme Court Reporter.
. . . .
Rule 7. Form of Citation.
(A) Opinions shall be cited in accordance with the Manual of Citations adopted by the Supreme Court Reporter.
(B) A citation to an opinion found only in electronic format shall indicate the status of any appeal, or any disposition by a superior court, known after diligent search.
(C) Unless otherwise directed by local rule, those citing an opinion found only in electronic format shall attach a legible copy of the opinion to the brief in which it is first cited. Briefs referencing an electronic opinion filed subsequently, while the case remains pending before the same court, need not attach additional copies of it.
. . . .
Rule 9. Posting Trial and Appellate Court Opinions on the Supreme Court Website.
(A) Beginning May 1, 2002, court of appeals and trial court opinions will be posted on the Supreme Court website pursuant to a protocol to be developed by the Court. Thereafter, opinions posted to the Supreme Court website pursuant to this rule shall be kept permanently on the website for access by the public.
(B) Effective May 1, 2002, opinions should be cited to both the Supreme Court website citation and Official Reports citation where both are available.
(C) Should the Supreme Court cease publication of the Ohio Appellate Reports and the Ohio Miscellaneous Reports in a paper medium (which event shall not occur prior to July 1, 2006), the Supreme Court website may be designated the Ohio Official Reports for those opinions.
Note: The above rules, as recently amended, largely apply only to the format of Ohio opinions and not explicitly to briefs or memoranda submitted to Ohio courts. Rule 7, however, has broader reach. By a revision to the Manual of Citations in July 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court Reporter implemented a media-neutral citation system. See Ohio Sup. Ct. Reporter, Revisions to the Manual of Citation (July 12, 2002), http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/pdf/Rev_Manual_Cit_02.pdf.