Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the commission’s order authorizing Ohio Edison’s accrual of AFUDC for the period of time between the date that the facilities were put in service and the date that Ohio Edison filed the rate-increase application (the “date certain”) is unlawful or unreasonable. This appeal does not concern the propriety of the proposed accounting change as it affects matters other than ratemaking, the inclusion of the labor and material costs in Ohio Edison’s rate base, the accrual of AFUDC prior to the date that the project was placed into service, or the accrual…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ohio Public Interest Action Group, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Babbit v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. Public Utility Com'n of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- City of El Paso v. Public Utility Commission of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Thomas v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.