Legal Opinion
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1979No. 78-415PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
As support for reversal of the commission’s order in the first instance, appellant contends that compliance with the 30-day filing deadline is a condition precedent to C&SOE’s continued use of the fuel cost adjustment clause2 and, when R. C. 4909.191(F)3 is read in pari materia with R. C. 4909.191(B), the commission is required to, ipso facto, suspend the fuel adjustment cost clause of a company which does not so comply. We conclude otherwise.
*82Neither R. C. 4909.191(B) nor 4909.191(F) contains language requiring the commission to automatically suspend the fuel cost adjustment clause of a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State Ex Rel. Jones v. FarrarOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- City of Dover v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Industrial Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- In re Review of the Alt. Energy Rider Contained in the Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- River Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Indus. Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.