Legal Opinion
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 31, 1983No. 82-1796PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
The question presented in this appeal is whether the com*378mission’s order authorizing DP&L’s accounting modification to reflect post-in-service AFUDC is unreasonable or unlawful.
Simply stated, AFUDC is an accounting mechanism which recognizes capital costs associated with financing construction. Generally, the capital costs recognized by AFUDC include interest charges on borrowed funds and the cost of equity funds used by a utility for purposes of construction.
OCC agrees that for purposes of accounting, the capitalization of AFUDC is proper until the in-service date of an asset. According to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Pike Natural Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. Public Utility Com'n of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.