Legal Opinion
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 2012No. 2011-0751PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.
{¶ 1} Electric distribution utilities that opt to provide service under an electric security plan (“ESP”) must undergo an annual earnings review. If their plan resulted in “significantly excessive earnings” compared to similar companies, the utility must return the excess to its customers. R.C. 4928.143(F). In the case below, the Public Utilities Commission found that Columbus Southern Power’s 2009 earnings were significantly excessive by over $42 million.
{¶ 2} There are three appeals from the order. Columbus Southern Power (“CSP”) asserts that R.C. 4928.143(F) is unconstitutionally vague,…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Coates v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. MazurieSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2023
- In re Application of Champaign Wind, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- In re Ohio Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. Mieczkowsk, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson County2018
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.