Legal Opinion

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 2006No. Nos. 2004-1993, 2005-0118, and 2005-0766PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Donnell, J.

*329{¶ 1} Three separate appeals as of right have been consolidated for our review arising from an order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”).1 The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) and the cities of Maumee, Northwood, Oregon, Perrysburg, Sylvania, and Toledo, the village of Holland, and the Board of County Commissioners of Lucas County (collectively, the “governmental aggregators” 2) appeal the PUCO order approving, inter alia, FirstEnergy Corporation’s application for its proposed rate-stabilization plan. FirstEnergy, the Ohio Energy Group, and the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio have…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Weiss v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Industrial Energy Users-Ohio v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Maumee v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API