Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1993No. 92-1744PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

CG&E raises four propositions of law: (1) the commission is without statutory authority to phase in the gross annual revenue increase to which the commission found CG&E entitled under R.C. 4909.15(B); (2) assuming the commission has such phase-in authority, the phase-in plan ordered in this proceeding is unlawful in that it authorizes a post-date-certain adjustment to the Zimmer rate base in violation of R.C. 4909.15(A)(1); (3) the disallowances related to AFUDC, nuclear fuel, and nuclear wind-down costs violate a prior stipulation approved by the commission; and (4) the commission erred in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Franklin County Welfare Rights Organization v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Babbit v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Porter v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  3. Porter v. SC PUBLIC SERVICE COM'NSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  4. Cincinnati v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API