Legal Opinion
Toledo Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 18, 1984No. 83-840PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
R.C. 4909.15(D) requires the commission to fix and determine a just and reasonable rate:
“(2) With due regard to all such other matters as are proper, according to the facts in each case,
“(a) Including a fair and reasonable rate of return determined by the commission with reference to a cost of debt equal to the actual embedded cost of debt of such public utility.”
*145In its first proposition of law, appellant argues that the commission’s decision to amortize the gain from the debt/equity exchange over twenty years and reduce the annual cost of long-term debt by the annual amortization ($532,250)…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Springfield v. Palco Invest. Co., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut v. Public Utilities Regulatory AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2025