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

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Springfield v. Palco Invest. Co., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut v. Public Utilities Regulatory AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API