Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentLocher, J.
I
I dissent from the decision and opinion of the majority allowing Toledo Edison an additional increment in its cost of common equity based on the perceived increased risk to investors which is attributable to our decision in Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 153 [21 O.O.3d 96], dismissed in 455 U.S. 914 (“CEI”).
In Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 111, 116 (“CEI II”), I expressed my dismay because that decision marked “* * * the second time that the majority of this court ha[d] turned its back on CEI. See Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Duff v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.