Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.
{¶ 1} This case marks the third time that we have been called upon to consider challenges to orders of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“commission” or “PUCO”) that adopted a Straight Fixed Variable (“SFV”) rate design. We previously upheld the PUCO’s approval of a modified SFV rate design for Duke Energy Ohio and Dominion East Ohio. Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 125 Ohio St.3d 57, 2010-Ohio-134, 926 N.E.2d 261. In those cases, we held that the commission’s decisions to allow Duke and Dominion to abandon the traditional natural-gas rate design used over the past 30…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Utility Service Partners, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- In re Application of Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.