Legal Opinion

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 2010No. 2009-1547PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Utility Service Partners, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  2. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. In re Application of Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API