Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Because the majority misinterprets R.C. 4905.34 in violation of plain language and legislative intent, I must respectfully dissent.

*474The majority notes that the Public Utilities Commission erred by failing to find that R.C. 4905.34 actually applied in the case at bar. The majority then, without explanation, declares that this section applies in the instant case. Later, the majority states that a utility needs no prior intent to rely upon R.C. 4905.34 in a given situation. I disagree with both conclusions.

R.C. 4905.34 does not apply in this case. Ohio Edison raised R.C. 4905.34 as an affirmative…