Legal Opinion
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 31, 1983No. 82-1428PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
This appeal presents two issues for our consideration. The first is whether the commission unlawfully or unreasonably provided Toledo Edison with an additional quartile increment in its cost of common equity based on the perceived increased risk to investors occasioned by CEI. The second issue is whether the commission’s continued amortization of the depreciation reserve deficiency violated R.C. 4909,15.
The first question is controlled by our recent decision in Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 111 (hereinafter “CEI II”), which considered a virtually identical cost…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Ohio Water Service Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Henry v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.