In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Connor, C.J.
{¶ 71} I believe that the majority prematurely reaches its conclusions that the commission’s order violates R.C. 4928.38 and that AEP is recovering the equivalent of unlawful transition revenue through the Retail Stability Rider (“RSR”). I thus dissent in part.
Analysis
{¶ 72} R.C. Chapter 4928 is a labyrinthian scheme that governs Ohio’s retail electric service, i.e., “any service involved in supplying or arranging for the supply of electricity to ultimate consumers in this state, from the point of generation to the point of consumption.” R.C. 4928.01(27). Among its provisions are those…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- FirstEnergy Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002