Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The crux of appellant’s argument is that the commission’s order is unreasonable and unlawful in that it “guarantees” that appellant will not be able to earn the allowed return on common equity of 13.33 percent. While DP & L alleges several mistakes in the commission’s analysis, it does not specify any of these as individual errors requiring reversal, but rather it contends that these mistakes establish a context in which the end result reached is unreasonable.
Primarily, appellant assails the commission’s application of the discounted cash flow (DCF) method of calculating the required return…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Franklin County Welfare Rights Organization v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by7 opinions
- Colorado Municipal League v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Toledo Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.