Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
There can be no question that the expenditures incurred by Toledo Edison for the cancelled nuclear facilities represent an extraordinary loss which cannot be transformed into an ordinary operating expense recoverable through rates paid by its customers. Consumers’ Counsel, supra (67 Ohio St. 2d), at 164. Our decision in the Cleveland Electric Illuminating rate case applies with equal force to the Toledo Edison rate case, since both involve an attempt by the respective utilities to recoup through rate increases the loss suffered through the cancellation of four nuclear power projects.
This…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ohio Committee of the Central Station Electrical Protection Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Worthington Hills Civic Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Western Reserve Transit Authority v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by6 opinions
- Stewart v. Utah Public Service CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- In re Complaint of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Toledo Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- 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.