Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

I dissent from the majority opinion because this case sidesteps the rationale of Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 158 [21 O.O.3d 96], dismissed in 455 U.S. 914 (“CEI”), and for the additional reasons stated in my dissent in Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 405 (“Toledo Edison”) (case No. 82-1428).

Once again the commission has ignored the testimony of its own staff witness: “The Staff would agree that if an amortization is used, or if remaining life based accrual rates are used, then a depreciation reserve adjustment would be…