Legal Opinion

Industrial Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1994No. Nos. 93-471 and 93-1861PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Per curiam

Pursuant to R.C. 4909.191(C), Ohio Power has the burden of proving that its fuel acquisition and delivery costs are “fair, just, and reasonable.” *563The stipulation of some of the parties to this proceeding is, in itself, insufficient to satisfy this burden. Rather, such stipulations are considered merely as recommendations to the commission and, while entitled to substantial weight, they must be supported by the evidence of record to withstand scrutiny under the standard of review provided in R.C. 4903.13. Consumers’ Counsel (1992), supra. See, also, Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 55 Ohio…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Duff v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API