In re Application of Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
{¶ 1} Under R.C. 4905.31, the Public Utilities Commission may approve “reasonable arrangement[s]” between utilities and customers. Although the typical customer must take utility service under broadly applicable rates and tariffs, the reasonable-arrangement statute allows the commission to approve rates tailored to govern a specific customer’s service. See R.C. 4905.31. In a pair of cases below, the commission approved reasonable arrangements between two American Electric Power operating companies, Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company (collectively, “AEP”), and two…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- State ex rel. City of Niles v. BernardOhio Supreme Court · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- In Re Application Seeking Approval of Ohio Power Company's Proposal to Enter Into an Affiliate Power Purchase Agreement for Inclusion in the Power Purchase Agreement RiderOhio Supreme Court · 2018
- DiFranco v. FirstEnergy Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Alami v. KhalidOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.