Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1993No. 92-2101PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The city argues that the commission erred: (1) in determining Zimmer’s reasonable original cost, including failing to make a prudence adjustment to CG&E’s Zimmer rate base; and (2) in using a twelve-month average stock price to estimate CG&E’s cost of common equity. For the reasons which follow, we reject these arguments and affirm the commission’s order.

I. REASONABLE ORIGINAL COST

A. Equivalent Plant Standard

R.C. 4909.15 and 4909.051 require the commission to ascertain the reasonable original cost of a utility’s used and useful property for ratemaking purposes. In *526doing so in this case for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Franklin County Welfare Rights Organization v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Babbit v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. In re Review of the Alt. Energy Rider Contained in the Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API