Legal Opinion

In re Ohio Power Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 2015No. 2012-2008PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.

I. Summary

{¶ 1} In the orders on appeal, appellee and cross-appellee, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO” or “the commission”), approved a mechanism called a phase-in recovery rider (“PIRR”) for appellant and cross-appellee, Ohio Power Company, to recover fuel costs that were incurred under the company’s first electric-security plan (“ESP”) but were deferred for future collection. See In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. for Approval of a Mechanism to Recover Deferred Fuel Costs Ordered Under R.C. 4928. 144, Pub. Util. Comm. Nos. 11-4920-EL-RDR and…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Fort Frye Teachers Ass'n v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Fleming v. SheltonOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. Zarbana Indus., Inc. v. HayesOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  4. Berns Custom Homes, Inc. v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  5. State ex rel. Rarden v. Butler Cty. Common Pleas CourtOhio Supreme Court · 2023

6 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