Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Review of the Alt. Energy Rider Contained in the Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 16, 2018No. 2013–2026Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFrench, J.
{¶ 72} I agree with the conclusion of a majority of this court that the Public Utilities Commission's trade-secret determination regarding the information discussed in the lead opinion lacks record support. I disagree, however, with the determination reached in both the lead and concurring opinions that the commission engaged in unlawful retroactive ratemaking when it disallowed more than $43 million in renewable-energy-credit ("REC") costs that appellants and cross-appellees, the FirstEnergy companies (Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and Toledo Edison Company […
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.