Legal Opinion
AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 17, 2002No. 00-2092PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
In 1999 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 3, the General Assembly adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme to facilitate and encourage development of competition in the retail electric market. Most of the provisions of the Act *82became effective on October 5, 1999. Enacted as part of S.B. 3, R.C. 4928.31 requires each electric utility to file with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio a transition plan for the company’s provision of competitive electric service in Ohio. Transition plans are required to contain plans for rate unbundling, corporate separation, operational support, employee assistance, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.