Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLocher, J.
I concur in the holding of the majority requiring that CEI remove the accrued nuclear fuel disposal account balance from the rate base. I concur in the judgment only as to the accounting treatment of the costs of the cancelled nuclear plants. Otherwise, I dissent.
In Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 153 [21 O.O.3d 96] (“CEI”), we refused to allow CEI to amortize as costs to be recovered from its ratepayers approximately $56,400,000 which it had invested in four cancelled nuclear power plants. Regrettably, the majority opinion signals an abject retreat from that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Office of Consumers' CounselSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982