Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-1004Published

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

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Office of Consumers' CounselSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API