In re Ohio Power Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Ohio Power Co.

95 N.E.3d 418, 2018 Ohio 1454, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1434

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 2018

Docket2017–0749

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.E.3d 418 (In re Ohio Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ohio Power Co., 95 N.E.3d 418, 2018 Ohio 1454, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1434 (Ohio 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Sua sponte, appellants shall show cause within seven days why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of prejudice stemming from the order on appeal. In their responses, appellants shall address (1) whether the ratepayers represented by appellants have suffered concrete harm stemming from the commission's order on appeal, (2) in light of the fact that the order on appeal did not authorize any cost recovery through the power-purchase-agreement rider, what relief is available to appellants should the court find the commission erred in authorizing the rider, and (3) whether appellants can fully litigate their claims against the power-purchase-agreement rider in case No. 2017-0752.

Appellee and intervening appellee may file responses within seven days of the filing of the appellants' responses. No extensions of time shall be permitted. The clerk shall refuse to file any requests for extension of time.

Kennedy, J., dissents and would consolidate this cause with 2017-0752, In re Application of Ohio Power Co., for briefing and oral argument.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sua sponte, appellants shall show cause within seven days why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of prejudice stemming from the order on appeal. In their responses, appellants shall address (1) whether the ratepayers represented by appellants have suffered concrete harm stemming from the commission's order on appeal, (2) in light of the fact that the order on appeal did not authorize any cost recovery through the power-purchase-agreement rider, what relief is available to appellants should the court find the commission erred in authorizing the rider, and (3) whether appellants can fully litigate their claims against the power-purchase-agreement rider in case No. 2017-0752.

Appellee and intervening appellee may file responses within seven days of the filing of the appellants' responses. No extensions of time shall be permitted. The clerk shall refuse to file any requests for extension of time.

Kennedy, J., dissents and would consolidate this cause with 2017-0752, In re Application of Ohio Power Co., for briefing and oral argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.E.3d 418, 2018 Ohio 1454, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ohio-power-co-ohio-2018.