Case Name: Ohio Consumers' Counsel, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2006-07-05
Citations: 109 Ohio St. 3d 511
Docket Number: No. 2005-0767
Parties: Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 109
Pages: 511–511

Head Matter:
Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
[Cite as Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 511, 2006-Ohio-3054.]
(No. 2005-0767
Submitted May 24, 2006
Decided July 5, 2006.)
Janine L. Migden-Ostrander, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, and Kimberly W. Bojko and Jeffrey L. Small, Assistant Consumers’ Counsel, for appellant.
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Duane W. Luckey, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and William L. Wright and Steven T. Nourse, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., and Daniel R. Conway; Marvin I. Resnick, Kevin F. Duffy, and Sandra K. Williams, for intervening appellees Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company.

Opinion:
{¶ 1} Based on the second proposition of law in appellant's brief and our decision in Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 328, 2006-Ohio-2110, 847 N.E.2d 1184, the decision of the Public Utilities Commission is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that decision. This order does not preclude appellant from raising its first, third, fourth, and fifth propositions of law in a future appeal from the Public Utilities Commission.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.