Court Opinion

ID: 6757299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 00:28:14.831158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:28.891789
License: Public Domain

Locher, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the syllabus and Parts III (notice and staff investigation) and IV (amortization) of the majority opinion. I would also note, however, that the financial effect of this decision on CEI will be insignificant. CEI informed its investors in its “1979 Annual Report”: “ * * *The Company [CEI] will seek the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for authority to amortize [the costs previously expended toward the four nuclear units whose construction CAPCO terminated] over a suitable number of years. The extent to which these costs may be recovered through rates will be determined by the PUCO. If any costs of termination are not permitted to be recovered, the Company would be required to reduce Net Income by the disallowed amount. In any event, the resolution of these matters should not have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company.”
I dissent from Part I of the majority opinion (CWIP), because PUCO refuses to define standards for review of CWIP matters. My dissenting opinions in Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 108, 117, and Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 162, 167, express the reasons for my concern.