Except as provided for in section 4909.421 of the Revised Code, if the proceeding on an application filed with the public utilities commission under section 4909.18 of the Revised Code by any public utility requesting an increase on any rate, joint rate, toll, classification, charge, or rental or requesting a change in a regulation or practice affecting the same has not been concluded and an order entered pursuant to section 4909.19 of the Revised Code at the expiration of two hundred seventy-five days from the date of filing the application, an increase not to exceed the proposed increase shall go into effect upon the filing of a bond or a letter of credit by the public utility. The bond or letter of credit shall be filed with the commission and shall be payable to the state for the use and benefit of the customers affected by the proposed increase or change.
An affidavit attached to the bond or letter of credit must be signed by two of the officers of the utility, under oath, and must contain a promise on behalf of the utility to refund any amounts collected by the utility over the rate, joint rate, toll, classification, charge, or rental, as determined in the final order of the commission. All refunds shall include interest at the rate stated in section 1343.03 of the Revised Code. The refund shall be in the form of a temporary reduction in rates following the final order of the commission, and shall be accomplished in such manner as shall be prescribed by the commission in its final order. The commission shall exercise continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over such refunds.
If the public utilities commission has not entered a final order within five hundred forty-five days from the date of the filing of an application for an increase in rates under section 4909.18 of the Revised Code, a public utility shall have no obligation to make a refund of amounts collected after the five hundred forty-fifth day which exceed the amounts authorized by the commission's final order.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to mitigate any duty of the commission to issue a final order under section 4909.19 of the Revised Code.
State ex rel. Columbus S. Power Co. v. Sheward, 585 N.E.2d 380 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 10דTitle 49, has vested exclusive jurisdiction over ratemaking matters with the commission. It argues that R.”
Columbus S. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 620 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 7דRATE-CASE EXPENSE Finally, CSP contends that the PUCO erred by disallowing the legal fees CSP incurred in defending its right to place its proposed rates in effect under R.C. 4909.42. We agree. R.C. 4909.42 provides that if the PUCO does not issue an order in a utility’s rate…”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). “27), public utilities (R.C. 4909.42), and a variety of other changes relative to products liability, wrongful death, medical malpractice, jury instructions, burdens of proof, statutes of limitation, and procedural and evidentiary matters too numerous to set forth here.”
O'Brien v. Columbus S. Power Co., 597 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 31דWhen the better part of two hundred seventy-five days had elapsed, Columbus Southern filed with PUCO an undertaking, pursuant to R.C. 4909.42, with the intention that as of the two hundred seventy-sixth day following the filing of the application, Columbus Southern would begin…”
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 2011 Ohio 1788 (Ohio 2011). “Six months is a comparatively short amount of time for a major rate proceeding; the commission is given almost twice as much time (275 days) to resolve a distribution-rate proceeding, see R.C. 4909.42, and later ESP proceedings. See R.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 1999 Ohio 123 (Ohio 1999). “27), public utilities (R.C. 4909.42), and a variety of other changes relative to products liability, wrongful death, medical malpractice, jury instructions, burdens of proof, statutes of limitation, and procedural and evidentiary matters too numerous to set forth here.”
Lucas Cnty. Commissioners v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 686 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio 1997). “But, see, R.C. 4909.42, which authorizes a utility to charge increased rates, subject to refund after appeal, after the expiration of two hundred seventy-five days from the date of the filing of a rate-increase application.”
Lucas Cty. Commrs. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 1997 Ohio 112 (Ohio 1997). “But, see, R.C. 4909.42, which authorizes a utility to charge increased rates, subject to refund after appeal, after the expiration of two hundred seventy-five days from the date of the filing of a rate-increase application.”
Columbus S. Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 1993 Ohio 67 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 7דRATE CASE EXPENSE Finally, CSP contends that the PUCO erred by disallowing the legal fees CSP incurred in defending its right to place its proposed rates in effect under R.C. 4909.42. We agree. R.C. 4909.42 provides that if the PUCO does not issue an order in a utility's rate…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.