Skip to main content
DATE OF SERVICE: ________________________________________
09/01/1994 Entry granting CEI's motion to dismiss and dismissing this case and closing it of record. (6 pgs.)
08/22/1994 Correction to complainant's reply memorandum of July 10, 1994, and to further clarify Mr. Hughes' position with regard to CEI's claim that the Perry Nuclear Power Plant meets performance standards as set by the 1989 stipulation, filed on behalf of complainant by D. Hughes. (4 pgs.)
08/22/1994 Letter stating that, in recognition of the fact that the Commission Rules do not provide for additional pleadings beyond the respondent's reply memorandum, in the expediency, CEI will not submit a substantive pleading in response to the Complainant's August 9, 1994 pleading, filed by M. Kem- pic. (1 pg.)
08/11/1994 Reply memorandum filed on behalf of complainant by D. Hughes. (5)
07/20/1994 Reply memorandum to response to motion to dismiss and memorandum in support filed on behalf of respondent, CEI, by M. Kempic.
07/18/1994 Response to motion to dismiss filed on behalf of complainant by D. Hughes.
06/22/1994 Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support filed on behalf of CEI by M. Kempic.
06/02/1994 Complaint letter and copy of complaint mailed to: CEI, office of the president.
05/31/1994 In the matter of the complaint of David Hughes (vs) The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company relative to the alleged unjust and unreasonable charges for operating costs paid while the Perry Plant was not operating.