DIS - Case Record for 92-1751-AU-COI Skip to main content

Case Record For:

92-1751-AU-COI

Case Title: FINANCIAL IMPACT OF FASB STATEMENT
Status: AR-Archived
Industry Code: AU-MORE THAN TWO UTILITIES
Purpose Code: COI-Commission inquiry
Date Opened: 10/5/1992
Date Closed: 2/25/1993
Printable Docket Card Service List
View All
1 - 15 of 70 documents 1 /  5 
Date FiledSummaryPages
04/22/1993Entry denying the applications for rehearing filed by the Customer Coalition and Gas Companies.0
04/05/1993Opposition of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company to application for rehearing, filed by M. Mulcahy.0
04/05/1993Memorandum contra to application for rehearing, filed on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company by M. Longen- ecker, Jr.0
03/29/1993Application foe rehearing of the East Ohio Gas Company; The River Gas Co. and West Ohio Gas Co. filed by H. Liebman.8
03/29/1993Application for rehearing of the East Ohio Gas Company, River Gas Company and the West Ohio Gas Company by H. Liebman.0
03/26/1993Application for rehearing and memorandum in support filed on behalf of City of Cleveland by W. Gruber; City of Columbus by J. Klein; OCC by E. Robinson-McGriff; Industrial Energy Users-Ohio by D. Clayton; Greater Cleveland Welfare Rights Organization, Western Reserve Alliance, and Consumers League of Ohio by J. Meissner; and Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office by J. Migden.9
03/26/1993Application for rehearing filed on behalf of the Customer Coalition by W. Gruber, J. Klein, E. Robinson-McGriff, D. Clayton, J. Meissner and J. Migden.0
02/25/1993Finding & Order approving the application.14
02/25/1993Finding & Order granting CEI, Toledo Edison, Ohio Edison, and Columbia Gas authority to defer the incremental cost of OPEB, consistent with these findings; that all other companies required to implement SFAS 106 January 1, 1993 and who propose to defer the incremental cost shall file separate applications in an AAM docket by 3/5/93; that the companies required to implement SFAS 106 January 1, 1995, and who propose to defer to defer the incremental cost shall address the issue in its subsequent rate case or through a separate application prior to its implementa- tion SFAS 106.0
01/22/1993Motion to intervene and memorandum in support filed on behalf of the Western Reserve Alliance and the Consumers League of Ohio by J. Meissner.0
12/16/1992Certificate of service filed on behalf of Arcardia Tele- phone, Continental Telephone, Little Miami Communications, and Oakwood Telephone by J. Prohaska.0
12/16/1992Certificate of service filed on behalf of The Ohio Tele- phone Association by J. Prohaska.0
12/16/1992Certificate of service filed on behalf of Western Reserve and Alltel Ohio by T. Lodge.0
12/15/1992Reply comments filed on behalf of Ohio Edison by M. Beiting.0
12/15/1992Joint reply comments filed on behalf of Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company by M. Resnik.0
 
1 /  5 
      
      
Attorney General:
Gainer,James
Attorney Examiner: