02/01/1990
|
Returned from supreme court. |
05/31/1989
|
Supreme transmittal papers filed (S.C. 89-892) |
05/26/1989
|
Notice of Appeal filed by The Concerned Citizens of Lake County, The Consumer League of Ohio, The Ashtabula County Concerned Citizens, Western Reserve Alliance, The Geauga County Concerned Citizens, The Concerned Citizens of Cuyahoga County and Senior Citizens Coalition filed by T. Lodge. (S.C. No. 89-892) |
03/28/1989
|
Entry requiring CEI, Toledo Edison, staff and other interested parties to file data, information, or pleadings which have to do with complainances with the terms of the Stipulation in Subfile A and B. |
03/28/1989
|
Rehearing Denying OCC's motion for clarification and denying application for rehearing filed by the City of Cleveland, Citizens Group and the Ohio Coalition for Indpendent Power Production. |
03/23/1989
|
Reply Memorandum of The Office of The Consumers' Counsel filed by G. James Van Heyde. |
03/13/1989
|
Cleveland Electric Illumination Company's and Toledo Edison Company's memorandum in response to OCC's motion for clarification and applications for rehearing filed by the City of Cleveland, Ohio Coalition for Independent Power production, and Concerned Citizens, et al filed by C. McElwee. |
03/10/1989
|
Notice of withdrawal of application for rehearing filed on behalf of Ohio Edison by M. Beiting. |
03/07/1989
|
Opinion & Order adopting the Stipulation and Recommendation filed on 1/27/89. |
03/02/1989
|
Application for Rehearing from The Concerned Citizens of Lake County, The Consumer League of Ohio, The Ashtabula County Concerned Citizens of Cuyahoga County and Senior Citizens Coalition file by T. Lodge. |
03/01/1989
|
Application for rehearing filed by M. Beiting on behalf of Ohio Edison Company. |
02/27/1989
|
Motion for Clarification filed by OCC by G. J. Van Heyde, P. Centolella and J. Pepper. |
02/23/1989
|
Response of Ohio Edison Company to Industrial Energy Consumers'Petition for leave to file a brief, AMICUS CURIAE, in opposition to stipulation, filed by M. Beiting. |
02/13/1989
|
Reply Brief of the staff of the PUCO, in support of the stipulation entered into between the staff and The Ohio Edison Company filed by T. McNamee. |
02/13/1989
|
Reply Brief of Ohio Edison Company filed by M. Beiting. |
02/13/1989
|
Industrial Energy Consumers peition for leave to file a brief, Amicus Curiae, in opposition to The Ohio Edison Stipulation; memorandum in support thereof; and Amicus Curiae Brief filed by L. Bell. |
02/13/1989
|
Memorandum of The Office of the Consumers' Counsel in opposition to the stipulation entered into between the Ohio Edison Company and the staff of the PUCO filed by J. Pepper. |
02/03/1989
|
Brief of Ohio Edison Company in support of stipulation filed by M. Beiting. |
02/03/1989
|
Initial Brief of the Staff of the PUCO in support of the stipulation entered into between the staff and The Ohio Edison Company. |
01/31/1989
|
Opinion and Order that the stipulation and recommendation filed on January 11, 1989 is approved, that the application of the Toledo Edison Co., for authority to increase its rates and charges for electric service is granted to the extent provided in this order, that the applicant shall notify its customers of the increase in rates authorized herein using the approved customer notice by insert or attachment to its billings, by special mailing or by a combination of those methods, that all objections and motions not specifically discussed in this order, or rendered moot thereby, be overruled and denied, attached concurring opinion of Com. Alan Schriber. |
01/31/1989
|
Opinion and Order in Case No. 88-170-EL-AIR approving the Stipulation and Recommendation filed on 1/11/89 and granting rate increase to the extent provided in this Opinion and Order. Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Schriber. Con- curring Opinion of Commissioner Gaylord. |
01/31/1989
|
Opinion and Order in Case No. 88-171-EL-AIR approving the Stipulation and Recommendation filed on 1/11/89 and granting rate increase to the extent provided in this Opinion and Order. Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Schriber. Con- curring Opinion of Commissioner Gaylord. |
01/27/1989
|
Stipulation and Recommendation filed by A. Alexander on behalf of Ohio Edison Company and R. Tongren on behalf of the PUCO staff. |
01/26/1989
|
Letter filed by F. Lange, Jr., on behalf of applicant, RE: to the Stipulation and Recommendation. |
01/25/1989
|
Letter filed by D. Champion on behalf the PUCO staff, correcting an inadvertent error appearing on Page 4 of Reply Brief submitted on 1/24/89, |
01/25/1989
|
Corrected cover sheet and table of content to the Reply Brief filed by J. Woodring on behalf of Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. |
01/25/1989
|
Trans., for hearing held on 1/20/89, (TC) (LS) (GG) (AB) and (AS) Submitted Local Public Hearing/Toledo, Ohio Vol. I, 1-107 pages. |
01/24/1989
|
Reply brief of Ohio Edison filed by M. Beiting. |
01/24/1989
|
Reply Brief in support of stipulation and recommendation of the Office of the Consumers' Counsel filed by P. Centolella and J. Pepper. |
01/24/1989
|
Reply Brief on remaining issues submitted on behalf of the PUCO staff, filed by D. Champion. |
01/20/1989
|
Letter filed on behalf of the City of Defiance endorsing the stipulation filed by J. Rohrs. |
01/18/1989
|
Joint Brief of CEI and Toledo Edison filed by F. Lange. |
01/18/1989
|
Brief in support of stipulation and recommendation of The Office of the Consumers' Counsel, State of Ohio filed by P. Porter, P. Centolella and J. Pepper. |
01/11/1989
|
Letter filed by Wm. Newcomb, Jr., on behalf The Ohio Council of Retail Merchants. |
01/11/1989
|
Stipulation and Recommendation filed on bhealf of the following parties: F. Lange, Jr./The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company A. Korkosz/The Toledo Edison Company Wm. Spratley/The Office of Consumers' Counsel L. Bell/The Industrial Energy Consumers Wm. Gruber/The City Cleveland K. Guy/The City of Toledo |
11/03/1988
|
Comments filed on behalf of OCC by J.Pepper. |
11/03/1988
|
Comments of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, and The Toledo Edison Company in Response to the Commission Entry of October 4, 1988, filed by M. Beiting and Craig I. Smith. |
11/02/1988
|
Comments filed by and on behalf of N. Tostenson to; T. Chema, RE: Comments on nuclear facility's cost overruns. |
11/01/1988
|
Comments to The Preliminary Shumaker Report from The Cleveland Citizens of Lake County; Greater Cleveland Welfare Rights Organization, Inc., The Consumer League of Ohio; The Ashtabula County Concerned Citizens; Western Reserve Alliance; The Geauga County Concerned Citizens and The Concerned Citizens of Cuyahoga County, filed by J. Meissner. |
10/24/1988
|
Letter filed by F. Giacco on behalf of Canaton, Inc., with copy of comments filed 10/4/88, relative to the Schu- maker report. |
10/04/1988
|
Entry, that interested person are given 30 days to file commments. |
09/09/1988
|
Assessment of Beaver Valley Unit Cost Studies conducted for the PUCO by Schumaker & Company. |
01/07/1988
|
Motion to intervene filed by V. Miller on behalf of OCC. |
12/28/1987
|
Petition of The City of Toledo for Leave to intervene, filed by K. Guy. |
12/17/1987
|
Petition to Intervene filed by J. Meissner on behalf of Greater Cleveland Welfare Rights Organization, Inc., Western Reserve Alliance, the Consumer League of Ohio, the Ashtabula County Concerned Citizens, the Geauga County Concerned Citizens of Cuyahoga County. |
10/29/1987
|
Two Consumers' Counsel Governing Board resolutions pertain- ing to Beave Valley Unit No. 2, construction costs, and performance standards for nulcear power stations in Ohio, filed Wm. Spratley. |
10/27/1987
|
Entry ordering the Staff to develop a request for proposels to secure an independent consultant to assit in evaluating the costs of constructing Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 and CEI Toledo Edison, and Ohio Edison reimburse the Commission for the investigation cost. |
10/23/1987
|
In the matter of the investigation into the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2. |