Bluefield Waterworks Improvement Co v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 256

Decision Date11 June 1923
Docket NumberNo. 256,256
Citation67 L.Ed. 1176,262 U.S. 679,43 S.Ct. 675
PartiesBLUEFIELD WATERWORKS & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Alfred G. Fox and Jos. M. Sanders, both of Bluefield, W. Va., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Russell S. Ritz, of Bluefield, W. Va., for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 680-683 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error is a corporation furnishing water to the city of Bluefield, W. Va., and its inhabitants. September 27, 1920, the Public Service Commission of the state, being authorized by statute to fix just and reasonable rates, made its order prescribing rates. In accordance with the laws of the state (section 16, c. 15-O, Code of West Virginia [sec. 651]), the company instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeals to suspend and set aside the order. The petition alleges that the order is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, and deprives the company of its property without just compensation and without due process of law, and denies it equal protection of the laws. A final judgment was entered, denying the company relief and dismissing its petition. The case is here on writ of error.

1. The city moves to dismiss the writ of error for the reason, as it asserts, that there was not drawn in question the validity of a statute or an authority exercised under the state, on the ground of repugnancy to the federal Constitution.

The validity of the order prescribing the rates was directly challenged on constitutional grounds, and it was held valid by the highest court of the state. The prescribing of rates is a legislative act. The commission is an instrumentality of the state, exercising delegated powers. Its order is of the same force as would be a like enactment by the Legislature. If, as alleged, the prescribed rates are confiscatory, the order is void. Plaintiff in error is entitled to bring the case here on writ of error and to have that question decided by this court. The motion to dismiss will be denied. See Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 43 Sup. Ct. 353, 67 L. Ed. ——, decided March 5, 1923, and cases cited; also Ohio Valley Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U. S. 287, 40 Sup. Ct. 527, 64 L. Ed. 908.

2. The commission fixed $460,000 as the amount on which the comp ny is entitled to a return. It found that under existing rates, assuming some increase of business, gross earnings for 1921 would be $80,000 and operating expenses $53,000 leaving $27,000, the equivalent of 5.87 per cent., or 3.87 per cent. after deducting 2 per cent. allowed for depreciation. It held existing rates insufficient to the extent of 10,000. Its order allowed the company to add 16 per cent. to all bills, excepting those for public and private fire protection. The total of the bills so to be increased amounted to $64,000; that is, 80 per cent. of the revenue was authorized to be increased 16 per cent., equal to an increase of 12.8 per cent. on the total, amounting to $10,240.

As to value: The company claims that the value of the property is greatly in excess of $460,000. Reference to the evidence is necessary. There was submitted to the commission evidence of value which it summarized substantially as follows:

                   a. Estimate by company's engineer on
                      basis of reproduction new, less
                      depreciation, at prewar prices.................. $ 624,548 00
                 
                   b. Estimate by company's engineer on
                      basis of reproduction new, less
                      depreciation, at 1920 prices.................... 1,194,663 00
                 
                   c. Testimony of company's engineer
                      fixing present fair value for rate
                      making purposes................................... 900,000 00
                 
                   d. Estimate by commissioner's engineer on
                      basis of reproduction new, less
                      depreciation at 1915 prices, plus
                      additions since December 31, 1915, at
                      actual cost, excluding Bluefield
                      Valley waterworks, water rights
                      and going value................................... 397,964 38
                 
                
                   e. Report of commission's statistician
                      showing investment cost less
                      depreciation...................................... 365,445 13
                 
                   f. Commission's valuation, as fixed in
                      case No. 368 ($360,000), plus gross
                      additions to capital since made
                      ($92,520.53)...................................... 452,520 53
                 

It was shown that the prices prevailing in 1920 were nearly double those in 1915 and pre-war time. The company did not claim value as high as its estimate of cost of construction in 1920. Its valuation engineer testified that in his opinion the value of the property was $900,000—a figure between the cost of construction in 1920, less depreciation, and the cost of construction in 1915 and before the war, less depreciation.

The commission's application of the evidence may be stated briefly as follows:

As to 'a,' supra: The commission deducted $204,000 from the estimate (details printed in the margin),1 leaving approximately $421,000, which it contrasted with the estimate of its own engineer, $397,964.38 (see 'd,' supra). It found that there should be included $25,000 for the Bluefield Valley waterworks plant in Virginia, 10 per cent. for going value, and $10,000 for working capital. If these be added to $421,000, there results $500,600. This may be compared with the commission's final figure, $460,000.

As to 'b' and 'c,' supra: These were given no weight by the commission in arriving at its final figure, $460,000. It said:

'Applicant's plant was originally constructed more than twenty years ago, and has been added to from time to time as the progress and development of the community required. For this reason, it would be unfair to its consumers to use as a basis for present fair value the abnormal prices prevailing during the recent war period; but, when, as in this case, a part of the plant has been constructed or added to during that period, in fairness to the applicant, consideration must be given to the cost of such expenditures made to meet the demands of the public.'

As to 'd,' supra: The commission, taking $400,000 (round figures), added $25,000 for Bluefield Valley waterworks plant in Virginia, 10 per cent. for going val e, and $10,000 for working capital, making $477,500. This may be compared with its final figure, $460,000.

As to 'e,' supra: The commission, on the report of its statistician, found gross investment to be $500,402.53. Its engineer, applying the straight line method, found 19 per cent. depreciation. It applied 81 per cent. to gross investment and added 10 per cent. for going value and $10,000 for working capital, producing $455,500.2 This may be compared with its final figure, $460,000.

As to 'f,' supra: It is necessary briefly to explain how this figure, $452,520.53, was arrived at. Case No. 368 was a proceeding initiated by the application of the company for higher rates, April 24, 1915. The commission made a valuation as of January 1, 1915. There were presented two estimates of reproduction cost less depreciation, one by a valuation engineer engaged by the company and the other by a valuation engineer engaged by the city, both 'using the same method.' An inventory made by the company's engineer was accepted as correct by the city and by the commission. The method 'was that generally employed by courts and commissions in arriving at the value of public utility properties under this method.' and in both estimates 'five year average unit prices' were applied. The estimate of the company's engineer was $540,000 and of the city's engineer, $392,000. The principal differences as given by the commission are shown in the margin.3 The commission disregarded both estimates and arrived at $360,000. It held that the best basis of valuation was the net investment, i. e., the total cost of the property less depreciation. It said:

'The books of the company show a total gross investment, since its organization, of $407,882, and that there has been charged off for depreciation from year to year the total sum of $83,445, leaving a net investment of $324,427. * * * From an examination of the books * * * it appears that the records of the company have been remarkably well kept and preserved. It therefore seems that, when a plant is developed under these conditions, the net investment, which, of course, means the total gross investment less depreciation, is the very best basis of valuation for rate making purposes and that the other methods above referred to should be used only when it is impossible to arrive at the true investment. Therefore, after making due allowance for capital necessary for the conduct of the business and considering the plant as a going concern, it is the opinion of the commission that the fair value for the purpose of determining reasonable and just rates in this case of the property of the applicant company, used by it in the public service of supplying water to the city of Bluefield and its citizens, is the sum of $360,000, which sum is hereby fixed and determined by the commission to be the fair present value for the said purpose of determining the reasonable and just rates in this case.'

In its report in No. 368, the commission did not indicate the amounts respectively allowed for going value or working capital. If 10 per cent. be added for the former, and $10,000 for the latter (as fixed by the commission in the present case), there is produced $366,870, to e compared with $360,000, found by the commission in its valuation as of January 1, 1915. To this it added $92,520.53, expended since, producing $452,520.53. This may be compared with its final figure, $460,000.

The state Supreme Court of Appeals holds that the valuing of the property of a public utility corporation and prescribing rates are purely legislative acts, not subject to judicial review, except in so far as may be necessary to determine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
489 cases
  • Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 10 Octubre 1944
    ...v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 692, 43 S.Ct. 675, 67 L.Ed. 1176. (The language to which each refers is reported on page 692 of 262 U.S. 679, on 679 of 43 S.Ct. 675, 67 L.Ed. 1176.) Each refers to the portion of the opinion in which the court said: "* * * What annual rate will c......
  • Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Abril 1925
    ... ... 892; Spring Valley ... Waterworks v. San Francisco, 192 F. 137; Richman v ... rel. S.W. Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service ... Commission, 262 U.S. 276, 43 S.Ct. 544, 67 ... U. R. 1923C, 193; [40 Idaho 693] Bluefield Water Works & ... Improvement Co. v. Public ... L. Co. v. Lincoln, 250 U.S. 256, 39 ... S.Ct. 454, 63 L.Ed. 968; Des Moines Gas ... ...
  • Farmers Union Cent. Exchange, Inc. v. F.E.R.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 26 Junio 1984
    ...with returns on investments in other enterprises having corresponding risks."); Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 692, 43 S.Ct. 675, 679, 67 L.Ed. 1176 (1923) ("A public utility is entitled to such rates as will permit it to earn a return ........
  • Cardle v. Indianapolis Water Co 16 19, 1926
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1926
    ...Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 262 U. S. 276, 287, 288, 43 S. Ct. 544, 67 L. Ed. 981, 31 A. L. R. 807; Bluefield Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 262 U. S. 679, 692, 43 S. Ct. 675, 67 L. Ed. 1176. Cf. Board of Utility Commissioners v. New York Telephone Co., 271 U. S. 23, 31, 46 S. Ct. 363, 70 L. Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Authorities
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Regulating Public Utility Performance. The Law of Market Structure, Pricing and Jurisdiction Part Three. Jurisdiction
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...1918), 326n4 The Binghamton Bridge, 70 U.S. 51 (1865), 99n110 Blueield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of W. Va., 262 U.S. 679 (1923), 224, 224nn22–23, 225n26, 228n38 Blumenthal v. FERC, 552 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2009), 275n32, 282n53 Board of Fire Comm’rs of Fire Dist. N......
  • How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-3, March 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 262 U.S. 276, 287-89 (1923) (telephone rates); Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 262 U.S. 679, 684-95 (1923) (water rates); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Francisco, 265 U.S. 403, 405-16 (1924) (gas rates); Ohio Utils. Co. v.......
  • 6 'Just and Reasonable' Prices in Non-competitive Markets: Cost-Based Rates Set by the Regulator
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Regulating Public Utility Performance. The Law of Market Structure, Pricing and Jurisdiction Part Two. Pricing
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...575, 586 (1942) (“The Constitution does not bind rate-making bodies to the service of any single formula or combination of formulas”). 22. 262 U.S. 679 (1923). 23. Id. at 692–93. ENV Hempling Pub Util Final.indd 224 8/7/13 4:37 PM 225 “Just and Reasonable” Prices in Non-competitive Markets ......
1 provisions
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 52, No. 40. October 1, 2022
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...period in which its rates will be in effect. See Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of West Virginia, 262 U.S. 679, 692-93 (1923) (Bluefield); see also Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 603 (1944) (Hope Natural Gas). Further, ‘‘[......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT