Board of Supervisors v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3276.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1947
• Docket Number: Record No. 3276.
• Citation: 186 Va. 963
• Parties: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, ETC., v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL., THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 963

186 Va. 963

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, ETC., v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL., THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 3276.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

November 24, 1947.

Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Staples, JJ.

1. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Continuance — Discretion of Commission — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants, intervenors in the proceeding, complained of the action of the Commission in not granting the intervenors' motion for a thirty days' continuance. There was no claim that the intervenors desired further time in which to collect or produce evidence and the sole stated basis for the requested postponement was that more time was desired to study the proposed rate increase. The published notice of the hearing disclosed that schedules of the proposed rates, charges, etc., were on file with the Commission and were open to inspection and no reason was assigned why these were not studied in advance of the hearing.

Held: That the refusal to grant a continuance was in the judicial discretion of the Commission.

2. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Code Section 4071a Applicable Only to Temporary Relief — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants contended that in seeking relief the Company should have followed section 4071a of the Code of 1942 (Michie) rather than section 4066.

Held: That there was no merit in this contention since section 4071a applies to an application for temporary relief and in the instant case no question of temporary rates was involved.

3. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Necessity for Thirty Days' Notice of Hearing — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants contended that under section 4066 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) no change in rates could lawfully have been made except after thirty days' notice to the Commission and to the public. The Commission had fixed the date of the hearing at less than thirty days from the date of filing the application for approval of the revised schedules of rates.

Held: That there was no merit in appellants' contention since the statute contains a proviso "that the Commission may, in particular cases, authorize or prescribe a less time in which changes may be made."

4. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Filing and Consideration of Exhibit after Hearing — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants, intervenors in the proceeding, complained of the action of the Commission in allowing the Company to file after the hearing, as a part of the record, and in considering an exhibit which was a list of the newspapers in which the Company published an advertisement justifying its request for an increase in its rates. While the complete list of the newspapers was not stated during the hearing, the advertisement, its contents, and the fact that it was given wide circulation were frequently referred to.

Held: That it was plain that this exhibit could have exercised no influence upon the Commission's finding.

5. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Filing and Consideration of Exhibit after Hearing — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants, intervenors in the proceeding, complained of the action of the Commission in allowing the Company to file after the hearing, as a part of the record, and in considering an exhibit consisting of a detailed list of the "revenue increase by exchanges and zones." The list was furnished after the hearing upon the specific request of the then counsel for one of the intervenors.

Held: No error.

6. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Rates of Utility — Factors to Be Considered by Commission. — When a rate increase is sought by a utility and it undertakes to establish a higher valuation of its property and plant as the "rate base," or to show that it is entitled to a higher yield on the established base, or both, or when there is an application to reduce rates which undertakes to establish a lower valuation of the utility's property and plant or to show that it is entitled only to a lower yield thereon, or both, in either of such cases it becomes proper or necessary that the State Corporation Commission inquire into numerous factors, such as the probable rate of return on investments at the present or probable near future, the effect of abnormal conditions in relation to taxes, details of wage increase adjustments, going concern value and property values.

7. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Factors Not Proper or Necessary to Be Considered — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants, intervenors in the proceeding, contended that there was no evidence introduced before the Commission as to numerous factors usually considered in rate cases, such as the probable rate of return of investments at the present or probable near future, the effect of abnormal conditions in relation to taxes, details of wage increase adjustments, going concern value and property values, and without such evidence the Commission was not justified in reaching its conclusion. The Company did not undertake to increase the value of its rate base or to seek a higher rate thereon, but its application was predicated upon the original cost of its plant, less depreciation, plus a small amount of working capital, as its rate base.

Held: That the case was not one in which it was proper or necessary that the Commission inquire into the factors relied on by appellants.

8. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Return Not Unjust or Unreasonable — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, the Commission found that the proposed rate increase would yield a return of 5.66% on the rate base and that such a return was not unjust or unreasonable. The Company's application was predicated upon the original cost of its plant, less depreciation, plus a small amount of working capital, as its rate base.

Held: That the Commission's conclusion was amply supported by the evidence.

9. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Review — Weight of Findings. — Under section 156, (f), of the Constitution of 1902 the State Corporation Commission's findings on proposed rate increase by utilities come to the Supreme Court of Appeals as prima facie just, reasonable and correct.

10. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Increase within Legislative Discretion of Commission — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, the evidence showed that the proposed revised schedules of rates and charges would increase the gross annual operating revenues of the Company by about 10%, which was but a small proportion of a wage increase alone which the Company had recently sustained.

Held: That whether the 10% increase in revenues be viewed as a fair rate return on a proper rate base, or as an offset to the increased cost of operation, it was within the range of legislative discretion of the Commission.

11. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Particular Area Not to Be Segregated and Different Rates Charged — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants contended that the proposed schedules of rates and charges were unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory in their application to the telephone subscribers and users in the Arlington area, on the ground that in this area the new rates involved greater percentage increases over the existing schedules than those in most other places in the State. Appellants claimed that the Commission should have required that the plant values, operating revenues, operating expenses, etc., in the Arlington-Alexandria area be segregated to that locality and that a fair rate be fixed for this part of the State as a unit.

Held: That there was no reason for attempting to segregate the Alexandria-Arlington area and charge rates there different from the rates charged elsewhere in Virginia for comparable amounts of service.

12. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION — Fixing Telephone Rates — Rates Not Unjust, Unreasonable or Discriminatory to Users in Particular Area — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission fixing telephone rates, appellants contended that the proposed schedules of rates and charges were unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory in their application to the telephone subscribers and users in the Arlington area on the ground that in this area the new rates involved greater percentage increases over the existing schedules than those in most other places in the State. The number of telephones in the area had so increased that under the existing schedules of rates the telephone users in that area had enjoyed a preferential rate at the expense of users throughout the State, and evidence showed that the new rates for the area were lower in most instances than those fixed in the existing schedules for exchanges with a similar number of telephones.

Held: That the new schedules were not unjust, unreasonable or discriminatory in their application to the users in the Arlington area.

Appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission.

The opinion states the case.

Morton L. Wallerstein an...