Citizens Gas Users Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission
| Citation | 138 N.E.2d 383,165 Ohio St. 536 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34718,34718 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O. 495, 16 P.U.R.3d 498 CITIZENS GAS USERS ASS'N et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Evan W. Morris, Alliance, Clyde H. Wright and Donald W. Raley, Canton, for appellants.
C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Paul Tague, Jr., and Ralph N. Mahaffey, Columbus, for appellee Public Utilities Commission.
Albert M. Calland, Edward B. Calland, Columbus, and William Anderson, for appellee Natural Gas Co., of West Virginia.
W. F. Laird and J. F. Sisson, Columbus, for appellee The Ohio Fuel Gas Co.
The appellants contend that the proposed industrial rate structure is unreasonable and discriminatory; that Manufacturers is charging Natural an excessive amount for the gas sold to it; and that the commission erred in refusing to consider whether the amount charged by Manufacturers is reasonable.
In determining what is a fair rate of return for Natural, the commission took into consideration the amount it pays for gas purchased from Manufacturers and held that it has no jurisdiction or authority to determine whether that amount is excessive, since Manufacturers is charging the rates fixed by the Federal Power Commission, and the price so charged is subject to regulation exclusively by the Federal Power Commission, and thus the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has no authority to interfere with rates established by the Federal Power Commission.
This court is in accord with that holding. The power to fix rates for natural gas transported and sold in interstate commerce has been vested by the Natural Gas Act of 1938, Section 717 et seq., Title 15 U. S. Code, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717 et seq., in the Federal Power Commission exclusively. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U.S. 456, 63 S.Ct. 369, 87 L.Ed. 396.
Appellants contend also that the 1954 amendment of the federal statute, Section 717, subdivision (c), Title 15 U. S. Code, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717, subd. (c), exempts from regulation by the Federal Power Commission the sales by Manufacturers to Natural. This court does not agree with such contention.
That amendment provides in part:
'(c) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person engaged in or legally authorized to engage in the transportation in interstate commerce or the sale in interstate commerce for resale, of natural gas received by such person from another person within or at the boundary of a State if all the natural gas so received is ultimately consumed within such State, or to any facilities used by such person for such transportation or sale, provided that the rates and service of such person and facilities be subject to regulation by a State commission.'
Manufacturers is not a 'person' within the meaning of that amendment, since it sells gas for resale in several states, to be consumed in other states as well as in Ohio. Further, Manufacturers does not receive the gas 'within or at the boundary' of Ohio, tilte to the gas it purchases for resale being acquired in Texas where the gas is delivered to it.
Appellants further complain because the minimum charge specified in the industrial rate schedule was set at $1,200 per month. In the previous industrial rate schedule, that minimum charge had been only $1.50 per month. Because of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Utilities Com'n v. Nantahala Power and Light Co.
...So.2d 404 (1961); City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 13 Ill.2d 607, 150 N.E.2d 776 (1958); Citizens Gas Users Ass'n v. Public Util. Comm'n, 165 Ohio St. 536, 138 N.E.2d 383 (1956); Eastern Edison Co. v. Dept. of Public Util., 388 Mass. 292, 446 N.E.2d 684 (1983); Pike Cty. Light &......
-
Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 37311
...693; City of Columbus v. Public Utilities Commission (1952), 158 Ohio St. 101, 106 N.E.2d 775; Citizens Gas Users Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission (1956), 165 Ohio St. 536, 138 N.E.2d 383. What the parties refer to as the 'hypothetical company concept,' dealt with in City of Cleveland v......
-
United Gas Corp. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission
...v. Northwestern Public Service Company, 1951, 341 U.S. 246, 71 S.Ct. 692, 95 L.Ed. 912; Citizens Gas Users Association v. Public Utilities Comm. of Ohio, 1956, 165 Ohio St. 536, 138 N.E.2d 383; City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Comm., 1958, 13 Ill.2d 607, 150 N.E.2d During the hearing on......
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Colo.
...City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 13 Ill.2d 607, 150 N.E.2d 776 (1958); Citizens Gas Users Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 165 Ohio St. 536, 138 N.E.2d 383 (1956). III. Public Service and Western Slope contend that the PUC abused its discretion and acted arbitrari......