City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 07 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38692,38692 |
| Citation | 209 N.E.2d 424,3 Ohio St.2d 82 |
| Parties | , 61 P.U.R.3d 99, 32 O.O.2d 58 CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On April 27, 1961, appellee The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for authority to raise its rates for steam and hot-water service supplied to users in the city of Cleveland.
After hearing, the commission, on January 8, 1963, found that the existing rates being charged are insufficient to provide the company with an adequate return; that the statutory rate base is $19,261,306; that an annual return of 3.53% is not unreasonable or unjust; that the annual dollar return to which the company is entitled is $680,311.11; that the allowable annual expenses aggregate $3,343,657.08; that the allowable annual revenue to which applicant is entitled is $4,023,968.19; and that the amendment to the fuel adjustment clause of the application was reasonable.
After a rate increase was granted, a motion for rehearing was filed by the city of Cleveland and was denied by the commission.
The case is before this court upon appeal from the order of the Public Utilities Commission granting the requested increase in rates.
Bronis J. Klementowicz, Director of Law, William T. McKnight and James L. Harkins, Jr., Cleveland, for appellant.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Jay C. Flowers and Theodore K. High, Columbus, for appellee Public Utilities Commission.
Lee C. Howley, Harry G. Fitzgerald, Jr., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John Lansdale, Jr., and Alan P. Buchmann, Cleveland, for appellee Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Appellant assigned 55 errors but reduced these assigned errors to four questions to be decided by this court. The four questions are as follows:
1. Has the commission fixed excessive rates which have confiscated the property of appellant and its ratepayers?
2. May the commission utilize published trend factors to aid in valuation of property for the determination of the statutory rate base of the company's property?
3. Is the company's coal escalation clause an unconstitutional delegation by the commission of its power to set rates?
4. Is the commission's order allowing the rate increase retroactive and, therefore, unlawful and unreasonable?
With regard to the first question, the city grounds its case upon its argument that the net return to the company should be based upon 'total capitalization' or 'net investment.'
This argument has been repeatedly rejected by this court because it is in conflict with the rate base formula provided by statute in Ohio, which is reproduction cost new less depreciation.
In City of Cleveland V. Public Utilities Commission (1956), 164 Ohio St. 442, 444, 132 N.E.2d 216, 218, this court said:
'* * * under the Ohio statutes and the decisions of this court, the percentage return is to be related not to the 'total capitalization' or to the 'net investment' but to the statutory rate base (reconstruction cost new less depreciation) so that neither the actual capital of or net investment in this public utility * * * are really material * * *.' See General Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1963), 174 Ohio St. 575, 577, 191 N.E.2d 341; East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1938), 133 Ohio St. 212, 218, 12 N.E.2d 765.
There is evidence in the record to support a much higher rate of return than that asked by the company. A finding and order by the commission will not be disturbed unless it appears from the record that such finding and order are manifestly against the weight of the evidence and are so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension or mistake or willful disregard of duty. City of Delphos v. Public Utilities Commission (1940), 137 Ohio St. 422, 428, 30 N.E.2d 688; East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1940), 137 Ohio St. 225, 28 N.E.2d 599.
The second proposition raised by the appellant is that a valuation based upon published trend factors, i. e., Handy Whitman and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Elec. Co.
...doctrine. Accord, City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n (1958), 13 Ill.2d 607, 150 N.E.2d 776; City of Cleveland v. Public Util. Comm'n (1965), 3 Ohio St.2d 82, 209 N.E.2d 424, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 982, 86 S.Ct. 558, 15 L.Ed.2d 472 (1966); City of Norfolk v. Virginia Elec. & Power C......
-
City of Akron v. Public Utilities Commission
...its use was 'arbitrary and capricious.' It is noted that this court approved a similar escalation clause in City of Cleveland v. Public Util. Comm., 3 Ohio St. 2d 82, 209 N.E.2d 424. The record discloses that the claim of vagueness is without factual basis. Permitting an escalation clause h......
-
Dowd v. Maxwell
... ... record of the petitioner which included the commission of felonies, petitioner has a conviction for breaking and ... ...
-
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
...Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 403, 330 N.E.2d 1, paragraph eight of the syllabus; Cleveland v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1965), 3 Ohio St.2d 82, 84, 209 N.E.2d 424; East Ohio Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1940), 137 Ohio St. 225, 28 N.E.2d As to questions of law, however, this court ......