Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

• Decision Date: 12 June 1923
• Docket Number: 17825
• Citation: 140 N.E. 497,108 Ohio St. 143
• Parties: The Ohio Utilities Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

140 N.E. 497

108 Ohio St. 143

The Ohio Utilities Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission.

No. 17825

Supreme Court of Ohio

June 12, 1923

Public utilities commission-Schedule of electric rate-Considerations supporting conclusions-Economical plant construction and efficient management-Value of expert testimony- Reasonableness and lawfulness of order-Review by supreme court-Weight of evidence.

Mr. J C, Martin, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. C C. Crabbe, attorney general; Mr. E. E. Corn; Mr. Granville Barrere, and Mr. Burch D. Huggins, for defendants in error.

BY THE COURT. This proceeding comes into court upon error to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the facts incident to the solution of the problem presented are as follows:

The Ohio Utilities Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gas and electricity in the village of Hillsboro, Highland county. In the summer of 1920 the Hillsboro Business Men's Association filed a protest with the Public Utilities Commission against rates that had theretofore been filed by the Ohio Utilities Company, one for gas service, known as No. 2, and the other for electric service, known as No. 3, such schedules being effective August 26, 1920. Upon the filing of this protest the schedules were suspended, but were afterward put in force upon the u tilities company filing a bond with the commission. On July 5,1921, the Public Utilities Commission entered its order and findings, as to the rate for electric service, lower than the rate schedule theretofore in force. Later a rehearing was granted by the commission, and on January 10,1923, the final order and decision was made by the Public Utilities Commission, fixing the rate for residence and commercial lighting at 12 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 200 kilowatt hours per month net, 1O cents per kilowatt hour for all over 200 kilowatt hours per month net, and it was further ordered that the Ohio Utilities Company refund in cash or by credit upon current bills by the 10th of June, 1923, any difference between these rates and the charges imposed upon its consumers from and after the 26th of August, 1920, to all of which orders, acts, and proceedings of the Public Utilities Commission the Ohio Utilities Company at the time excepted. Upon denial of an application for a rehearing these proceedings in error in this court were prosecuted.

There are 12 grounds of error set forth, but the same may be generalized under the head that the decision and order of the Public Utilities Commission are contrary to law and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

In determining this question, this court is to be guided by the rule laid down in the case of Village of St. Clairsville v Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio St. 574, at page 583, 132 N. E 151, at page 153, in the following language:

"Let us next inquire whether the finding and order are against the weight of the evidence. On this point the inquiry should not be to determine whether there is a scintilla of evidence to support the finding of the commission; but, on the contrary, we are of the opinion that this court should examine the record with a view of determining whether the findings of the commission on the facts are reasonably supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. In as much as this is the first review of the evidence, the situation of this court in such matters is analogous to that of the Court of Appeals in weighing and reviewing the evidence in an error proceeding from the court of common pleas. Applying such analogy, the findings of the commission should not be disturbed unless they are so manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and so clearly unsupported by it, as to show misapprehension, or mistake, or willful disregard of duty. This court has not had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the, witnesses, and is therefore not as competent to weigh the evidence as the commission should be."...