United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission
Decision Date | 28 January 1914 |
Citation | 80 S.E. 931,73 W.Va. 571 |
Parties | UNITED FUEL GAS CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted December 16, 1913.
Syllabus by the Court.
This court by section 16, chapter 9, Acts 1913, is given jurisdiction not by appeal, but as upon original process to review an order of the Public Service Commission created by said act, and such jurisdiction is limited to matters purely judicial and does not extend to matters purely administrative, executive or legislative, such jurisdiction not being conferred by the Constitution.
This statute so construed is not void as depriving a public service corporation, without due process of law, of rights guaranteed to it by the state or federal Constitution. The process of such Public Service Commission provided in said act, with right thereby given to have a review of the order or judgment of said Commission by this court, as to matters judicial involved therein, and as provided thereby satisfying the requirement of due process and other constitutional rights protected by the Constitution.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 of said act (Acts 1913, c. 9), adapted to all kinds of public service corporations, are in substance sections 12, 2 and 3, of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 383, 379, 380 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, pp. 3162, 3155]), and as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, with respect to orders and judgments of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the orders of the Public Service Commission are final and not subject to judicial interference on review by this court, unless "(1) beyond the power which it could constitutionally exercise; or (2) beyond its statutory power; or (3) based upon a mistake of law."
The powers so conferred upon the Public Service Commission are within constitutional limitations, as an exercise by the State of its police power.
Contracts of a natural gas company with consumers of natural gas for exclusive service for a term of years in consideration of reduced rates, constitute no lawful basis for discrimination in rates in favor of such contract consumers against other consumers when in other respects the service is rendered all under substantially the same circumstances and conditions; and when the manifest object of such contracts is to monopolize the business of serving the public with natural gas.
The judgment or order of the Public Service Commission in such cases on questions of expediency, and as to what is best for the public interests, is final and not reviewable by this court.
Petition by the United Fuel Gas Company against the Public Service Commission. Order of suspension refused, and petition dismissed.
Vinson & Thompson, of Huntington, Chilton, MacCorkle & Chilton, of Charleston, and R. G. Altizer and Geo. M. Hoffheimer, both of Clarksburg, for petitioner.
John B Daish, of Washington, D. C., Fred M. Livezey, of Huntington, and Frank Lively, of Charleston, for respondent.
MILLER, P.
Upon the petition of the United Fuel Gas Company, pursuant to section 16 thereof, we are called upon for the first time to give construction to chapter 9, Acts of the Legislature of 1913, entitled "An Act to create a public service commission and to prescribe its powers and duties, and to prescribe penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act," in so far at least as the provisions thereof are applicable to the case now presented, and undertake to impose or confer jurisdiction on this court, original or appellate, in relation thereto.
Said section 16 provides:
The petitioner complains of an order of the Commission pronounced against it on November 15, 1913, on three several complaints or petitions pending before it, and by agreement heard together, one of R. D. Wylie, one of Floyd S. Chapman, and the other of the City of Huntington. The order of the Commission sufficiently discloses the grounds of complaint, substantially the same in all three petitions, so far as concerns our present inquiry, and the action of the Commission thereon as follows:
"Upon consideration whereof the Public Service Commission is of the opinion--
First: That the United Fuel Gas Company is violating the law by maintaining in the City of Huntington two rates for natural gas for domestic purposes, one being a rate of 23 cents per 1000 cu. ft. less a discount of 2 cents per 1000 cu. ft. if paid on or before the 10th day of the month following that in which the gas is consumed, and another rate of 22 cents per 1000 cu. ft. less a discount of 2 cents per 1000 cu. ft. if paid on or before the 10th day of the month following that in which the gas is consumed, said latter rate being given to those consumers who have entered into a written agreement with the United Fuel Gas Company for a period of five years, and it is therefore ordered by the Public Service Commission that the United Fuel Gas Company do cease and desist from a continuation of this practice in discriminating between the two classes of domestic consumers. Second: The Public Service Commission does not at this time pass on the question of reasonableness of the rates now charged by the United Fuel Gas Company except the Commission is of the opinion that the rate of 23 cents per 1000 cu. ft. less a discount of 2 cents per 1000 cu. ft. if paid on or before the 10th day of the month following that in which the gas is consumed, now charged to 'No contract consumers' is excessive and exorbitant and the United Fuel Gas Company is ordered to reduce their rates so that the maximum rate allowed this Company to charge any of its consumers will not exceed 22 cents per 1000 cu. ft. less a discount of 2 cents per 1000 cu. ft. if paid on or before the 10th day of the month following that in which the gas is consumed."
In its answer to the several complaints petitioner attempted to justify its alleged unlawful and unjust discrimination, on grounds justified by the statute, and its contracts with its customers, and a compromise decree in a suit brought against it by the City of Huntington.
In its written opinion or statement giving its reasons for the entry of the order complained of, filed with the papers in this court, as required by said section 16, it is said that "the Commission does not pass on the validity of the contracts at the time they were entered into if they were entered into prior to the time the Public Service Commission Law became effective," and it goes without saying that nothing was determined against the petitioner not covered by the terms of the order of which the petitioner complains.
In the petition presented here, grounded on the same facts alleged in its answers to the original complaints, it is charged that the order complained of was unwarranted and erroneous in the following particulars: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial