Summary
In Worthington Hills Civic Assn. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 11, 74 O.O.2d 40, 340 N.E.2d 411, we were faced with a number of claimed errors, including a challenge to the form of the notice of a water-rate-increase application.
Summary of this case from Parma v. Pub. Util. CommOpinion
No. 75-591
Decided January 14, 1976.
Public Utilities Commission — Rate increase granted — Appeal to court — Order affirmed, when.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
The Valley Utility Company, an appellee herein and a public utility as defined by R.C. 4905.02, supplies water to 850 customers who reside in Worthington Hills which is located in Sharon and Perry townships, Franklin County. On March 16, 1973, the company applied to the Public Utilities Commission, the other appellee herein, for a rate increase.
On September 5, 1974, the Worthington Hills Civic Association, an appellant herein, was given leave to intervene and participate in the subsequent proceedings on the rate increase application.
During the hearing on the application, appellant objected to: "[T]he form of the notice, the method of determining the rate base, the revenues, the expenses, the proposed rules and regulations, the procedures the hearing examiner stated were to be followed for his recommendations to the commission, the failure of the commissioners to [personally] conduct the final hearing, the refusal of the hearing examiner to permit intervenor's counsel to ask numerous questions of the witness on cross-examination and the further refusal of the hearing examiner to permit intervenors to call certain commission staff witnesses or make them intervenor's witnesses."
After full consideration, the commission issued an opinion and order which granted a rate increase to the company.
Appellant's appeal to this court is essentially a reiteration of its previous objections addressed to the commission, which are herein articulated in 12 propositions of law.
Mr. Henry W. Eckhart, for appellants.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Charles S. Rawlings and Mr. John W. Bentine, for appellee Public Utilities Commission.
Messrs. Federico, Myers, Giovanetti Enz and Mr. Richard J. Giovanetti, for appellee Valley Utility Company.
"Where, in a proceeding properly brought before it, the Public Utilities Commission fixes the rates or charges which may be collected by a public utility in furnishing its services or products to the users or consumers therof, a presumption exists that such rates or charges are fair and reasonable, and a party who contends otherwise has the burden on appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 4903.13, Revised Code, of showing that they are unjust, unreasonable or unlawful." Columbus v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1959), 170 Ohio St. 105, paragraph two of the syllabus.
The commission's opinion and order of March 4, 1975, and its entry of May 5, 1975, denying a rehearing, discussed appellant's objections and gave reasons for not following appellant's assertions. Despite the commission's cogent refutation, however, appellant continues to assert its objections apparently unmindful of its burden to overcome a presumption that the rates are fair and reasonable.
In addition, appellant assigns error to various actions and rulings of the commission without showing concomitant harm or prejudice.
"This court will not reverse an order of the commission as unreasonable or unlawful because of an error of the commission, if such error did not prejudice the party seeking such reversal." Cincinnati v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 353, paragraph six of the syllabus. Stated another way, "[a]lthough unlawful or unreasonable, an order of the Public Utilities Commission will not be reversed where its effect, to the extent that it is unlawful or unreasonable, will not be such as to prejudice someone who appeals from that order." Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 478, paragraph ten of the syllabus.
Finally, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the commission's order is manifestly against the weight of the evidence and is so clearly unsupported by the record as to show the commission's misapprehension or mistake or willful disregard of duty ( Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 42 Ohio St.2d 403, paragraph eight of the syllabus).
Accordingly, the order of the commission is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.