Coalition of Concerned Utility Users v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Coalition of Concerned Utility Users v. Public Utilities Commission

341 N.E.2d 839, 45 Ohio St. 2d 151, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 265, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 552

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 18, 1976

DocketNo. 75-611

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 341 N.E.2d 839 (Coalition of Concerned Utility Users v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coalition of Concerned Utility Users v. Public Utilities Commission, 341 N.E.2d 839, 45 Ohio St. 2d 151, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 265, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 552 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first question raised by appellant is that the- declaration of the' existence of a present emergency by the commission exceeded its jurisdiction under B. C. 4909;16- because' of ‘ • clear and convincing evidence that the. company can.- meet its expenses, continue its construction program and'otherwise meet its immediate statutory obligation-to-provide- service to the public without- any rate relief.”

The-'emergency rate relief -granted by the-, commission upon the record of evidence adduced at. the hearing was pursuant to B. U 4909.16, which reads, in part, as.follows:

“When the Public Utilities Commission deems.it necessary-to prevent injury to the business- or interests-of the public or of- any public utility of this .'state in case of any emergency to be judged by the commission, it-may temporarily alter, amend, or, with the consent-of the public [153]*153utility. concerned,, suspend any existing rates,; schedules, or order relating to or affecting any public-utility dr part of any pifblic utility in this state. * * # ” Clearly, this statute confers jurisdiction oh the commission to determine ' (1) whether the relief sought under R. C. 4909.16 is necessary to prevent injury, and (2) whether such relief is necessary “in case of any emergency to - be judged by the commission.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, appellant’s first question resolves into a claim that the declaration of an emergency by the commission was not supported by the evidence. A review of the record, however, reveals that the findings and order of the commission are not.“*.* * manifestly against the weight of the evidence * * *,” in this regard. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 403, paragraph four of the syllabus.

The second question raised by appellant is that '.’the findings of. the commission were deficient in that, they made no specific .reference to evidence in the hea.ring record of consumers and others opposing the emergency order sought by the company, which it is claimed reflects á failure to consider all.the evidence. . . ,

Although .there were many witnesses, primarily consumers, who opposed any rate relief for. the. company; the. absence of specific .findings by the commissi on detailing or summarizing such evidence does not reflect a failure to consider same where the findings and order are not “manifestly against the weight of the evidence”.,as shown by the record'. The findings of fact are factual conclusions drawn from the ,evidence and are not intended as an evidentiary. .summary or review of all the evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Public Utilities Commission being neither unreasonable nor unlawful is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The first question raised by appellant is that the- declaration of the' existence of a present emergency by the commission exceeded its jurisdiction under B. C. 4909;16- because' of ‘ • clear and convincing evidence that the. company can.- meet its expenses, continue its construction program and'otherwise meet its immediate statutory obligation-to-provide- service to the public without- any rate relief.”

The-'emergency rate relief -granted by the-, commission upon the record of evidence adduced at. the hearing was pursuant to B. U 4909.16, which reads, in part, as.follows:

“When the Public Utilities Commission deems.it necessary-to prevent injury to the business- or interests-of the public or of- any public utility of this .'state in case of any emergency to be judged by the commission, it-may temporarily alter, amend, or, with the consent-of the public [153]*153utility. concerned,, suspend any existing rates,; schedules, or order relating to or affecting any public-utility dr part of any pifblic utility in this state. * * # ” Clearly, this statute confers jurisdiction oh the commission to determine ' (1) whether the relief sought under R. C. 4909.16 is necessary to prevent injury, and (2) whether such relief is necessary “in case of any emergency to - be judged by the commission.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, appellant’s first question resolves into a claim that the declaration of an emergency by the commission was not supported by the evidence. A review of the record, however, reveals that the findings and order of the commission are not.“*.* * manifestly against the weight of the evidence * * *,” in this regard. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 403, paragraph four of the syllabus.

The second question raised by appellant is that '.’the findings of. the commission were deficient in that, they made no specific .reference to evidence in the hea.ring record of consumers and others opposing the emergency order sought by the company, which it is claimed reflects á failure to consider all.the evidence. . . ,

Although .there were many witnesses, primarily consumers, who opposed any rate relief for. the. company; the. absence of specific .findings by the commissi on detailing or summarizing such evidence does not reflect a failure to consider same where the findings and order are not “manifestly against the weight of the evidence”.,as shown by the record'. The findings of fact are factual conclusions drawn from the ,evidence and are not intended as an evidentiary. .summary or review of all the evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Public Utilities Commission being neither unreasonable nor unlawful is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 N.E.2d 839, 45 Ohio St. 2d 151, 74 Ohio Op. 2d 265, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coalition-of-concerned-utility-users-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack