Summary
In Columbus v. Pub. Util.Comm. (1960), 171 Ohio St. 38, 167 N.E.2d 769, the commission approved, and this court affirmed, a differential in rates of return between the city of Columbus and the un-incorporated areas of the county, even though both were served by Columbus Southern Ohio Electric Company.
Summary of this case from General Telephone Co. v. Pub. Util. CommOpinion
Nos. 36267 and 36268
Decided May 25, 1960.
Public Utilities Commission — Fixing rates — Electric power and light company — Appeal — Order not unreasonable or unlawful, when.
APPEALS from the Public Utilities Commission.
The Columbus Southern Ohio Electric Company, an appellee in these two cases, filed with the Public Utilities Commission, also an appellee herein, an application for authority to increase certain of its rates and to simplify certain of its schedules fixing such rates for its electric service in the city of Columbus, appellant herein, and in the unincorporated areas of Franklin County. The city filed objections to the application.
The Council of the City of Columbus thereafter passed an ordinance regulating the rates to be charged for residential and small commercial electric service supplied by the electric company to consumers within the city. The electric company filed a complaint and appeal from that ordinance. Upon motion of the city, the hearing of the application of the electric company for authority to increase rates and the hearing of the complaint and appeal from the rate ordinance were consolidated and submitted on a consolidated record.
The basic issues before the commission were, on the appeal, whether the rates fixed by the ordinance are just and reasonable or insufficient to yield a reasonable compensation for service rendered consumers within the city, and, on the application, whether the present rates are sufficient to yield reasonable compensation for applicable commercial and general service rendered at secondary levels to consumers within the city, whether the present rates and rate structures for nonresidential secondary service contained in present schedules should be substituted by the proposed rates and rate structures contained in offered and proposed schedules, and whether present rates are insufficient to yield a reasonable compensation for the service rendered to consumers within the unincorporated areas of Franklin County.
The commission found that at present rates, including those contained in the aforementioned city ordinance, the annual rates of return of 4.5 per cent applicable to the city, 3.8 per cent applicable to the unincorporated areas of the county, and 4.4 per cent applicable to the area encompassing both of these are insufficient to yield reasonable compensation for the service rendered; that the annual rates of return on the ascertained allocated statutory rate basis of 6 per cent applicable to the city, 4.7 per cent applicable to the unincorporated areas of the county, and 5.8 per cent applicable to the area encompassing both of these are not unreasonable, insufficient, excessive or unlawful under the facts and circumstances of these proceedings; that the existing rates and charges under consideration are insufficient to yield reasonable compensation for service rendered and to provide an adequate return on the properties of the utility used in furnishing such service; that the rates fixed by the ordinance at the presently existing rates are insufficient to yield reasonable compensation for service rendered and to provide an adequate annual return on the utility's property; that the substitution of the electric company's proposed schedules for the present schedules will provide a more equitable and comprehensible schedule of charges over the entire range of secondary service; and that the proposed rates and charges are not unjust, unreasonable or excessive and will not provide the company with annual returns in excess of those to which it is entitled on the value of its properties used in the furnishing of electric service in the areas involved. The commission entered an order accordingly.
The city has perfected an appeal to this court in each case.
Mr. Russell Leach, city attorney, Mr. John W.E. Bowen and Mr. Alba L. Whiteside, for appellant.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, Mr. Andrew R. Sarisky and Mr. Herbert T. Maher, for appellee the Public Utilities Commission.
Mr. Garrett S. Claypool, Messrs. Porter, Stanley, Treffinger Platt, Messrs. Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Mr. John Lansdale and Mr. George F. Lynch, for appellee Columbus Southern Ohio Electric Company.
It does not appear from an examination of the record that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is unreasonable or unlawful. The order is, therefore, affirmed.
Order affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.