Opinion
No. 75-419
Decided February 11, 1976.
Public Utilities Commission — Motor transportation companies — Irregular route certificates issued, when — Evidence of reasonably anticipated need.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
Edgar W. Long, Inc., and Hillsboro Transportation Company applied for certificates of public convenience and necessity to transport certain property over irregular routes from and to the village of Frankfort. These applications were consolidated and came on for hearing before the Public Utilities Commission on May 21, 1973. Appellant, Sewell Motor Express, Inc., was a protestant to such applications and appeared at the hearing. At that time, Sewell was the holder of a regular route certificate under temporary authority to operate through Frankfort pending transfer approval from a former certificate holder. Sewell participated in the hearing, and testimony was presented on its behalf. The commission approved the regular route certificate transfer to Sewell on October 29, 1973.
The commission issued its opinion and order on February 12, 1975, granting both applications and held as conclusions of law, inter alia, that the protest of Sewell was not valid and thet the matter should be considered as unprotested.
Appellant's application for rehearing was denied by operation of law and notice of appeal was timely filed with this court. The commission filed a motion to dismiss based upon the claim that appellant was not an aggrieved party. The motion was overruled on September 5, 1975.
Mr. Joe F. Asher, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Charles S. Rawlings and Mr. Robert T. Maison, for appellee Public Utilities Commission.
Messrs. Sanborn, Brandan Duvall, Mr. James Duvall, Mr. Richard H. Brandon and Mr. James R. Berendsen, for appellee Edgar W. Long, Inc.
The sole issue is whether the issuance of irregular route certificates of public convenience and necessity to the aforementioned applicants was unreasonable or unlawful. Or, stated another way, did the evidence support such public convenience and necessity notwithstanding the commission's finding that the applications should have proceeded on an unprotested basis.
The essence of appellant's opposition to the issuance of these certificates is that the evidence supporting their issuance was so speculative and conjectural as to fall within the scope of Mohawk Motor v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 77.
As in Mohawk, the primary evidence supporting issuance of an irregular route certificate related to servicing of a manufacturing plant which was under construction but not yet operative. There are, however, significant differences in the record herein presented with respect to the need, character of trucking services to be required, and adequacy of facilities of present certificated carriers, so as to distinguish the controlling facts herein from those in Mohawk.
First, Mohawk does not preclude consideration of need where there is an absence of present existing requirements. Here, the record reflects the detail of volume and kind of products reasonably expected to be transported from and to the new plant facility. Moreover, as contrasted with Mohawk, there is evidence here that the substantial needs of that new plant relate to services of the character afforded by irregular route certificates, which certificates are sought by applicants and which services are not afforded by appellant. Unlike Mohawk, the record herein supports the issuance of irregular route certificates based upon reasonably anticipated need.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Public Utilities Commission being neither unreasonable nor unlawful is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.