Opinion
No. 81-558
Decided January 20, 1982.
Public Utilities Commission — Water service companies — Contractual provisions regarding water service — Subject to jurisdiction of commission — Tariffs take precedence.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Appellants, Rex M. Sparks et al., are the owners of multiple lots in the Choctaw Lake subdivision in Madison County. Choctaw Utilities, Inc., which provides water service to the subdivision, is a public utility (waterworks) subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission under R.C. 4905.04 and 4905.05. In the original contracts of sale and water service agreements entered between the utility's predecessor in interest (the landowners) and appellants (the purchasers), various restrictions and conditions were imposed. These included the following restrictive covenant:
"A PURCHASER owning one or more lots shall pay only one Availability Fee per year, but should he sell one or more parts of his boundary, the SUB-PURCHASER shall be equally bound by these restrictions * * *."
From 1964 through 1976, in accordance with this provision, the utility assessed appellants one water-availability charge, although they owned more than one lot. In an opinion and order dated April 30, 1976, however, the commission approved the filing of tariffs which included, inter alia, the assessment of charges for each lot, regardless of ownership. The utility subsequently filed tariffs which in fact provided for water availability charges on a per lot basis.
Appellants initially challenged the assessment of the charge in the Court of Common Pleas of Madison County. The trial judge, noting that the matter involved an order of the commission, required the dispute be submitted to that body. Appellants and Choctaw Utilities filed a joint complaint with the commission on February 7, 1980, as to whether the restrictive covenant quoted above prohibited imposition of water-availability charges for each lot under common ownership. Following a public hearing, the commission concluded it had plenary jurisdiction over the disputed charge, and held that the approved tariffs take precedence over the restrictive covenants, so that the utility properly assessed water-availability charges consistent with the approved tariffs (that is, on a per lot basis, regardless of ownership).
The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
Mr. Robert D. Marotta, for appellants.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Marvin I. Resnik and Ms. Phyllis J. Culp, for appellee.
Appellants contend that the order of the commission, determining the approved tariff takes precedence over the restrictive covenant, is unreasonable and unlawful. We disagree.
R.C. 4905.04 grants a general supervisory power over public utilities to the commission: "The public utilities commission is hereby vested with the power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate public utilities * * *." R.C. 4905.31 specifies the scope of the commission's supervisory powers:
"* * * Chapters 4901, 4903, 4905, 4907, 4909, 4921 and 4923 of the Revised Code do not prohibit a public utility from filing a schedule or entering into any reasonable arrangement * * * with its customers * * * providing for:
"* * *
"(E) Any other financial device that may be practicable or advantageous to the parties interested. No such * * * device is lawful unless it is filed with and approved by the public utilities commission.
"* * *
"Every such * * * device shall be under the supervision and regulation of the commission, and is subject to change, alteration, or modification by the commission." (Emphasis added.)
In Mohawk Utilities v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 47, this court held in paragraph two of the syllabus, that the commission has jurisdiction to review a water-availability charge assessed by a utility company pursuant to a contract for the sale of land. We face the identical situation here. Choctaw Utilities, Inc. filed an application in 1976 for a new tariff rate. The commission reviewed the matter, including the water-availability charges, and in approving the tariff, concluded that the charge should be assessed against all lots regardless of ownership.
Appellants contend that the contractual provision regarding water-availability charges takes precedence over the approved tariff. The commission, however, was not a party to the contract, and is not bound by its terms. As we stated in Mohawk Utilities, supra, at page 52: "* * * [t]he contractual obligation to provide water service, as well as the actual delivery of the water service, directly affects the utility's ability to function as a utility, and, hence, are subject to the commission's jurisdiction, as provided in R.C. 4905.04."
We further conclude that the charge in question is a "financial device" within the meaning of R.C. 4905.31(E). The commission's jurisdiction, therefore, includes the power to change, alter, or modify the water-availability charge, as is practicable or advantageous to the parties interested.
The commission concluded that the charge should be assessed on a uniform basis. That determination necessarily takes precedence over the original contractual provisions agreed to by purchaser and landowner. To hold otherwise would improperly reduce the plenary jurisdiction granted the commission over public utilities.
Therefore the order of the Public Utilities Commission is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.