Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

COLUMBUS v. P.U.C., 158 Ohio St. 101 (1952)

CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLANTS v. Pub. UTILITIES Comm’n OF OHIOET AL., APPELLEES., 106 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 1952)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1952-06-18
Topic
general

COLUMBUS v. P.U.C., 158 Ohio St. 101 (1952) 106 N.E.2d 775 CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLANTS v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIOET AL., APPELLEES. No. 32920Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided June 18, 1952.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed COLUMBUS v. P.U.C., 158 Ohio St. 101 (1952). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

COLUMBUS v. P.U.C.,158 Ohio St. 101(1952)
106 N.E.2d 775
CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLANTS v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO
ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 32920
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 18, 1952.
Public Utilities Commission — Telephone companies — Rates — Ratebase — Depreciation reserve account in excess of accrueddepreciation — Not included in rate base, when — Funds investedin additional property — Property used in interstate commerce.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.

This cause is now before the court for the third time on appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Commission relative to a schedule of service rates to be charged by The Ohio Bell Telephone Company. The judgment of this court on the first appeal, whichPage 102modified and, as modified, affirmed the order of the commission as to the determination of the proper rate base, is reported inCity of Columbusv.Public Utilities Commission,154 Ohio St. 107,93 N.E.2d 693. The second order of the commission purporting to carry into effect the judgment of this court was reversed inOhio Bell Telephone Co.v.Public UtilitiesCommission,155 Ohio St. 526,99 N.E.2d 653, and the cause remanded to the commission with direction to determine the rate in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph six of the syllabus of the case ofCity of Columbusv.Public UtilitiesCommission, supra, and the mandate issued pursuant to the judgment in that case.

The present appeal is from the commission's order of October 4, 1951, responsive to the judgment inOhio Bell Telephone Co.v.Public Utilities Commission, supra.In this order the commission found that the amount of applicant's (The Ohio Bell Telephone Company) depreciation reserve account as of September 1, 1947, was $80,243,000; that this sum included the depreciation reserve which remained out of accruals collected by applicant as a part of the cost of service through the medium of rates collected from its subscribers and also $6,267,808 which was accrued by applicant's predecessors in title to certain property acquired by applicant; that this last named amount had been invested in interstate and intrastate plant and property by such predecessors in title and had not been collected by applicant through the medium of rates; that the depreciation reserve account should be reduced by the sum of $6,267,808, resulting in the sum of $73,975,192; that 93.87 per cent of applicant's entire plant and property was used in intrastate service; that that per cent amounted to $69,440,512; that the existing depreciation of applicant's plant and property as of September 1, 1947, includingPage 103its interstate and intrastate plant and property, was determined to be $55,781,266, 93.87 per cent of which was $52,361,837, which was the amount of existing depreciation allocable to applicant's used and useful plant and property in rendering intrastate service; that the difference between $69,440,512, depreciation reserve determined applicable to applicant's intrastate plant and property, and $52,361,837, existing depreciation determined, amounted to $17,078,675 and was the extent to which applicant's depreciation reserve allocable to its intrastate plant and property exceeded the accrued depreciation of applicant's intrastate utility property; that deducting $17,078,675 from the rate base of $291,416,835, determined in its first order, left the adjusted rate base of $274,338,160; and that the anticipated net income of $16,526,326, determined in the first order, divided by the adjusted rate base resulted in a rate of return of 6.02 per cent.

The commission ordered that the rate base and rate of return as determined in its order of March 28, 1949, be modified in conformity with the above findings; that the rate base be $274,338,160; that the rate of return be 6.02 per cent; and that in all other respects the order of March 28, 1949, be readopted and reaffirmed.
Mr. Richard W. Gordon, director of law, for appellant city of Columbus.Mr. Roy E. Browne, director of law, andMr. John R. White, for appellant city of Akron.Mr. Herbert A. Beane, city attorney, andMr. Maurice J.Gilbert, for appellant city of Dayton.Mr. Robert P. Wilson, city solicitor, for appellant city of Canton.Mr. Joseph H. Crowley, director of law, andMr. Robert M.Morgan, for appellant city of Cleveland.Mr. John McCarthy, director of law, for appellant city of Toledo.Page 104Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, andMr. John P.Case, for appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.Mr. Ashley M. Van Duzer, Mr. Carlyle Tresise, Mr. Thomas V.Koykka, Mr. Raymond H. Treffinger, Mr. George C. McConnaugheyandMr. Latham W. Murfey, Jr., for appellee The Ohio Bell Telephone Company.
Per Curiam.
This court is of the opinion that the findings and the order of the commission are supported by the record. The order is not unreasonable or unlawful, and is affirmed.Order affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.

TAFT, J., not participating.