Opinion
No. 38113
Decided March 27, 1963.
Appeal — From Public Utilities Commission — Rate case — Order approving means of presenting evidence of depreciation — Not final appealable order — Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
The East Ohio Gas Company filed with the Public Utilities Commission an application for an increase in rates. That application is now pending before the commission for hearing and determination as a formal rate case.
Thereafter, the gas company, by ancillary application filed with the commission, sought to obtain a preliminary order approving its method of a random sampling plan for the determination of locations for the inspection of its underground plants for the purpose of determining depreciation of the entire underground plant.
After extensive hearings on the sampling plan held prior to the secretary's report and separate from all other elements of the case, the application for a preliminary order of the commission approving of the random sampling plan was granted, and the purpose was definitely limited to the approval of the plan, i.e., that such approval and execution of the plan did not bind the parties or the commission as to conclusions as to the extent of the depreciation, nor did it foreclose the submission of other plans.
An appeal from the order of the commission approving the application of the random sampling plan has been filed in this court. The case is now before the court on motion of the Public Utilities Commission to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order.
Mr. Harold E. DeHoff, city solicitor of Canton, Mr. Richard F. Maier, city solicitor of Massillon, and Mr. Bronis Klementowicz, law director of Cleveland, for appellants.
Mr. Mark McElroy and Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorneys general, Mr. Andrew R. Sarisky, Mr. Herbert T. Maher and Mr. John M. Kistler, for appellee.
Approval of the method proposed by the utility of determining depreciation of its underground plants only represents approval of one means of presenting the evidence as to depreciation in the valuation of part of the inventory. It is a matter primarily within the discretion of the commission in the first instance, and, if the commission abuses its discretion, such abuse can be urged if necessary in an appeal from the final determination of the commission.
The order in this case is purely of a preliminary nature. No other action has been taken in this case. This order, in view of the limitations as to its use as evidence, affected no substantial rights of the parties and is, therefore, not a final order from which an appeal can be taken.
The motion to dismiss is sustained.
Appeal dismissed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
GIBSON, J., not participating.