Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Per Curiam,.

Appellant propounds two propositions of law, arguing that the commission abused its discretion by refusing to express an opinion on the non-rate aspects of Garfield’s ordinances and by refusing to assess the hearing expenses and costs against Garfield. For the reasons expressed below, we find that neither proposition of law has merit.

This court will reverse a commission order only if we find it to be unlawful or unreasonable. R.C. 4903.13. We do not reweigh evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the commission on factual questions where there is sufficient probative…