THE APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO UTILITY RATE‐MAKING PROCEEDINGS

• Published date: 01 June 1986
• Author: DEBORAH A. BALLAM
• Date: 01 June 1986
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.1986.tb00499.x

THE APPLICABILITY

OF

RES JUDICATAl

MAKING PROCEEDINGS

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

TO

UTILITY RATE-

*DEBORAH A. BALLAM

On March

27,1985,

the Ohio Supreme Court, in an unassuming two-

page opinion, issued a decision in the

case

of

Consumers'

Camel

u.

Public

Utilities

Cmmission,'

that has far-reaching importance for public util-

ity law in Ohio, and for the country. In this decision, the Ohio Supreme

Court held that the doctrine

of

res

judicatalcollateral estoppel applies

to public utility rate-making proceedings. By doing

so,

it

became one of

the few courts in the country to

so

hold. Most states, while willingly ap-

plying

res

judicatalcollateral estoppel to administrative hearings in

general, have remained reluctant

to

apply this principle to public utility

rate-making proceedings?

The purpose of this article is

to

explore the American judicial system's

reluctance

to

apply

res

judicata

to

public utility rate-making proceedings.

Every year, hundreds of utility rate

cases

are filed nationwide. In

1982,

Ohio alone had decided fifty-three rate cases by October

1

of

that year,

and at that time eighty-six additional

cases

were pending? The fifty-three

cases that had been decided involved granted rate increases

of

$620,909,315.'

In

1983

Ohio data show thirty-seven

rate

cases pending

*

Assistant Professor. Academic Faculty

of

Finance, The Ohio State University.

'

16 Ohio St.

3d

9,475

N.E.2d

782 (1985).

See

64

AM.

JUR.

2d

F'ublic

Utilities

$

291 at 791-792 (1972); and 73

B

C.J.S.

Publie

Utilities

$94

at

399

(1983). Rate-making proceedings traditionally have been viewed as

a legislative rather than a judicial activity, and hence inappropriate

for

applying res

judicatalcollateral estoppel principles. However, courts generally have applied res

judicatalcollateral estoppel

to

public utility decisions that

do

not involve rate-making.

a

ARGUS

RESEARCH

CORPORATION,

ARGUS

UTILITY

SCOPE

REGULATORY

SERVICE,

MAJOR

RATE

CASES

PENDING

November,

1983

(1983);

OHIO

OFFICE

OF

CONSUMERS' COUNSEL,

RATE

CASES

DECIDED

AND PENDING FOR

OHIO'S

MAJOR

INVEsTOR OWNED

PUBLIC

UTILITIES

(1982).

'

Id.