IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 

January 2023 Term 

____________ 

No. 21-1001 

____________ 

CITY OF WHEELING, 

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

v. 

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA 

and THE CITY OF BENWOOD, 

Respondents. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Appeal from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia 

Case No. 21-0372-S-WI 

VACATED 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Rehearing Granted September 20, 2022. 

Submitted Upon Rehearing January 10, 2023. 

Filed April 24, 2023. 

Robert R. Rodecker, Esq.

John R. McGhee, Esq. 

KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Counsel for Petitioner 

Rosemary Humway-Warmuth, Esq. 

Office of City Solicitor 

City of Wheeling 

Wheeling, West Virginia 

Counsel for Petitioner

Jessica M. Lane, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Foster, Esq. 

Natalie E. Thomas, Esq. 

Public Service Commission of West 

Virginia 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Counsel for Respondent 

 

FILED

April 24, 2023

released at 3:00 p.m.

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE ARMSTEAD and JUSTICE HUTCHISON dissent and reserve their rights to

file separate opinions.
i 

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 

1. “In reviewing a Public Service Commission order, we will first 

determine whether the Commission’s order, viewed in light of the relevant facts and of the 

Commission’s broad regulatory duties, abused or exceeded its authority. We will examine 

the manner in which the Commission has employed the methods of regulation which it has 

itself selected, and must decide whether each of the order’s essential elements is supported 

by substantial evidence. Finally, we will determine whether the order may reasonably be 

expected to maintain financial integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly compensate 

investors for the risks they have assumed, and yet provide appropriate protection to the 

relevant public interests, both existing and foreseeable. The court’s responsibility is not to 

supplant the Commission’s balance of these interests with one more nearly to its liking, but 

instead to assure itself that the Commission has given reasoned consideration to each of 

the pertinent factors.” Syllabus Point 2, Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Service 

Commission of West Virginia, 166 W. Va. 423, 276 S.E.2d 179 (1981). 

2. “The detailed standard for our review of an order of the Public Service 

Commission contained in Syllabus Point 2 of Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Service 

Commission, 166 W.Va. 423, 276 S.E.2d 179 (1981), may be summarized as follows: (1) 

whether the Commission exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and powers; (2) whether there 

is adequate evidence to support the Commission’s findings; and, (3) whether the 

substantive result of the Commission’s order is proper.” Syllabus Point 1, Central West 
ii 

Virginia Refuse, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 190 W. Va. 416, 438 

S.E.2d 596 (1993). 

3. “‘In the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, words used 

in a statute will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.’ Syl. pt. 1, Tug

Valley v. Mingo Cty. Comm’n, 164 W.Va. 94, 261 S.E.2d 165 (1979).” Syllabus Point 7,

Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli, 237 W. Va. 275, 787 S.E.2d 546 (2016). 

4. “It is well established that the word ‘shall,’ in the absence of language 

in the statute showing a contrary intent on the part of the Legislature, should be afforded a 

mandatory connotation.” Syllabus Point 1, Nelson v. West Virginia Public Employees 

Service Board, 171 W. Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982). 

5. The 120-day dispute resolution period set forth in West Virginia Code 

§ 24-2-1(b)(6) (2021) commences on the date a request for investigation is filed with the 

Public Service Commission pursuant to that statute. 
1 

WALKER, Chief Justice: 

The City of Wheeling sells wholesale sewage treatment service to the City 

of Benwood. In April 2021, Wheeling increased the wholesale rate it charges to Benwood 

by 45%. Benwood complained to the Public Service Commission about the rate hike in 

May 2021 under West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) (2021). That statute requires the 

Commission to resolve complaints like Benwood’s “within 120 days of filing,” although 

that period may be tolled to permit the Commission to gather information. The 

Commission entered the final order resolving Benwood’s complaint in November 2021, 

after issuing three tolling orders the prior June, July, and October. Wheeling now asks us 

to vacate that final order, arguing that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by 

entering that final order more than 120 days after Benwood filed its complaint. We agree 

based on the plain language of the statute and so vacate the Commission’s order of

November 12, 2021.1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Wheeling contests the November 2021 final order of the Commission on 

jurisdictional grounds. Wheeling doesn’t challenge the substance of that order in this 

1

 Wheeling petitioned the Commission to reconsider its November 12, 2021 order 

and to stay that order pending appeal. The Commission denied that petition by order 

entered December 1, 2021. That order is vacated as well for the reasons discussed below. 
2 

appeal, so the following discussion is limited. We first outline the context of this dispute, 

then detail pertinent procedural events before the Commission. 

Wheeling is what is known as a “locally rate-regulated” utility (LRR). LRRs 

are “political subdivisions of this state providing separate or combined water and/or sewer 

services and having at least 4,500 customers and annual combined gross revenues of $3 

million . . . .”2 In 2015, the Legislature circumscribed the Commission’s jurisdiction over 

LRRs, specifically finding that they “are most fairly and effectively regulated by the local 

governing body with respect to rates, borrowing and capital projects.”3 The Legislature 

detailed the Commission’s jurisdiction over LRRs in West Virginia Code § 24-2-1. In this 

case, we are concerned with § 24-2-1(b)(6) (2021), which we discuss in detail, below. 

Wheeling sells sewer service to Benwood. On April 6, 2021, Wheeling 

raised the rate charged to Benwood for that service by 45%, effective May 21, 2021. 

Wheeling filed that ordinance with the Commission on April 14, 2021. On May 3, 2021, 

Benwood filed a complaint with the Commission under § 24-2-1(b)(6). Benwood asserted 

that the increased rate was “unfair, unreasonable, [and] discriminatory . . . .”4 Benwood 

2 W. Va. Code § 24-2-1(b) (2021). 

3 W. Va. Code § 24-1-1(j) (2015). 

4

 Benwood labelled its initial filing as a “Formal Complaint,” although 

§ 24-2-1(b)(6) refers to a “request for an investigation” as the filing that kicks off a 

proceeding under that statute. The parties appear to agree that Benwood’s Formal 
3 

also alleged that the increased rate—adopted by Wheeling to fund capital projects—was 

not based on Benwood’s proportionate share of the project’s scope of work. 

Wheeling sent a letter to the Commission on May 27, 2021 (24 days after 

Benwood filed its complaint). In that letter, Wheeling acknowledged Benwood’s 

complaint and suggested that, as of May 27, the Commission had issued neither an order 

to investigate Benwood’s complaint nor an order requiring Wheeling to answer the 

complaint.5 Wheeling included its answer to Benwood’s complaint with the May 27 letter.

The Commission entered an order noting Wheeling’s May 27 answer on June 2, 2021 (30 

days after Benwood filed its complaint). There, the Commission concluded that Wheeling 

“ha[s] not filed sufficient support for the rates, fees and charges in its municipal ordinance 

to facilitate Commission evaluation” of Benwood’s complaint. The Commission 

concluded that § 24-2-1(b)(6) empowered it to “toll the running of the statutory period for 

resolution of Benwood’s complaint pending the filing of necessary supporting information 

of a municipal ordinance.” It then ordered Wheeling to file the requested information—

including a class cost of study (CCOS)—no later than 30 days from the order date. The 

Commission then tolled the “running of the statutory period of resolution of the complaint 

Complaint equates to a request for investigation under § 24-2-1(b)(6), so we use the terms 

interchangeably in this Opinion. 

5 Cf. W. Va. Code R. § 150-1-6.2.5 (2019) (“Upon the filing of a formal complaint 

and the issuance of an order to investigate, the Commission will require that a copy of the 

complaint be served on each defendant, together with a copy of an order requiring each

defendant to satisfy or answer the complaint within ten (10) days.”). 
4 

for a period of 45 days, resulting in a statutory decision due date of Friday, October 15, 

2021.” 

Wheeling filed the information requested by the Commission in the June 2 

order, including the CCOS, on July 2, 2021. On July 14, Commission staff notified 

Wheeling of an error in the CCOS. Wheeling submitted a revised CCOS the next day, July 

15. On July 19, Commission staff moved the Commission to “exercise its statutory 

authority under Code §24-2-1(b)(6) and toll [the Benwood-Wheeling dispute] for an

additional thirteen (13) days from October 15, 2021, or until October 28, 2021” to put staff 

“in the posture that [they] should have been in on July 2, 2021, but for the flawed [s]tudy 

filed by Wheeling.” The Commission granted that motion on July 22, finding that (1) the 

then-current statutory deadline was October 15, 2021, (2) it was “reasonable to toll the 

running of the statutory deadline . . . and Staff Report due dates for 13 days,” and (3) 

“ORDERED that the running of the statutory deadline is tolled until September 28, 2021.” 

The administrative law judge issued a recommended decision on September 

13, 2021, in which he recommended that the Commission adopt the rate passed by 

Wheeling the prior April. Benwood and Commission staff filed exceptions to the 
5 

recommended decision in late September.6 Wheeling replied to Benwood and the 

Commission in early October. 

The Commission filed a third order tolling the statutory, 120-day deadline to 

resolve the Benwood-Wheeling dispute on October 26. In that order, the Commission 

stated that 

 [g]iven the complexity of this case and need for 

additional time for Commission consideration and review, the 

Commission will invoke its authority under W. Va. Code § 24-

2-1(b)(6) to toll the statutory period 120 days from the date 

Wheeling filed a Revised [CCOS], being July 15, 2021. The 

statutory deadline in this case should be extended to November 

12, 2021. 

. . . . 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the running of the 

statutory period for resolution of this matter is tolled 120 days 

from July 15, 2021, resulting in a statutory decision due date 

of Friday, November 12, 2021. 

The Commission entered its final decision on November 12, 2021, declining 

to adopt the administrative law judge’s recommended decision.7 Ten days later, Wheeling 

petitioned the Commission to reconsider its November 12 order. Wheeling contended that 

6

 The West Virginia Water Development Authority (WDA) participated in the 

proceedings before the Commission as amicus curiae. The WDA responded to 

Commission staff’s exceptions and advocated adoption of the administrative law judge’s 

proposed order. 

7 The Commission ordered Wheeling to adopt a recalculated wholesale sewer rate 

effective that day. 
6 

the Commission had exceeded its authority under the plain and unambiguous language of 

§ 24-2-1(b)(6) when, in its October 26 order, it restarted the 120-day dispute resolution 

clock from July 15, 2021 to allow it additional time to consider the Wheeling-Benwood 

dispute.8 Wheeling argued that, because the October 26 order was issued outside the 

Commission’s authority, the dispute resolution deadline remained October 28, 2021, i.e., 

the recalculated deadline set in the tolling order of July 22. Wheeling also argued that the 

October 26 order was erroneous because it calculated the 120-day resolution deadline from 

the date it provided the revised CCOS (July 15) rather than the date Benwood filed its 

complaint (May 3).9

The Commission denied Wheeling’s petition for reconsideration on 

December 1, 2021. The Commission reasoned that, “W. Va. Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) 

authorizes the Commission to toll the 120-day period for resolution of rate disputes 

between a[n LLR] and its customer until the necessary information showing the basis of 

the rates, fees, and charges or other information the Commission deems necessary is filed.” 

8

 Wheeling did not object to the dispute resolution deadline set by the Commission 

in the October 26, 2021 order at the time of its entry. Instead, it waited to raise the issue 

until after the Commission issued a final order adverse to Wheeling’s interests. While “the 

issue of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time,” State ex rel. Universal 

Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 239 W. Va. 338, 345, 801 S.E.2d 216, 223 (2017), that 

principle is not an invitation to gamesmanship. We strongly encourage litigants to raise 

credible concerns with subject matter jurisdiction as early as possible in a proceeding. 

9 Wheeling also moved the Commission to stay the November 12, 2021 order 

pending its appeal. In its December 1, 2021 order, the Commission denied Wheeling’s 

motion to stay the November 12 order. 
7 

Because Wheeling had not filed the revised CCOS until July 15, the Commission 

concluded that § 24-2-1(b)(6) authorized it to “toll” the 120-day dispute resolution period 

from that date. As to its earlier calculations of the dispute resolution deadline, the 

Commission stated that it had not 

invoke[d] its full authority to toll the decision due date by 120 

days from the date Wheeling filed its Revised [CCOS]. 

Instead, [it] granted Staff’s request to toll the decision due date 

only 13 days from the then-established statutory decision due 

date of October 15, 2021. The Commission recognized and 

corrected this oversight when it issued its October 26, 2021, 

Order that tolled the decision due date of this dispute 120 days 

from July 15, 2021. 

The Commission did not address Wheeling’s argument that it lacked

jurisdiction under § 24-2-1(b)(6) to toll the dispute resolution deadline to allow it more 

time to consider complex cases. 

Wheeling appealed the Commission’s orders of November 12 and December 

1. This Court affirmed those orders in an Opinion issued on April 26, 2022. We then 

granted Wheeling’s petition to reconsider that decision. The matter was submitted to the 

Court again following oral argument on January 10, 2023. This Opinion follows. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Well-established standards govern our review of the Commission’s orders of 

November 12, 2021, and December 1, 2021. Over forty years ago, this Court held that, 
8 

In reviewing a Public Service Commission order, we 

will first determine whether the Commission’s order, viewed 

in light of the relevant facts and of the Commission’s broad 

regulatory duties, abused or exceeded its authority. We will 

examine the manner in which the Commission has employed 

the methods of regulation which it has itself selected, and must 

decide whether each of the order’s essential elements is 

supported by substantial evidence. Finally, we will determine 

whether the order may reasonably be expected to maintain 

financial integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly 

compensate investors for the risks they have assumed, and yet 

provide appropriate protection to the relevant public interests, 

both existing and foreseeable. The court’s responsibility is not 

to supplant the Commission’s balance of these interests with 

one more nearly to its liking, but instead to assure itself that the 

Commission has given reasoned consideration to each of the 

pertinent factors.[10]

We restated that standard more succinctly in 1993: 

The detailed standard for our review of an order of the 

Public Service Commission contained in Syllabus Point 2 of 

Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Service Commission, 166 

W.Va. 423, 276 S.E.2d 179 (1981), may be summarized as

follows: (1) whether the Commission exceeded its statutory 

jurisdiction and powers; (2) whether there is adequate evidence 

to support the Commission’s findings; and, (3) whether the 

substantive result of the Commission’s order is proper.[11]

10 Syl. Pt. 2, Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va., 166 W. Va. 

423, 276 S.E.2d 179 (1981). 

11 Syl. Pt. 1, Cent. W. Va. Refuse, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va., 190 W. Va. 

416, 438 S.E.2d 596 (1993). 
9 

We are concerned in this case with (1): “whether the Commission exceeded

its statutory jurisdiction and powers.”12 To resolve this dispute, we are called upon to 

examine the language of § 24-2-1(b)(6), raising a question of law which this Court reviews 

de novo.13

III. ANALYSIS 

The substance of the Commission’s November 12, 2021 order is not the issue 

in this case. Rather, we decide whether the Commission acted within its statutory authority 

when it elected to start the jurisdictional, 120-day clock on the date it contends it received

sufficient information from Wheeling to resolve the Benwood-Wheeling dispute—July 15, 

2021. The plain language of § 24-2-1(b)(6) controls that decision. 

West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) states that:

12 Id. 

13 See Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 

(1995) (“Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or 

involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.”). The 

Commission suggests that its interpretation of § 24-2-1(b)(6) is entitled to deference under 

Syllabus Point 1 of Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Department as a permissible 

construction of an ambiguous statute. Id., 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995). As we 

conclude below, the operative language of § 24-2-1(b)(6) is plain and the Commission’s 

position is contrary to that statute. So, if Syllabus Point 1 of Appalachian Power is relevant 

here, it does not require this Court to afford deference to the Commission’s view of 

§ 24-2-1(b)(6) because where “the intention of the Legislature is clear, that is the end of 

the matter . . . .” Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Appalachian Power Co., 195 W. Va. at 573, 466 S.E.2d 

at 424. 
10 

(b) The jurisdiction of the commission over political 

subdivisions of this state providing separate or combined water 

and/or sewer services and having at least 4,500 customers and 

annual combined gross revenues of $3 million or more that are 

political subdivisions of the state is limited to: 

. . . . 

(6) Investigation and resolution of disputes between 

a political subdivision of the state providing wholesale water 

and/or wastewater treatment or other services, whether by

contract or through a tariff, and its customer or customers, 

including, but not limited to, rates, fees, and charges, service 

areas and contested utility combinations: Provided, That any 

request for an investigation related to such a dispute that is 

based on the act or omission of the political subdivision shall 

be filed within 30 days of the act or omission of the political 

subdivision and the commission shall resolve the dispute 

within 120 days of filing. The 120-day period for resolution of 

the dispute may be tolled by the commission until the 

necessary information showing the basis of the rates, fees, and 

charges or other information required by the commission is 

filed: Provided, however, That the disputed rates, fees, and 

charges fixed by the political subdivision providing separate or 

combined water and/or sewer services shall remain in full force 

and effect until set aside, altered or, amended by the 

commission in an order to be followed in the future.[14]

Wheeling posits that the italicized language starts the 120-day clock on the 

date the customer of an LRR files a complaint under § 24-2-1(b)(6). In this case, that is 

May 3, 2021. According to the Commission, the “‘may be tolled’ proviso of [§ 24-2-

1(b)(6)] means that if [it] does not have all the necessary information before it at [filing] 

then [it] has authority to determine that the 120-day review period begins on the date the 

14 W. Va. Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) (emphases added). 
11 

utility files the necessary information.” In other words, Wheeling relies on the italicized 

language above, while the Commission’s argument hangs on the underlined language. 

“Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar 

significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use.”15 

Likewise, “‘[i]n the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, words used in a 

statute will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.’”16 Those principles 

direct us to the common, ordinary meaning of the verb “toll”: “to stop the running of; to 

abate.”17 Similarly, a “tolling statute” is defined as “[a] law that interrupts the running of 

a statute of limitations in certain situations . . . .”18 Courts have recognized that tolling 

“operates to suspend or interrupt [a statute of limitation’s] running while certain activity 

15 Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Gen. Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 

144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959). 

16 Syl. Pt. 7, Wheeling Park Comm’n v. Dattoli, 237 W. Va. 275, 787 S.E.2d 546 

(2016) (quoting Syl. Pt. 1, Tug Valley Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Mingo Cnty. Comm’n, 164 W.

Va. 94, 261 S.E.2d 165 (1979)); see also Syl. Pt. 4, W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Weaver, 

222 W. Va. 668, 671 S.E.2d 673 (2008) (“‘In the absence of any definition of the intended 

meaning of words or terms used in a legislative enactment, they will, in the interpretation 

of the act, be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning in the connection in 

which they are used.’ Syllabus point 1, Miners in General Group v. Hix, 123 W.Va. 637, 

17 S.E.2d 810 (1941), overruled on other grounds by Lee–Norse Co. v. Rutledge, 170 

W.Va. 162, 291 S.E.2d 477 (1982).”). 

17 Toll, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1791 (11th ed. 2019). 

18 Tolling statute, id. (emphasis added). 
12 

takes place.”19 And in the context of equitable tolling, the Supreme Court of the United 

States has commented that “[p]rinciples of equitable tolling usually dictate that when a 

time bar has been suspended and then begins to run again upon a later event, the time 

remaining on the clock is calculated by subtracting from the full limitations period 

whatever time ran before the clock was stopped.”20 While § 24-2-1(b)(6) is not a statute 

of limitations per se, the operative concept of the definition of a “tolling statute” is readily 

transferable to § 24-2-1(b)(6): the Commission may suspend or interrupt the running of 

the 120-day clock once it has begun, but it may not postpone its commencement. 

The Commission asserts that this phrase—“[t]he 120-day period for 

resolution of the dispute may be tolled by the commission”—empowers it to determine 

when the 120-day jurisdictional clock begins to run. But the language that precedes that 

phrase— “shall” and “of filing”—belies the Commission’s argument. Regarding “shall,” 

“[i]t is well established that the word ‘shall,’ in the absence of language in the statute 

showing a contrary intent on the part of the Legislature, should be afforded a mandatory 

connotation.”21 In the context of § 24-2-1(b)(6), the combination of “shall” and “of filing” 

19 Flannery v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC, 94 A.3d 553, 569 (Conn. 2014) (citations 

omitted). 

20 United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (emphasis added) (citations 

omitted). 

21 Syl. Pt. 1, Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Emps. Ins. Bd., 171 W. Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 

(1982). We see no indication in § 24-2-1(b)(6) that the Legislature intended “shall” to be 

anything less than mandatory. 
13 

communicates the Legislature’s clear intent to start the 120-day clock to resolve disputes 

under § 24-2-1(b)(6) when an LLR customer files its complaint. Had the Legislature 

intended to empower the Commission to delay the commencement of the 120-day clock as 

it did in this case, the Legislature would have said that the Commission must resolve a 

request for investigation filed under § 24-2-1(b)(6) within 120 days of the filing of 

“information showing the basis of the rates, fees, and charges or other information required 

by the commission with the Commission.” In view of the plain language of the statute, we 

now hold that the 120-day dispute resolution period set forth in West Virginia Code § 24-

2-1(b)(6) (2021) commences on the date a request for investigation is filed with the Public 

Service Commission pursuant to that statute.22

Applying that holding to the facts of this case, we conclude that the 

Commission erroneously commenced the 120-day dispute resolution period on July 15, 

2021, rather than the date Benwood filed its complaint, May 3, 2021. Due to that error, the 

Commission erroneously calculated the deadline to resolve the Benwood-Wheeling dispute 

as November 12, 2021. Section 24-2-1(b)(6) required the Commission to resolve the 

22 We note the Commission’s argument that the Legislature cannot have intended 

the 120-day clock to start before the Commission has received the information necessary 

to resolve a dispute filed under § 24-2-1(b)(6). According to the Commission, that reading 

of § 24-2-1(b)(6) puts the LLR in “control over when it provides the Commission with 

necessary information.” But § 24-2-1(b)(6) empowers the Commission to toll the running 

of the 120-day period once it commences. Practically, the Commission imposed deadlines 

on Wheeling to respond to the Commission’s information requests which, presumably, the 

Commission would have enforced had Wheeling failed to supply information requested by 

the Commission on time. 
14 

Benwood-Wheeling dispute on or before October 28, 2021, that is May 3, 2021 + 120 days 

+ 45 days (June 2 order) + 13 days (July 22 order).23 The final order in this case (as well 

as the order denying Wheeling’s motion to reconsider) was entered after October 28, 2021. 

Because the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the Benwood-Wheeling dispute 

after October 28, 2021, its November 12 and December 1, 2021 orders are void and we 

now vacate them.24

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, the Commission lacked jurisdiction over 

this matter when it entered its orders of November 12 and December 1, 2021. Accordingly, 

we now vacate those orders. 

Vacated. 

23 As noted in section I., in its June 2, 2021, order, the Commission directed 

Wheeling to file the requested information within 30 days of the order. Yet, the 

Commission tolled the 120-day dispute resolution period by 45 days, without explanation. 

The July 22 order is similarly flawed. There, the Commission tolled the 120-day period 

by 13 days to “put staff in the posture that [they] would have been in on July 2, 2021, but 

for the flawed [CCOS] filed by Wheeling,” rather than to allow Wheeling to file additional 

information requested by the Commission. That said, we utilize 45 days and 13 days to 

calculate the various dispute resolution dates for the sake of simplicity and because their 

use does not affect the outcome of Wheeling’s appeal. 

24 Because we have vacated the Commission’s orders of November 12, 2021 and

December 1, 2021, it is not necessary to address Wheeling’s challenge to the Commission’s 

denial of its motion to stay those orders.