Opinion ID: 4202919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The property owners’ second proposition of law

Text: {¶ 42} In their second proposition of law, the property owners argue that the PUCO erred in determining that Columbia Gas did not violate R.C. 4905.22’s prohibition against furnishing inadequate service. As with the first proposition of law, before addressing the merits of this argument, we must decide whether we have jurisdiction to consider it. 1. The property owners’ inadequate-service argument is properly before the court {¶ 43} R.C. 4905.22 provides that “[e]very public utility shall furnish necessary and adequate service and facilities, and every public utility shall furnish and provide with respect to its business such instrumentalities and facilities, as are 14 January Term, 2017 adequate and in all respects just and reasonable.” The property owners assert in their notice of appeal that PUCO violated the “just and reasonable” standard set forth in R.C. 4905.22. The property owners’ second proposition of law, however, alleges that PUCO erred in failing to find that Columbia Gas furnished “inadequate service” in violation of R.C. 4905.22. In Columbia Gas’s view, even though the property owners cited R.C. 4905.22 in both their notice of appeal and their second proposition of law, the property owners’ shift in phraseology—from “just and reasonable” to “inadequate service”—created a different argument entirely, barring the court’s consideration of it. We are unconvinced. {¶ 44} R.C. 4903.13 provides that the procedure for challenging a PUCO order is through a notice of appeal “setting forth the order appealed from and the errors complained of.” The assignments of error enumerated in a notice of appeal “delimit the issues” for the court’s consideration. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-5466, 816 N.E.2d 238, ¶ 21. A claim not set forth in the notice of appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider it. In re Complaint of Smith v. Ohio Edison Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 7, 2013Ohio-4070, 996 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 28. {¶ 45} The parties cite no authority that addresses the precise level of detail R.C. 4903.13 requires in a notice of appeal. Instructive, however, is our precedent on R.C. 5717.04, which governs appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals to this court (as well as to the courts of appeals). The relevant text of R.C. 5717.04, which is almost identical to R.C. 4903.13, provides that “[a] notice of appeal shall set forth the decision of the board appealed from and the errors therein complained of.” Hypertechnical jurisdictional objections are disfavored under R.C. 5717.04. Cruz v. Testa, 144 Ohio St.3d 221, 2015-Ohio-3292, 41 N.E.3d 1213, ¶ 21. The sufficiency of a notice of appeal is judged not merely by the form of the words used but also their context. Id. 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 46} The circumstances do not support Columbia Gas’s view that the shift in phraseology from the property owners’ notice of appeal to their second proposition of law deprives us of jurisdiction to consider the issue of inadequate service. In the proceedings below, (1) the PUCO addressed the inadequate-service claim in its January 14, 2015 order, (2) the property owners’ rehearing applications articulated an inadequate-service claim, (3) Columbia Gas responded to this claim in its memorandum contra on rehearing, and (4) the PUCO addressed the claim on rehearing. Viewed in this light, the property owners’ notice of appeal suffices to put the court, Columbia Gas, and the PUCO on notice as to the inadequate-service dispute. We now proceed to consider the merits. 2. The property owners have not established a violation of R.C. 4905.22 {¶ 47} The property owners first assert that the PUCO erred when it ruled that Columbia Gas did not violate the proscription in R.C. 4905.22 against inadequate service because, according to the property owners, unauthorized abandonment equates to inadequate service. {¶ 48} Even assuming, without deciding, that an unauthorized abandonment of service equates to the provision of inadequate service, the property owners’ argument fails because, as discussed above, the PUCO correctly concluded that Columbia Gas did not effect an unauthorized abandonment of service. {¶ 49} The property owners next rely on the PUCO’s statement that Columbia Gas acted unreasonably in communicating its reconnection standard to support the argument that Columbia Gas had furnished inadequate service. In its order, the PUCO found that Columbia Gas had not provided inadequate service, even though the PUCO found that Columbia Gas had acted “unreasonably” in its “unwillingness to articulate a standard that must be met before reconnecti[ng]    service” to the Oakside Road residents. 2015 Ohio PUC LEXIS 39, at  (Jan. 14, 2015). In support of its conclusion that Columbia Gas had acted unreasonably, the PUCO observed, “Columbia has failed to provide any 16 January Term, 2017 information as to the level and duration of such level that the residents must meet in order for the Company to consider the situation resolved so as to enable the restitution of natural gas service.” Id. at -39. {¶ 50} On the surface, there is a logical appeal to the property owners’ argument that Columbia Gas furnished inadequate service: if a utility behaves unreasonably in its dealings with customers, it follows that such unreasonable conduct might equate to the provision of inadequate service. But the property owners do not move past this perfunctory level of analysis. They cite no authority for their proposition and do not establish that Columbia Gas’s actions constitute a violation of R.C. 4905.22. This alone is reason to reject their argument. In re Complaint of Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015-Ohio-5055, 49 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 30 (explaining that an undeveloped legal argument does not establish reversible error). {¶ 51} Another problem is that the property owners misconstrue what the PUCO did in its order. In analyzing whether Columbia Gas furnished inadequate service, the PUCO looked at several factors: “the number, severity, and duration of the service problems; whether the service could have been corrected; and whether the service problems likely are caused by the company’s facilities.” 2015 Ohio PUC LEXIS 39, at  (Jan. 14, 2015). Applying these factors, the PUCO determined that Columbia Gas did not furnish inadequate service. True, the PUCO ruled that Columbia Gas had acted unreasonably in communicating its reconnection standard. But the PUCO ruled that “[t]his one factor alone, when considered with all the other facts and circumstances in this case, do[es] not rise to the level of legally inadequate service as contemplated by R.C. 4905.22.” 2015 Ohio PUC LEXIS 993, at . The property owners do not challenge the factors that the PUCO took into account, nor do they allege that the PUCO misapplied the factors. The property owners’ failure to challenge the PUCO’s findings defeats the argument 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO that Columbia Gas violated R.C. 4905.22. In re Comm. Rev. of Capacity Charges of Ohio Power Co., 147 Ohio St.3d 59, 2016-Ohio-1607, 60 N.E.3d 1221, ¶ 47. C. The property owners’ remaining arguments cannot be considered {¶ 52} The property owners make two additional arguments, but neither is properly before us. First, they insist that the PUCO’s order has the effect of flipping the burden of proof from the utility to the customer. In the property owners’ view, this controversy should have been litigated through an abandonment proceeding, a proceeding at which the utility has the burden of proof. R.C. 4905.21. Because Columbia Gas did not file an abandonment application, the property owners aver, they were left with no other choice than to file a complaint under R.C. 4905.26, which in turn required them to shoulder the burden of proof. But this argument was not asserted in an application for rehearing,4 and thus we lack jurisdiction under R.C. 4903.10 to address it. In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg, 134 Ohio St.3d 29, 2012-Ohio-5270, 979 N.E.2d 1229, ¶ 54. Further, even if the argument were properly before us, it would fail. We have established that Columbia Gas did not intend to abandon service to the property owners, therefore it had no obligation to file an abandonment application. Because this case is properly a complaint proceeding, the PUCO correctly placed the burden of proof on the complainants, the property owners. See Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm., 5 Ohio St.2d 189, 190, 214 N.E.2d 666 (1966). {¶ 53} Second, the property owners maintain that the PUCO established a reconnection standard that is impossible to meet. The PUCO’s initial order stated that the standard for reconnection should be a 4 percent natural-gas-in-air mixture. But on rehearing, the PUCO modified this to 0 percent. The property owners have 4 During the proceedings below, a few of the property owners asserted on rehearing that the PUCO erred in ruling that they had failed to meet their burden of proof. But the argument presented here is a separate issue involving not whether the property owners had met their burden of proof but whether Columbia Gas should have had the burden of proof. 18 January Term, 2017 forfeited any challenge to this latter standard because they did not challenge it in a second rehearing application. See In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 147 Ohio St.3d 439, 2016-Ohio-1608, 67 N.E.3d 734, ¶ 56.