Court Opinion

ID: 9846679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:45:24.644682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.419890
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
The sole issue in this case is whether the “Notice” given was adequate and sufficient to apprise the petitioners that a restructuring of rates among the various classes of tariffs in existence was to be considered at the rate hearing before the Corporation Commission. A recitation of the following facts is necessary for a proper understanding of this issue.
On December 3, 1974, The Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSC) filed an application seeking additional revenue by distribution of a 12.5% rate increase equally among its customers. The application did not mention a proposal to restructure rates. On December 9, 1974, a notice prepared by the Corporation Commission, after rejection of notice prepared by PSC, was issued which provided in pertinent part:
“Notice Is Hereby Given that the above named Applicant has filed an Application alleging that its earnings from electric utility service in Oklahoma are less than reasonable and asking that the Commission adjust the rates and grant such other relief as to enable the Applicant to earn a fair and adequate rate of return on its plant, property, and other assets devoted to public utility service in Oklahoma.
* * * * * #
“It Is Further Ordered that Applicant shall cause the above notice to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county seat of all counties in which the Applicant has customers that will be affected by the Application and that notice by mail be given to the Chief Executive Officer of each municipality in which the Applicant furnishes electric retail service, and that such notice, both by mail and by publication, shall be made at Applicant’s expense, submitting proof of publication and affidavits of mailing for the record herein.
“It Is Further Ordered that after hearing the Commission, regardless of the relief requested in the Application, shall issue such Orders and grant such relief as it deems to be proper, necessary, fair, reasonable and equitable in the premises, whether or not specifically prayed for in the Application.”
The notice was published and PSC mailed flyers to its customers advising them a rate increase was being sought. It also advertised in certain newspapers that “each customer will pay a proportionate share of the increase.” Nothing appeared in any of the notices, mailings, or newspaper advertisements alluding to restructuring of PSC’s rates. No further notices were given.
Petitioners do not assert that PSC was not entitled to a rate increase, nor that restructuring of rates might not have been appropriate had proper notice been given. They allege that they were denied due process because of the insufficient, inadequate, and misleading notice given by the Corporation Commission. Instead of determining *511an adjustment in the rates as the notice stated would be done, the Corporation Commission ordered a restructuring of rates which abrogated various classes of special tariffs without notice to those affected by the change in rate structure.
The Corporation Commission argues that the clause stating it would grant whatever relief necessary rendered the notice adequate. I do not agree. The notice did not adequately or meaningfully apprise petitioners of the subject matter of the action. Instead it notified them that a hearing would be held on a matter to which they had no objection, i.e., a proportionate increase in rates to be shared equally by all customers.
Notice is a jurisdictional requirement as well as a fundamental requisite of due process. Due process requires adequate notice and a realistic opportunity to appear at a hearing in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. The right to be heard is of little value unless adequate notice is given, and due process is violated by the mere act of exercising judicial power upon process not reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of an action.1
The failure of due process is amply demonstrated in this case by the fact the Corporation Commission and PSC both knew and realized a “restructuring of rates” was to be an important and integral part of the hearing.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Corporation Commission did not have jurisdiction to enter an order restructuring the rates and the cause should be remanded to the Corporation Commission for further proceedings after issuance of proper notice.
However, this Court has a duty to guard against any attempt to upset settled and established rate structures by imposition of new requirements which did not exist before; therefore, I would recognize that all procedural modifications enunciated herein should not be construed as invalidating the notice procedures in any other circumstance other than in the case before us, and that the application of the imposition of proper notice standards and procedures should be prospective only except as to the petitioners herein.2
I am authorized to state that Justice SIMMS and Justice DOOLIN concur in the views herein expressed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion of this Court heretofore promulgated on October 12, 1976, appearing in 47 O.B.J. 2326, shall be and the same is hereby withdrawn. The opinion of this Court adopted this date is promulgated in lieu thereof and as a substitute for said earlier opinion.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 7th day of March, 1977.

. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255, 89 A.L. R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.Ct. 579, 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).

. See Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 721 (Okl.1968).