Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.33 (2026)

Rebates, special rates, and free service prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

January 1, 2001

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 3 - 123rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) No public utility shall directly or indirectly, or by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device or method, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person, firm, or corporation a greater or lesser compensation for any services rendered, or to be rendered, except as provided in Chapters 4901., 4903., 4905., 4907., 4909., 4921., and 4923. of the Revised Code, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person, firm, or corporation for doing a like and contemporaneous service under substantially the same circumstances and conditions.

(B) No public utility shall furnish free service or service for less than actual cost for the purpose of destroying competition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 678 N.E.2d 922 (Ohio 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 678 N.E.2d 922 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 29× “34 and overstepped its authority in finding that Ohio Edison violated R.C. 4905.33. Each party also filed supplemental briefs on the two questions that we raised sua sponte: “Did the commission find that R.”

AK Steel Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 95 Ohio St. 3d 81 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 4× “AK Steel contends that these differences are unreasonable and in violation of R.C. 4905.33 and 4905.35. Those statutes prohibit certain discriminatory practices: “No public utility shall directly or indirectly, or by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device or method,…”

Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). · cites it 2× “[11] *297 The LDC's could not exact "a greater or lesser compensation for any services rendered .”

Weiss v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 734 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 4× “R.C. 4905.33 prohibits discriminatory pricing for “Ike and contemporaneous service” rendered “under substantially the same circumstances and conditions.”

Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 1997 Ohio 196 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 37× “] Public utilities—Public utility’s authority to grant reduced-rate service to a political subdivision not subject to R.C. 4905.33 prohibition against furnishing below-cost service for the purpose of detroying competition.”

In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1608 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “at ¶ 23, quoting R.C. 4905.33, and construing R.C. 4905.35 as having “the same effect,” id.”

Allnet Commc'ns Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 70 Ohio St. 3d 202 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 4× “R.C. 4905.33 provides in part: “No public utility shall directly or indirectly * * * demand, collect or receive from any person, firm, or corporation a greater or lesser compensation for any services rendered * * * than it charges * * * or receives from any other person, firm,…”

Migden-Ostrander v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 812 N.E.2d 955 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 3× “Did the commission unlawfully approve line-extension tariff stipulations that (1) improperly delegate regulatory power or (2) contain discriminatory provisions in violation of R.C. 4905.33 and 4905.35? {¶ 29} OCC claims that the commission abrogated its regulatory duties and…”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 513 N.E.2d 337 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 3× “R.C. 4905.33 and 4905.35 are anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit “unreasonable” or “undue” discrimination or preferences in utility service and rates.”

DiFranco v. FirstEnergy Corp., 2012 Ohio 5445 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 2× “33 allows the charging of different or special rates unless the utility is performing “a like and contemporaneous service under substantially the same circumstances and conditions.” And R.C. 4905.35 allows utilities to make or give preferences and advantages to customers, so…”

Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “” R.C. 4905.33(B) is inapplicable because OCC makes no claim under that provision that CG & E is furnishing “free service or service for less than actual cost for the purpose of destroying competition.”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 527 N.E.2d 777 (Ohio 1988). “R.C. 4905.33 and 4905.35 are anti-discrimination statutes that prohibit “unreasonable” or “undue” discrimination or preference in utility service and rates.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.33(A) — 2 cases

AK Steel Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 95 Ohio St. 3d 81 (Ohio 2002). “AK Steel contends that these differences are unreasonable and in violation of R.C. 4905.33 and 4905.35. Those statutes prohibit certain discriminatory practices: “No public utility shall directly or indirectly, or by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device or method,…”

AK Steel Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2002 Ohio 1735 (Ohio 2002).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.33(B) — 1 case

Ohio Consumers' Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 111 Ohio St. 3d 300 (Ohio 2006). “” R.C. 4905.33(B) is inapplicable because OCC makes no claim under that provision that CG & E is furnishing “free service or service for less than actual cost for the purpose of destroying competition.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.