is a reasonable rate of return on the value of the property used at the time that it is being used for the public service.... ”). Therefore, “the Constitution protects utilities from being limited to a charge for their property serving the public which is so ‘unjust’ as to be confiscatory.” Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 109 S.Ct. 609, 102 L.Ed.2d 646 (1989) (citing Covington & L Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578, 597, 17 S.Ct. 198, 41 L.Ed. 560 (1896); Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 585, 62 S.Ct. 736, 86 L.Ed. 1037 (1942); Federal Power Commission v. Texaco, Inc., 417 U.S. 380, 391-92, 94 S.Ct. 2315, 41 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974)); see also Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290, 293, 43 S.Ct. 353, 67 L.Ed. 659 (1923) (<HOLDING>); Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co., 262
holding that the plaintiff utility company deserved a remedy for confiscatory rates holding that the utilities commission has the discretion to use a hypothetical capital structure in setting customer rates particularly where the utility is a whollyowned subsidiary of a holding company holding commission cannot authorize utility to increase rates based solely on return on stock and warning of potential danger of tying rates to one factor over which the utility exercises total control  without regard for the interests of the consumer holding that public utility company is not liable for inaccessible bus company it licenses where there is no contract between them holding that constitutionally conferred right to operate utility without restraint or restriction by general assembly limits courts role to reviewing resident rates for reasonableness