Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LANCASTER ICE MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (01/21/58)

January 21, 1958

LANCASTER ICE MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 121, 125, Oct. T., 1957, and Nos. 40, 41, March T., 1957, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Docket No. C-15559, in case of Lancaster Ice Manufacturing Company et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. Order of commission, as modified, affirmed.

COUNSEL

Roberts R. Appel, with him Herbert S. Levy, Anthony R. Appel and Appel, Ranck, Levy & Appel, for appellant.

Carl Rice and Witmer & Rice, for appellant.

Earl V. Compton, with him Compton, Handler & Berman, for appellants.

Ernest R. von Starck, with him Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for industrial user, under Rule 46.

Miles Warner, Assistant Counsel, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Vincent Butler and Austin Gavin, for utility company, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 617]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

On August 30, 1954 we filed an opinion in Harrisburg Steel Corp.*fn1 v. Pa. P.U.C., 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 550 (allocatur refused 177 Pa. Superior Ct. xxvii), 109 A.2d 719, and remanded to the Public Utility Commission the consolidated proceeding, "for an order consistent herewith." In that opinion we said, inter alia, at page 553: "Pennsylvania Power and Light Company was formed by the merger of eight utility companies

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 618]

    and was incorporated on June 4, 1920 under the laws of this State. During the following ten years the Company acquired by purchase many other utility companies which were merged into its system for the supply of electric energy throughout the eastern section of central Pennsylvania. The problem which gave rise to the first question here involved, had its origin in the promulgation of a uniform accounting system for public utilities by the Federal Power Commission in 1936. A like system of accounting was adopted by Pennsylvania Public Service Commission which, on January 1, 1937, directed all electric utilities to maintain their books on an original cost basis in accord with the uniform accounting provisions. We are concerned primarily with account 100.5 in the uniform system entitled Electric Plant Acquisition Clause. In this account the Company was required to include 'the difference between (a) the cost to the accounting utility of electric plant acquired as an operating unit or system by purchase, merger, consolidation, liquidation, or otherwise, and (b) the original cost, estimated if not known, of such property, less the amount or amounts which may be credited to the depreciation and amortization reserves of the accounting utility at the time of acquisition with respect to such property.' In this case the account was intended to disclose the amount in excess of depreciated original cost which was paid by the Company for the utilities purchased by it. On December 19, 1944 the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.