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.

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (06/17/66)

decided: June 17, 1966.

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION



Appeal from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 91503, in case of Philadelphia Suburban Water Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.

COUNSEL

Norman T. Hayes, Jr., with him Robert H. Young, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for protestant, appellant.

Miles Warner, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward Munce, Assistant Counsel, and Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Milton Berger, with him James E. Riely, and Berger, Riely, Speese & Barol, for applicant, intervening appellee.

Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Ervin, P. J. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Ervin

[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 95]

This is an appeal by Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (Suburban) from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission dated August 9, 1965, granting the application of Dublin Water Company at A. 91503 authorizing Dublin to provide water service to two tracts of undeveloped land in Upper Dublin Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Protest to the application was filed by Suburban.

A previous order of the Commission, dated June 1, 1964, refused Dublin's application at A. 89823 to serve a large portion of Upper Dublin Township, dismissed Dublin's complaint at C. 17661, and approved Suburban's extension into a development known as Aidenn Lair. The 1964 order of the Commission was appealed and affirmed by this Court on September 16, 1965: Dublin Water Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 180, 213 A.2d 139. Our opinion in that appeal sets forth the history of Dublin and its disputes with Suburban over rendition of water service in portions of Upper Dublin Township, prior to the present application.

In its present order of August 9, 1965, the Commission reviewed the facts showing organization and certification of Dublin as a public utility on September 2, 1958, serving an area known as Maple Glen in the

[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 96]

    northwest portion of Upper Dublin Township. The Commission pointed to later extensions of Dublin's service area under Commission certification. These included two comparatively small areas to the east and a larger area to the west of Dublin's original territory.

Dublin's present application at A. 91503 covers the Boyce and Wentz tracts of 125 and 78 acres respectively. The Boyce tract is contiguous to the southern portion of Dublin's existing certificated territory. The Wentz tract, south and east of the Boyce tract, is separated by some 400 feet of territory not certificated and is approximately equidistant from the existing mains of Suburban and Dublin. Hearings were held December 2, 1964 and February 5, 1965. Dublin's evidence showed that it had entered into tentative agreements to furnish water service to the developers of these two tracts, subject to certification by the Commission. On January 21, 1965, Mr. Myers, vice-president of Suburban, wrote a joint letter to the owners of the two tracts offering to furnish service to the developments at a cost of $87,500 for the Louden development (Boyce tract) and $62,500 for the E. & W. development (Wentz tract). In granting the certificate to Dublin the Commission stated that Suburban did not "substantially impugn" Dublin's readiness and ability to furnish service to the two tracts in question. The Commission also stated: "We have no doubt that protestant could furnish efficient and satisfactory service to these developers by extending its present facilities to their tracts. However, protestant's ability to furnish service is not conclusive of the question of ...


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.