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.

ALLEGHENY CENTER ASSOCIATES v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (03/29/67)

decided: March 29, 1967.

ALLEGHENY CENTER ASSOCIATES, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION



Appeals from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Nos. 18106 and 18107, in case of Allegheny Center Associates v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.

COUNSEL

Frank L. Seamans, with him William H. Pentz, and Eckert, Seamans & Cherin, for appellant.

Daniel F. Joella, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Charles E. Thomas, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Thomas J. Munsch, Jr., Walter T. Wardzinski, and Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas & Wood, for intervening appellee.

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

Author: Hoffman

[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 335]

This is an appeal by Allegheny Center Associates (Allegheny), owners and operators of a roofed-over mall "commercial center" from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. The issue, simply stated, is whether it was unreasonable for the Duquesne Light Company to refuse to supply single point electric service at wholesale rates to Allegheny for resale

[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 336]

    or redistribution to prospective tenants.*fn1 The pertinent facts follow:

Prior to June 1, 1965, Duquesne's Tariff Rule No. 18 provided:

"18. Resale. Electric energy supplied to customers shall not be resold, except when supplied to customers operating office buildings and buildings of similar character, in which event it may be resold by the customer to tenants, provided such tenants occupy the premises designated in the contract between the customer and the Company, and the rates charged such tenants by the customer correspond to the rates charged by the Company for a like and contemporaneous service." (Emphasis supplied).

Under this Rule, owners of certain buildings were permitted to purchase single point electric service at wholesale rates. This electricity would then be resold by the owners to their tenants at rates which would correspond to the regular rates charged to customers for similar service by Duquesne.

On March 31, 1965, Duquesne filed a tariff supplement with the Public Utility Commission revising Tariff Rule No. 18. It was intended that this rule become ...


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.