Appeals from an Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Petition of Duquesne Light Company.
Albert D. Brandon, Utility Counsel, with him Ralph Lynch, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellant, City of Pittsburgh.
Joseph Gallo, Counsel for U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, with him Alan S. Rosenthal, U.S. Department of Justice, and S. John Cottone, U.S. Attorney, for appellant, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Ronald Zeigler, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward Munce, Acting Counsel, for appellee, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
Charles E. Thomas, with him David Dunlap, Jack F. Aschinger and Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas & Wood, for intervening appellee, Duquesne Light Company.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers. Opinion by Judge Rogers. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Manderino.
The intervening appellee, Duquesne Light Company, has filed motions to quash appeals taken by the City of Pittsburgh and the Atomic Energy Commission from an order of the Public Utility Commission allowing Duquesne Light Company a rate increase. The appeals thus attacked were taken in each instance by the filing of a praecipe for appeal only.
The ground of the motions to quash is that the appeals were not taken in accordance with required statutory procedures.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Law, Act of 1937, May 28, P.L. 1053, 66 P.S. 1101, provides a detailed procedure for appeals from orders of the Commission by its Article XI entitled Review and Appeals. Portions of that Article pertinent here are as follows:
"Section 1101(a). Within thirty days after the service of any order of the commission . . . any party to the proceedings affected thereby may appeal therefrom to the Superior Court. . . .
"Section 1101(b). All appeals to the Superior Court shall be by petition, setting forth specifically and concisely the . . . errors assigned to the order of the commission. . . . Each error relied on must be specified particularly and ...