Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Duquesne Light Company, Rate Investigation Docket No. 373.
Charles E. Thomas, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Carroll F. Purdy, Charles E. Thomas, Jr., and Thomas & Thomas, for petitioner.
Kathleen Herzog Larkin, First Assistant Counsel, with her Michael Kerrigan, Assistant Counsel, and Barnett Satinsky, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Albert D. Brandon, for Consumer Advocate.
Dennis S. Shilobod and Messer & Shilobod, for private complainants.
Marvin A. Fein, for City of Philadelphia.
Robert J. White and F. Bruce Abel, for Armco Steel.
Judge Rogers. Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Rogers.
[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 120]
The Duquesne Light Company has filed a petition for review pursuant to both Sections 401 and 403(1) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, as amended, 17 P.S. §§ 211. 403(1), 211.401. Presently before this judge is Duquesne Light Company's "Application for Stay or Supersedeas" of a Public Utility Commission's order entered July 6, 1977 requiring Duquesne Light Company to reduce its rates and charges to a level which will produce gross revenues not in excess of 12 million dollars annually over rates in effect at June 30, 1976.
A very brief history of preceding events is as follows: In October 1976, Duquesne Light Company filed with the Commission Supplement No. 2 to its Tariffs proposing an annual increase in rates in the amount of about $128,000,000; with its filing, Duquesne Light Company asked for "Emergency Rate Relief" in the amount of $89,000,000; on October 20, 1976, Duquesne Light Company filed with the Commission a Petition for Emergency Rate Relief lowering the amount of its request for "Emergency Rate Relief" to about $87,000,000; on December 9, 1976, the Commission suspended the proposed $128,000,000 Supplement No. 2 but ordered that Duquesne might file another Supplement effective on the one day's notice designed to produce annual revenues not to exceed $60,000,000 in excess of those in effect at June 30, 1976, pending the Commission's investigation of Tariff Supplement No. 2; Duquesne filed such a Supplement; apparently some of the present respondents protested the December 9, 1976 order allowing the $60,000,000 increase, and the Commission referred the matter to an Administrative
[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 121]
Law Judge who, after conducting extensive hearings, filed a report and proposed decision upholding the December 9, 1976 order to which some of the parties below filed exceptions; the Administrative Law Judge's report was made March 22, 1977; the Commission did not act until by its order of July 6, 1977, which has been appealed and which ...