Appeals from the Orders of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of In Re: Duquesne Light Company, R.I.D. 373, entered July 6, 1977.
Charles E. Thomas and Carroll F. Purdy, with them Jack F. Aschinger, Charles E. Thomas, Jr., and Thomas and Thomas, for Duquesne Light Company.
Kathleen Herzog Larkin, First Assistant Counsel, with her Barnett Satinsky, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
Albert D. Brandon, for Consumer Advocate.
Dennis S. Shilobod, with him Messer & Shilobod, for private complainants.
Marvin A. Fein, Utilities Counsel, with him Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh and Mayor Richard S. Caliguiri.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers, Blatt and DiSalle. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
This passionately contested electric utility rate case began on October 1, 1976 when Duquesne Light Company filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) its Supplement No. 2 to Tariff Electric Pa. P.U.C. No. 14, proposing an annual revenue increase of $127,897,362, issued to become effective November 30, 1976. On the same day Duquesne filed a "Petition for Emergency Rate Relief" requesting that $87,273,696 of its requested revenue increase be allowed to become effective on November 30, 1976 or as soon thereafter as possible.*fn1
On December 17, 1976 the PUC entered an order which it had adopted without hearing on December
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 539]
, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the December 9, 1976 order) providing (1) that an investigation of the rates proposed in Duquesne's Tariff Supplement No. 2 be instituted, (2) that the investigation include consideration of the lawfulness of existing rates and the imposition of temporary rates under Section 310 of the Public Utility Law, 66 P.S. § 1150, (3) that Supplement No. 2 be suspended for six months, and (4) that Duquesne "may file a tariff supplement designed to produce an increase in annual revenue not to exceed $60,000,000, provided, however, that the rates set forth in any such tariff supplement shall not be deemed Commission made rates" and that the tariff supplement "shall be subject to the aforesaid inquiry and investigation."
Duquesne's proposed Tariff Supplement No. 2 was immediately opposed by, among others, Mark Widoff the Consumer Advocate, the City of Pittsburgh and 25 Private Complainants -- the three parties to the instant proceedings in addition to Duquesne. No petitions to review PUC's Order of December 9, 1976 that Duquesne might file a tariff for $60,000,000 increase in annual revenues, were filed. ...