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.

REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY SCRANTON ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY SCRANTON (01/02/80)

decided: January 2, 1980.

REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON ET AL.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON, PETITIONER



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Application of Scranton Redevelopment Authority, No. A. 100697.

COUNSEL

Leo A. Southard, for petitioner.

John J. Gallagher, Assistant Counsel, with him John B. Wilson, Deputy Chief Counsel, George M. Kashi, Chief Counsel, for respondents.

Thomas F. Aschinger, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Carroll F. Purdy, Thomas & Thomas, for intervenors.

Judges Mencer, DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge DiSalle.

Author: Disalle

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 239]

This is a petition for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) modifying an order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and assessing certain relocation costs on the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Scranton (Authority). We affirm.

On November 15, 1977, Authority applied for permission to improve the railroad crossing where North Seventh Avenue crossed below the grade of the tracks of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) in the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Authority sought to

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 240]

    increase the vertical clearance between the road surface and the Conrail bridge by lowering the roadway approximately two feet. Other contemplated alterations included the installation of storm drainage sewers and sanitary sewers and a widening of the highway.

The ALJ, in recommending that the project be approved, noted that several utility companies, including Pennsylvania Gas and Water (PG&W) and Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L), operated facilities that would have to be relocated, and noted further that it would be necessary to determine who should bear the costs of such relocation. He ordered that PG&W and PP&L pay for relocating their facilities, reasoning simply that since those facilities were located within the public right-of-way, it was perfectly proper to allocate their relocation costs to each utility company.

PG&W and PP&L filed exceptions to the ALJ's allocation of costs. The PUC granted their exceptions, on the grounds that it would be unreasonable and inequitable to make them pay to relocate the ...


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.