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.

JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (11/13/81)

decided: November 13, 1981.

JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ET AL., INTERVENORS. JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY, PETITIONER V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeals from the Orders of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Duquesne Light Company, No. R-811470.

COUNSEL

E. J. Strassburger, with him, Dennis S. Shilobod, Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, for petitioner.

Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Charles E. Thomas, with him, Charles E. Thomas, Jr., and Patricia Armstrong, Thomas & Thomas, for intervenors.

Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 363]

We have consolidated for argument and disposition the Motions to Quash of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Duquesne Light Company in two appeals of Joseph Horne Company challenging separate orders of the Commission.

The orders challenged by Horne have the effect of increasing the annual revenues of Duquesne by approximately $64 million subject to the possibility that refunds might be required following an investigation and a series of public hearings now being conducted by the Commission. Horne is a customer of Duquesne and will have to pay more for its electric service if the increased rates are ultimately approved.

Specifically, on April 30, 1981, Duquesne filed Supplement No. 49 to its electric tariff No. 14 which supplement proposed rate changes calculated to increase annual revenues by over $100 million. The Commission instituted an investigation to determine

[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 364]

    the reasonableness of the proposed increase and further ordered on June 29, 1981:

That if, on or before July 15, 1981, the respondent files a tariff or tariff supplement, effective upon fifteen days notice to the Commission, which cancels and supercedes Supplement No. 49 and which contain proposed changes in rates calculated to produce additional annual revenues of not more than $64,237,000 . . . , then upon approval by the Commission, the tariff or tariff supplement proposing the lesser rate increase shall be permitted to become effective, subject to the investigation opened by this Order, and subject to refunds. Any formal complaints filed against the proposed changes in rates, rules ...


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.