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.

DEITCH COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (12/21/82)

decided: December 21, 1982.

THE DEITCH COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and The Deitch Company v. Henry Positano, Agent, Eastern Railroads, Consolidated Rail Comporation, No. R-80071275 and No. C-80072098.

COUNSEL

Stephen A. George, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, for petitioner.

John J. Gallagher, Assistant Counsel, with him John B. Wilson, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Anne E. Treadway, with her John A. Daily, for intervenor-respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 466]

In this rate-setting case, petitioner, The Deitch Company,*fn1 protests an order of the Public Utility Commission which, in adopting the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ), dismissed the petitioner's complaint alleging that new rates proposed by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) were unjust and unreasonable under Section 1301*fn2 and unreasonably discriminatory under Section 1304*fn3 of the Public Utility Code.

Procedural History

When Conrail took control of the properties of six transferor bankrupt railroads in the Northeast, it

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 467]

    conducted studies of its ferrous scrap traffic and concluded that, in general, rates charged for short-haul*fn4 and light-loading*fn5 traffic neither compensated the railroad adequately for its costs nor justified investment in equipment necessary to continue such service.

Thus, to increase revenues on short-haul, light-loading traffic and decrease them on heavy-loading, long-haul traffic, Conrail sought to restructure its rates by eliminating point-to-point rates*fn6 in favor of scale rates.*fn7

However, according to its brief, Conrail realized that its proposed scale rates would work a hardship on certain short-haul, light-loading shippers. Thus, after developing its restructuring plan but before filing new rates, Conrail initiated negotiations with affected parties in the Northeast, including Deitch and its customers.

Apparently, during these negotiations, Conrail filed tariff supplements on July 8, 1980 and July 25, 1980, meanwhile instructing its tariff publishing agent to prepare adjusted lower point-to-point rates for publication.

In response to the filing of Conrail's July supplements, Deitch filed a complaint with amendments on July 22, July 31, and August 1, 1980, protesting those intrastate ...


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.