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.

TELTRON v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (06/28/84)

decided: June 28, 1984.

TELTRON, INC., PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Teltron, Inc. v. Metropolitan Edison Company, No. C-78080444.

COUNSEL

Edward C. German, with him, Frederick C. Hanselmann, German, Gallagher & Murtagh, for petitioner; Of Counsel: Edward T. Bresnan, Bresnan & Guyer.

Barbara S. Kahoe, Assistant Counsel, with her, Louise A. Knight, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Frederick L. Reigle, Ryan, Russell & McConaghy, for intervenor, Metropolitan Edison Company.

Judges Rogers, Colins and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 408]

The petitioner, Teltron, Inc. (Teltron), has appealed from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) dismissing its complaint that Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) failed to supply it with adequate electric service.*fn1

Teltron is a manufacturer of television camera equipment and is a customer of Met-Ed. It sued Met-Ed in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. The court transferred the question of the adequacy of Met-Ed's service to PUC and stayed proceedings pending that determination. The Administrative Law Judge who heard the case for the PUC recommended that the complaint be sustained and that Met-Ed be fined, which recommendation the PUC rejected after concluding that Teltron had failed to prove that the inadequacy of its supply of electric voltage was the result of Met-Ed's failure to furnish adequate service.

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 409]

We may not disturb an order of the PUC unless we determine that constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or necessary findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Mill v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 67 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 597, 447 A.2d 1100 (1982).

Teltron first contends that the PUC committed an error of law in concluding that it, Teltron, had the burden of proof in this case. It relies, erroneously, on Section 315(c) of the Public Utility Code (Code), Act of July 1, 1978, P.L. 598, 66 Pa. C.S. ยง 315(c) which provides:

(c) Adequacy of services and facilities. -- In any proceeding upon the motion of the commission, involving the service of facilities of any public utility, the burden of proof to show that the service and facilities involved are adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable shall be upon the public utility. (Emphasis supplied.)

Since Section 315(c) applies only to proceedings "upon the motion of the commission" and this is not a commission action, Section 315(c) has no application. Section 332(a), providing that "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.