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.

PENNSYLVANIA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND RICHARD W. RICHARDS v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (10/29/84)

decided: October 29, 1984.

PENNSYLVANIA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND RICHARD W. RICHARDS, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. OFFICE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE ET AL., INTERVENORS



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Docket No. R-78040578.

COUNSEL

Loudon L. Campbell, with him, J. Scott Calkins, Calkins & Campbell, for petitioners.

Daniel P. Delaney, Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Frank B. Wilmarth, Associate Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

David J. Dulick, with him, Bridget E. Grady, for intervenor, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.

David Barasch, Acting Consumer Advocate, with him, Philip McClelland, Assistant Consumer Advocate, for intervenor, Consumer Advocate.

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

Author: Craig

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 606]

The Pennsylvania Builders Association (PBA) appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), approving a supplement to a tariff rule filed by the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L), which requires that building construction meet specified minimum insulation standards as a condition for receiving electric service.

Our scope of review is limited to determinations as to violations of constitutional rights, errors of law and whether findings are supported by substantial evidence. Allied Development and Building Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 207, 430 A.2d 1239 (1981).

Because our Supreme Court has held that the PUC does have jurisdiction to approve the tariff,*fn1 we must determine, on remand, whether the PUC has the authority

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 607]

    to approve it. Inherent in this case is the question of whether the PUC may approve such tariff when it applies to buildings that are neither heated nor cooled by electricity as the primary energy source. Because we conclude that the PUC may approve the tariff, we affirm.

The Building Energy Conservation Act, Act of December 15, 1980, P.L. 1203, 35 P.S. §§ 7201.101-7201.602 (Conservation Act), enacted after the Public Utility Code, Act of July 1, 1978, P.L. 598, as amended, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 101-3315, directs the Commonwealth to "exercise specific authority in building construction to assure that . . . construction is performed using materials and techniques that will provide ...


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.