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 BARONE v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (12/12/84)

decided: December 12, 1984.

JOSEPH BARONE, JOSEPH BIANCHI, ANDREW GENOVESE, PETITIONERS
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in cases of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Bianchi v. Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company, No. C-823179; Joseph D. Barone v. Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company, No. C-823180, and Andrew Genovese v. Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company, No. C-823265.

COUNSEL

Armand E. Olivetti, Jr., Olivetti & Scacchitti, for petitioners.

Kandace Foust Melillo, Assistant Counsel, with her, Louise A. Knight, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Jack F. Aschinger, with him, Carroll F. Purdy, Thomas & Thomas, Of Counsel: Robert R. Brittain, Jr., for intervenor, Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 394]

Joseph Barone, Joseph Bianchi and Andrew Genovese (petitioners) seek review of an order of the Pennsylvania

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 395]

Public Utility Commission (PUC) dismissing their complaints that the Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company (PGW) failed to provide them with adequate water service in violation of Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. § 1501.*fn1

The petitioners are residents of the 600 block of Jessup Street in the Borough of Dunmore, Pennsylvania and receive domestic water service to their homes from a twenty-four inch PGW water main located in the street. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge found that the pressure in PGW's twenty-four inch main was such that water service provided the petitioners' dwelling houses was inadequate and recommended that PGW be required to make such improvements "as are necessary to provide adequate, safe, reasonable and efficient water service. . . ." The PUC rejected the ALJ's recommendation and dismissed the complaints.

The petitioners, as the proponents of an order, had the burden of proving that PGW was not furnishing adequate, efficient and reasonable water service. Section 332(a) of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a), Teltron, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 407, 477 A.2d 599 (1984). There is no question that they accomplished this by uncontradicted evidence that the water pressure at their residences and five other homes on Jessup Street serviced by PGW's twenty-four inch main was insufficient.

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 396]

Mrs. Joseph Bianchi, whose testimony was typical of that of other petitioners, summarized ...


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.