Original and appellate jurisdiction, Appeal in the case of The Peoples Natural Gas Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
Kevin J. McKeon, with him, Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., and William T. Hawke, Malatesta, Hawke & McKeon, for petitioner.
John F. Povilaitis, Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Kenneth Zielonis, Assistant Counsel, Daniel P. Delaney, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 414]
Before the Court at this time are the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) to Count 2 of the Petition for Review (Petition) of The Peoples Natural Gas Company (Peoples).*fn1 We will sustain the preliminary objections.
Peoples' Petition contains two counts: Count 1 is addressed to our appellate jurisdiction and Count 2 is addressed to our original jurisdiction. In an introductory statement in the Petition, Peoples indicates that the purpose of the dual nature of the Petition is to provide this Court with an evidentiary record which will enable it to arrive at a "meaningful resolution" of Count 1.
Before we discuss the preliminary objections, we will set forth in brief detail the history of the case as outlined in the briefs of the litigants.
Peoples filed a general rate increase with the Commission requesting 19.8 million dollars in additional revenue. After hearings and a recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission entered an order on October 31, 1986 granting Peoples an increase
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 415]
of 7.1 million dollars. That order also directed Peoples to file a tariff consistent with the order.
On November 3, 1986, Peoples filed a Compliance Filing purporting to be consistent with the Commission's order of October 31, 1986. Several parties to the rate increase proceedings filed objections to the Compliance Filing, contending that that filing was not consistent with the Commission's order.
On January 9, 1987, the Commission rejected Peoples' Compliance Filing and directed Peoples to submit a new filing which fully complied with the October 31, 1986 order. Peoples thereupon filed its Petition with this Court and subsequent thereto filed with us an application for a stay order. Following an evidentiary hearing, that ...