Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/02/88)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: February 2, 1988.

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, ET AL., APPELLANTS. NORTH PENN WATER AUTHORITY AND NORTH WALES WATER AUTHORITY V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, ET AL., APPELLANTS

COUNSEL

Louise S. Thompson, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Jeremiah J. Cardamone, Ambler, for North Penn & North Wales Water Authorities.

Robert J. Sugarman, Philadelphia, for intervenor -- Del-Aware.

Bernard Chanin, Philadelphia, for P.E.C.O.

Gordon Gerber, Philadelphia, for Neshaminy Water Resources Authority.

Richard M. Rosenbleeth, Philadelphia, for intervenor -- Bucks County.

James M. McNamara, Doylestown, Bucks County City Sol.

Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala and Papadakos, JJ. McDermott, J., did not participate in this matter. Nix, C.j., files a dissenting statement. Flaherty, J., files a dissenting statement in which he joins the dissenting statement of Nix, C.j.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 517 Pa. Page 346]

Order

Pending exhaustion of any administrative remedies, Appellees are permitted to continue construction of the Point Pleasant Water Diversion Project pursuant to permits as extended by the Department of Environmental Resources. The DER imposed condition prohibiting any construction under the permits during the period of extension is stayed until further order of the Court.

NIX, Chief Justice, dissenting.

In view of the public interests involved in this case, it is my judgment that the order entered this day by the Court is ill-advised. Although our remand order of September 30, 1987, involved only certain aspects of the entire water project, it is conceivable that the Board's further consideration of those aspects could affect the administrative perception

[ 517 Pa. Page 347]

    of other portions. For us to declare, here and now, that the Philadelphia Electric Company may proceed with construction as to any part of the project is to curtail the discretion of the administrative agency involved. I would, therefore, deny the Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration because our order of September 30, 1987, and the order reinstating it, are as clear as the circumstances and posture of the case demand.

FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting.

I join the dissenting statement filed by the Chief Justice, but would further impose a requirement that the Board act within thirty (30) days.

19880202

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.