filed: November 3, 1988.
DAVID M. BARASCH, CONSUMER ADVOCATE, PETITIONER
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT; ARMCO, INC. AND ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORPORATION, PETITIONERS V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT; WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, PETITIONER V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
Before: Honorable James Crumlish, Jr., President Judge, Honorable David W. Craig, Judge, Honorable Joseph T. Doyle, Judge, Honorable Francis A. Barry, Judge, Honorable Madaline Palladino, Judge, Honorable Bernard L. McGINLEY, Judge, Honorable Doris A. Smith, Judge
Opinion BY JUDGE DAVID W. CRAIG
Upon consideration of Petition for Reargument filed on behalf of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the answers to that petition, the court concludes that the only new matter raised is the request for a declaration that the opinion and order of this court, dated August 22, 1988, shall have prospective effect, rather than retroactive effect. In the course of the principle briefing and argument of the case, there was no request from any party for such a declaration, either by way of alternative relief or by way of modification of relief which might be granted.
In view of the questions of first impression involved in this case, the resolution of which could not have been clearly foreshadowed, this court's intention is that the decision shall have only prospective effect. Chevron Oil Company v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971).
Therefore, the court declares that the decision in this case, dated August 22, 1988, shall not have retroactive effect, but shall be applicable only to the petition for approval of the proposed contract in this case, between West Penn Power Company and Milesburg Energy, Inc., and to any petitions filed with the PUC after August 22, 1988 for approval of contracts covered by the Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
The petition for reargument shall in other respects be denied.
NOW, November 3, 1988, upon consideration of petition for reargument on behalf of the Pennsylvania Public utility Commission and answers thereto, a declaration of prospective effect of this court's decision is hereby adopted as stated in the foregoing opinion, and the petition for reargument in other respects is denied.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.