Legal Opinion
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 3, 1985No. 141 E.D. Appeal Docket 1984PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
LARSEN, Justice.
In this rate case appeal, David M. Barasch, Consumer Advocate, challenges the Commonwealth Court’s order affirming the decision of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) which included in the rate base of appellee, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), $39,083,-000 invested in nuclear fuel in process of refinement, conversion, enrichment and fabrication, (hereinafter nuclear fuel). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On July 29, 1981, PECO filed tariff revisions with the Commission seeking an increase in annual revenue to become…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Erie City v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Park Towne & Madway Engineers & Constructors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public UtilitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. WestcottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Norwin School District v. BelanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.