Legal Opinion

GPU Industrial Intervenors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 8, 1993No. 1332 C.D. 1992PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McGINLEY, Judge.

This case involves the relationship between two separate proceedings before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC or Commission). In the earlier proceeding, Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed or the utility) filed a petition in 1989 seeking Commission approval to establish a “Competitive Procurement Program” (bidding program) relating to a 200-Megawatt (MW) block of electric generating capacity (the bidding program proceeding). Under the proposal Met Ed ■would fulfill its obligation under Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Schubach v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & GutnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Clark v. TroutmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Matternas v. StehmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. In re GravesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  3. McGill v. Southwark Realty Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Angus v. Wald (In Re Wald)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1997
  5. Laird v. Clearfield & Mahoning Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API