Legal Opinion
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 7, 1998PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COLINS, President Judge.
Before this Court is the appeal of Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) from the decision of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) granting PECO Energy’s (PECO) application for the issuance of a qualified rate order to recover stranded-costs pursuant to the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (Competition Act), 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2801-12. This case presents an issue of first impression: whether the provisions of the Competition Act allowing the recovery of stranded-costs violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. We…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Arippa v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- In Re PP&L, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Corman v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.