Energy Pipeline Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY, Justice.
In this appeal we are faced with the question of whether a tie vote of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) can constitute a final “action” by the PUC. Because we find that a tie vote cannot constitute action, we reverse the Commonwealth Court.
This dispute has its roots in a Pipeline Construction, Natural Gas Sales and Transportation Agreement (Agreement) entered into by Energy Production Company (Energy Production), Energy Pipeline Company (Energy Pipeline), and Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Bethlehem Steel) in 1984. The Agreement provided for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Hyser v. Allegheny CountyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- At & T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Crossgates Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Grounds & BuildingsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Energy Pipeline Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
3Cited by11 opinions
- Ronald H. Brown Charter School v. Harrisburg City School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Cook County Republican Party v. State Board of ElectionsAppellate Court of Illinois · 2007
- Romeo v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Pocono Mountain Charter School, Inc. v. Pocono Mountain School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Keystone Central School District v. Sugar Valley Concerned CitizensCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.