Legal Opinion

Albert Einstein Healthcare Foundation/University v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 21, 1988No. Appeal No. 3239 C.D. 1986Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge McGinley,

This is an appeal by Albert Einstein Healthcare Foundation, University of Pennsylvania, and Amtrak (Petitioners) from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) setting rates to be charged by Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) for firm backup power for cogeneration facilities. We affirm.

Background

Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, (PURPA) along with several other statutes, as part of an overall national energy policy. The relevant portions of PURPA are §§201 and 210, codified at 16 U.S.C. §796 and §824a-3,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. G. Weinberger Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API