Legal Opinion

Emporium Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 14, 2008No. 976 C.D. 2007PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge COHN JUBELIRER.

In this case we determine whether Emporium Water Company (Utility) should be allowed to use a “hypothetical capital structure” in calculating the utility’s proper rate of return. Utility appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), issued December 28, 2006 (December Order), which, inter alia, concluded that Utility could not use a hypothetieal capital structure, but must use the Utility’s “actual capital structure”. 1

Utility is a private Pennsylvania corporation that serves approximately 1,466 customers in and around the Borough of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Republic Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public UtilitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Retail Energy Supply Ass'n v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'nCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Whitacker-Reid v. Pottsgrove School District, Board of School DirectorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. N. Sabree, Small Business Advocate v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2025
  4. Respond Power, LLC v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API