Legal Opinion

Romeo v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 8, 2017No. 498 C.D. 2016PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY JUDGE

BROBSON

Antonio Romeo (Romeo) petitions pro se for review of the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission), adopting the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and dismissing Romeo’s exceptions to the Initial Decision. We now affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

As background, by Act 129 of 2008 (Act 129), 2 the General Assembly amended the Public Utility Code (Code), 3 for the purpose of reducing energy consumption and demand. Act 129 set in motion a multiphase implementation process that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MarconeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. United Transportation Union, Pennsylvania State Legislative Board v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Energy Pipeline Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. A. & L. McKnight v. PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  2. Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  3. Conyngham Twp. v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  4. J.D. Branagh v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  5. M. Povacz v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

2 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