Legal Opinion · Dissent

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 13, 1997Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

The majority opinion upsets the “rate bargain” between Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP & L) and its ratepayers by making the ratepayers pay for something that they already paid for and giving PP & L a 31 million dollar windfall. Not only does it breach the rate bargain, the majority throws ratemaking into a complete turmoil. For example, as PP & L’s counsel admits, if interest rates go down resulting in a higher than anticipated rate of return to the utility, ratepayers can seek recovery of excess rates of return in future rate cases. Under the majority’s analysis, nothing is ever…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Shenango Township Board of Supervisors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Pike County Light & Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

3 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