Legal Opinion

Schellhammer v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 12, 1993No. 1049 C.D. 1992PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PELLEGRINI, Judge.

John Schellhammer and Irwin A, Popowsky, Consumer Advocate of Pennsylvania (collectively, Petitioners) petition for review the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) dismissing their complaint and holding that the existing rates of the Waymart Water Company (Waymart) were not shown to be unjust, unreasonablé or unlawful.

On April 30, 1990, Waymart filed Supplement 16 to Tariff Water — Pa.P.U.C. No. 4 proposing a rate increase to produce *89$72,667 in additional annual revenue, or a 59% increase in operating revenue. On the same day, Waymart also notified their…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brockway Glass Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Zucker v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Joseph Horne Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Cup v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Duquesne Light Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Verizon PA LLC & Verizon North LLC v. PA PUCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API