Legal Opinion
Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 4, 1994No. 2788 and 2798 C.D. 1993PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PELLEGRINI, Judge.
The Pennsylvania Electric Company (PECO) 1 and Cambria Partners (Cambria) 2 have filed consolidated appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) directing PECO to enter into two separate agreements with qualifying facility 3 (QF) developers LG & E Energy Systems, Inc. (LG & E) and American Power Corporation and CMS Generation Company (American/CMS) for the purchase of electrical power from their respective proposed QFs.
/.
This appeal arises as a result of petitions filed by three QF developers to have the PUC order PECO to enter into power…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bethenergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental ProtectionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Diamond Energy, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- South River Power Partners L.P. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Borough of Duncannon v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Armstrong Communications, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.