Legal Opinion
Attorney General v. Department of Public Utilities
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 23, 1983PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.
On September 23, 1981, the board of directors of the Boston Edison Company (Edison) voted to cancel the construction in Plymouth of a second nuclear power plant, called Pilgrim II.2 On October 16, 1981, Edison filed with the Department of Public Utilities (department) revised electric rate schedules providing for a general rate increase, effective November 1, 1981. Edison proposed to recover, as a cost of service reflected in its rates, its investment in Pilgrim II, that is, its share of the net costs of the project, estimated (after salvage) to exceed $278,000,000.3 Pursuant to its authority…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Schulte v. Director of the Division of Employment SecurityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Comm.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Hotchkiss v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- People's Organization for Washington Energy Resources v. Utilities & Transportation CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Costello v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.