Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schreiber v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 21, 1983No. Appeal, No. 3087 C.D. 1980Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Craig:

The decision and order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) is erroneous because the terms of the Duquesne Light Company tariff at issue make clear that the higher rate, to which petitioner Schreiber objects, is applicable only to service applied through a single meter to a multiple-dwelling structure, not when service is applied through a single meter to two or more detached single-family dwellings, as is the case here.

The higher rate tariff provision in question reads as follows:

Special Provisions

Service To Multiple-Dwellings

Service to a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pocono Manor Ass'n v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Sheets v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API