Legal Opinion

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 13, 1997PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

The Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) in a base rate case filed by Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP & L). The questions presented are (1) whether the PUC erred in permitting PP & L to charge current ratepayers for deferred prior period costs associated with a change in post-retirement benefits expense, where this Court previously held that recovery of these very costs would be prohibited by the rule against retroactive ratemaking; (2) whether the PUC’s decision to permit PP & L to charge…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  3. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. UGI Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. McCloskey v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Public Advocate v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
  3. Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Porter v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  5. Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

1 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