Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n
| Decision Date | 03 November 1988 |
| Citation | 119 Pa.Cmwlth. 81,550 A.2d 257 |
| Parties | David M. BARASCH, Consumer Advocate, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent. ARMCO, INC. and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Petitioners, v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent. WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Pamela B. Sarvey, Irwin A. Popowsky, Asst. Consumer Advocates, Harrisburg, for David M. Barasch.
David M. Barasch, Consumer Advocate, Harrisburg, pro se.
John M. Elliott, Charles W. Bowser, Stephen C. Braverman, Christophyr J. Churchill, James P. Cousounis, Baskin, Flaherty, Elliott & Mannino, P.C. Philadelphia, for intervenor Milesburg Energy, Inc.
F. Bruce Abel, David F. Boehm, Michael L. Kurtz, Steer, Strauss, White & Tobias, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Armco Inc. and Allegheny Ludlum Corp.
Billie E. Ramsey, Asst. Counsel, Bohdan R. Pankiw, Deputy Chief Counsel, Daniel P. Delaney, Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, Pa., for Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n.
Henry R. MacNicholas, David M. Kleppinger, Richard Kahlbaugh, McNees Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, for West Penn Power Indus., amicus curiae.
Deborah M. DePaul, Michael D. McDowell, John L. Munsch, Greensburg, for West Penn Power Co.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and CRAIG, DOYLE, BARRY, PALLADINO, McGINLEY and SMITH, JJ.
Upon consideration of Petition for Reargument filed on behalf of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the answers to that petition, the court concludes that the only new matter raised is the request for a declaration that the opinion and order of this court, dated August 22, 1988, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ----, 546 A.2d 1296, shall have prospective effect, rather than retroactive effect. In the course of the principle briefing and argument of the case, there was no request from any party for such a declaration, either by way of alternative relief or by way of modification of relief which might be granted.
In view of the questions of first impression involved in this case, the resolution of which could not have been clearly foreshadowed, this court's intention is that the decision shall have only prospective effect. Chevron Oil Company v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).
Therefore, the court declares that the decision in this case, dated August 22, 1988, shall not have retroactive effect, but shall be applicable only to the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Utility Com'n of Texas v. Gulf States Utilities Co.
...("privately negotiated contracts setting rates for QF power are essentially outside the federal and state rules"), modified, 119 Pa.Cmwlth. 81, 550 A.2d 257 (1988) (holding that previous opinion was to have prospective effect only); Bates Fabrics Inc. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 447 A.2d 1211,......
-
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n
...See Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 546 A.2d 1296, following reargument, 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 550 A.2d 257 (1988), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 652, 567 A.2d 655 The blocking remedy was not proposed by any of the parties to the proceedings nor......
-
GPU Indus. Intervenors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n
...in Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 546 A.2d 1296, clarification granted, 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 81, 550 A.2d 257 (1988), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 523 Pa. 652, 567 A.2d 655 (1989) (Milesburg I ). In that case a utility and a QF ......
-
KES Brockton, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities
...Pa.Commw. 15, 579 A.2d 1337 (1990), nor Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 119 Pa.Commw. 81, 546 A.2d 1296, modified, 119 Pa.Commw. 81, 550 A.2d 257 (1988), alters our analysis. Barasch focused on the property interest of a utility's ratepayers, as the Pennsylvania Public Utility Co......