Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
52 results for '* topic:"Public Utilities"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-05-10
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Brobson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 107 MAP 2022
Public Utility Commission regulations concerning the placement of gas meters in historic districts did not constitute unconstitutional delegation of legislative/regulatory authority to public utilities where the legislature had never passed a law mandating the placement of meters, which had traditionally been left to the discretion of the utilities. Order of the commonwealth court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2024-04-05
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Cannon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1253 C.D. 2019
Inconclusive scientific evidence of a causal connection between exposure to RF or EM emissions and adverse health effects was insufficient for a utility customer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that having a required smart meter in their home constituted unsafe or unreasonable utility service. Order of the Public Utility Commission affirmed.
Publication Date: 2024-01-15
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Energy | Federal Government | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Roth
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Elbert Lin, Charles D. Wallace, III, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Richmond, VA; John L. Shepherd, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth, Washington, DC; Paul W. Hughes, McDermott Will & Emery, Washington, DC; Kriss E. Brown, Christian A. McDewell, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Harrisburg, PA; Thomas G. Lindgren, Werner L. Margard, III, Office of Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, OH; Jeffrey W. Mayes, Monitoring Analytics, Eagleville, PA; Denise C. Goulet, McCarter & English, Washington, DC for petitioners.
for defendant: Jared B. Fish, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; Danielle C. Fidler, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Washington, DC; Peter Hopkins, Amber L. Martin Stone, Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Scott H. Strauss, Cynthia Bogorad, Lauren L. Springett, Spiegel & McDiarmid, Washington, DC; Matthew Price, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC; Miles H. Mitchell, Maryland Public Service Commission, Baltimore, MD; David C. Apy, Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Division of Law, Trenton, NJ; Robert A. Weishaar, Jr., McNees Wallace & Nurick, Washington, DC; Ryan J. Collins, Paul M. Flynn, Wright & Talisman, Washington, DC; Caroline Reiser, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC; Casey Roberts, Sierra Club, Denver, CO; Megan C. Wachspress, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Oakland, CA; Sarah A. Hunger, Office of Attorney General of Illinois, Chicago, IL Cynthia Bogorad, Lauren L. Springett, Spiegel & McDiarmid, Washington, DC; Adrienne E. Clair, Thompson Coburn, Washington, DC; Daniel E. Frank, Allison Speaker, Eversheds Sutherland, Washington, DC; Andrew D. Cordo, Shannon E. German, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Wilmington, DE; Gerit Hull, American Municipal Power, Columbus, OH; John E. McCaffrey, III, American Public Power Association, Arlington, VA; Anthony J. Corino, PSEG Corporation, Newark, NJ for respondents.
Case Number: 21-3068
FERC commissioners' statements following deadlock over proposed tariff were sufficient to demonstrate that the agency's "action through inaction" found the tariff just and reasonable.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge McCullough
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1337 C.D. 2019
PUC properly denied petitioner's petition seeking to prohibit the installation of a smart electric meter at his home because the supreme court's holding in Povacz v. PUC, 280 A.3d 975, resolved the issues in this case. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Construction | Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 331, 497, and 563 C.D. 2022
Trial court properly entered judgment in favor of appellants and against appellees jointly and severally and enjoined them from charging their current water tapping fee but erred in calculating the amount of the refund after including portions of the authority constructed facilities (1984-1998) in the total cost basis of the water distribution system. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Wojcik
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 521 C.D. 2021
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission properly found plaintiff had been charged unlawfully high utility pole attachment rates and ordered a refund because PUC applied the incremental cost formula for pole attachment rates as set forth in the regulations, FCC precedent was not binding and the formula used produced an exact amount to be paid. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1102 C.D. 2019
Commission properly determined act 129 did not include a include a smart meter opt-out for customer and petitioner failed to prove the advanced metering infrastructure meter installed on his property violated 66 Pa.C.S. §1501. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Ceisler
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 360 C.D. 2022
Court found trial court erred in concluding authority overcharged appellant for tapping fees but authority's monthly sewer charges imposed on appellant were reasonable and uniform under the Municipality Authorities Act and appellant failed to establish its constitutional rights were violated. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Carlucci
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-00135
Plaintiffs, owners of twenty-four parcels of real property, contested a stormwater service fee imposed by defendants, a provider of water services. Plaintiffs claimed the assessment was not a fee for service but a tax, and that municipal authorities had no legal authority to assess a tax. Defendant filed preliminary objections to the complaint which the court granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Jubelirer
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1450 C.D. 2021
Public Utility Commission erred in concluding machine shop had the right to obtain electric distribution service from Metropolitan Edison Company based on MetEd having the authority to provide such services under its current or preexisting certificates of public convenience or by virtue of MetEd's acquisition of grandfathered legacy rights when it acquired the electric distribution facilities of the former Olmstead AFB. Reversed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read