§ 1304. Discrimination in rates.
No public utility shall, as to rates, make or grant any unreasonable preference or
advantage to any person, corporation, or municipal corporation, or subject any person,
corporation, or municipal corporation to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates,
either as between localities or as between classes of service. Unless specifically
authorized by the commission, no public utility shall make, demand, or receive any
greater rate in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or property of
the same class, or for the transmission of any message or conversation for a shorter
than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the
shorter being included within the longer distance, or any greater rate as a through
rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates. This section does not prohibit
the establishment of reasonable zone or group systems, or classifications of rates
or, in the case of common carriers, the issuance of excursion, commutation, or other
special tickets at special rates, or the granting of nontransferable free passes,
or passes at a discount to any officer, employee, or pensioner of such common carrier.
No rate charged by a municipality for any public utility service rendered or furnished
beyond its corporate limits shall be considered unjustly discriminatory solely by
reason of the fact that a different rate is charged for a similar service within its
corporate limits.
Cross References. Section 1304 is referred to in section 3019 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 808 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 8× “66 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (emphasis added). [26] Again, the General Assembly drew upon the Act of 1887, specifically Section 3, which stated: That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or…”
Lloyd v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 904 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 8× “" The rate made is determined by two factors what increase in revenues over those produced by existing rates is needed to give the utility a fair rate of return and what increased revenues are going to be allocated in the rates among the various rate classes, i.”
PPL Elec. Utils. Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 912 A.2d 386 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “66 Pa.C.S. §§ 1304, 1502. 8 . The joint venture agreement was eventually terminated in 1999 and ended in a lawsuit and allegations that PPL failed to provide enough marketing support to UMC.”
Tanya J. McCloskey, Acting Consum. Advocate v. PA PUC, 195 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“We note that Section 1304 of the Code provides in part that: No public utility shall, as to rates, make or grant unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or municipal corporation, or subject any person, corporation, or municipal corporation, to any…”
Pennsylvania State Univ. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 988 A.2d 771 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, Section 1304 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1304, provides: No public utility shall, as to rates, make or grant any unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or municipal corporation, or subject any person, corporation, or municipal corporation to…”
Zucker v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 401 A.2d 1377 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
“§1144; a similar provision is now found in the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §1304. Approximately 16% of unpublished number subscribers receive emergency calls.”
Sharon Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 468 A.2d 860 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983).
“By ordering an investigation into NFG’-s existing rates, the PUiC did not institute an investigation into the question of reducing the LIS rate in particular; only Sharon has sought that relief, as the proponent of an order to reduce rates.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.