Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 1315. Limitation on consideration of certain costs for electric utilities.
Except for such nonrevenue producing, nonexpense reducing investments as may be reasonably
shown to be necessary to improve environmental conditions at existing facilities or
improve safety at existing facilities or as may be required to convert facilities
to the utilization of coal, the cost of construction or expansion of a facility undertaken
by a public utility producing, generating, transmitting, distributing or furnishing
electricity shall not be made a part of the rate base nor otherwise included in the
rates charged by the electric utility until such time as the facility is used and
useful in service to the public. Except as stated in this section, no electric utility
property shall be deemed used and useful until it is presently providing actual utility
service to the customers.
(Dec. 30, 1982, P.L.1473, No.335, eff. imd.)
1982 Amendment. Act 335 added section 1315. Section 2 of Act 335 provided that Act 335 shall be applicable
to all proceedings pending before the Public Utility Commission and the courts at
the time and also provided that nothing contained in Act 335 shall be construed to
modify or change existing law with regard to rate making treatment of investment in
facilities of fixed utilities other than electric utilities.
Cross References. Section 1315 is referred to in sections 315, 514, 521, 530, 1319 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989).
· cites it 8× “" 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1315 (Supp. 1988). I In response to predictions of increased demand for electricity, Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne) and Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn Power) joined a venture in 1967 to build more generating capacity.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 869 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 6× “We reasoned that the "used and useful" principle enunciated in 66 Pa.C.S. § 1315, [29] prevented the inclusion of capital improvements in a surcharge, explaining that [b]ecause new physical facilities are appropriate costs only within the rate base under Section 1315, in the…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1985).
· cites it 3× “66 Pa.C.S. § 1315. We believe we should take into account this declaration in a plainly related area in determining whether the Commission has the power to make a general change in policy with respect to normalization of tax expense to the benefit of investors as well as future…”
Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 502 A.2d 722 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “OCA’s Appeal — Nuclear Fuel In Process The OCA contests the inclusion of $70,850,000 in PECO’s rate base representing nuclear fuel investment as a violation of Section 1315 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C. S. §1315, which provides : Except for such nonrevenue…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 532 A.2d 325 (Pa. 1987).
“We are called upon to decide whether section 1315 of the Public Utility Code (“Code”), 66 Pa.C.S. § 1315, bars an electric utility from amortizing costs incurred in connection with plant-construction projects which were can-celled prior to completion, and whether, if the statute…”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 665 A.2d 808 (Pa. 1995).
· cites it 4× “In reversing the PUC, the Commonwealth Court focused on a provision of the Public Utility Code that limits the* extent to which ratepayers can be charged for “the cost of construction or expansion of a facility,” 66 Pa.C.S. § 1315, and the principle that a utility company is…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 546 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“*114 Armco/Allegheny also argues that levelized capacity payments violate the “spirit” of section 1315 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C. S. §1315, which prohibits rate recovery by a utility for expenses it incurs for construction work in progress that the utility has…”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 13 A.3d 583 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Central to our holding were the decisions in Masthope and PIEC and the “used and useful” principle enunciated in Section 1315 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1315. 13 We reasoned: Masthope and PIEC teach that the “cursory” review undertaken for a surcharge is not a substitute for the…”
Green v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 473 A.2d 209 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984).
“§1315, provides: Except for such non-revenue producing non-expense reducing investment as may be reasonably shown to be necessary to improve environmental conditions at existing facilities or improve safety at existing facilities or as may be required to convert facilities to…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 515 A.2d 651 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).
“6 66 Pa. C. S. §1315. 7 By reaffirming our Cohen decision, we reject the OCAs contention that land held for future use is excluded from rate base as a non-used and useful “facility” within the definition of Section 102 of the Code, 66 Pa.”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 562 A.2d 414 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).
“The utilities in that case contended that Section 1315 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa.C.S. § 1315 (prohibiting the inclusion in rates of property which is not used and *549 useful), denied them equal protection because that Section applied only to electric utilities.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1315(a) — 1 case
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.