Borough of Clarks Summit v. P.S.C

1 Citing case

  1. United Nat. Gas Co. v. Pa. P.U.C

    33 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943)   Cited 6 times

    Gas Co. v. P.S. Comm., supra; Penna. R.R.Co. v. Penna. P.U. Comm., 135 Pa. Super. 5, 4 A.2d 622; Carpenter v. Penna. P.U. Comm., 141 Pa. Super. 447, 15 A.2d 473); and unprofitable extensions of facilities and service at the cost of the utility or consuming public, ordered by the Commission have been reversed. See Boro of Clarks Summit v. P.S.Comm., 92 Pa. Super. 591; Overlook Development Co. v. P.S.Comm., 101 Pa. Super. 217; Citizens Mut. T. T. Co. v.P.S. Comm., 93 Pa. Super. 373; Morris Water Co. v. P.S.Comm., 118 Pa. Super. 416, 180 A. 72; Wyoming Valley WaterCo. v. P.S. Comm., supra; Johnstown Water Co. v. P.S. Comm., 107 Pa. Super. 540, 164 A. 101. In our opinion there is nothing in the regulation above quoted from Circular No. 9-A, that imposes on the utility, in the circumstances above recited, the cost of furnishing and installing the necessary regulator equipment; or that justified the Commission in ignoring and setting aside the contracts between United and the complainants and the other consumers along the West Branch Road, which were entered into prior to the installation of this service, pursuant to their applications to the company and their petition to the Commission asking it to approve the supplying of gas to them by United "under its usual conditions"; which contracts specifically provided that the applicant for service should