Phila. Suburban Water Co. v. Pa. P.U.C

15 Citing cases

  1. Dept. of Hwys. v. Pa. P.U.C

    185 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1957)   Cited 12 times

    The Commonwealth, through any designated agency, may compel the public utility companies to remove or relocate their facilities at the company's expense. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public UtilityCommission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 366, 78 A.2d 46 (1951); Keystone Telephone Co. v. Philadelphia Reading Railway Co., 56 Pa. Super. 384, 386 (1914). It does not follow, however, as we shall hereafter point out, that the Commonwealth does not have the power to pay the public utility companies the cost of relocating such facilities under certain circumstances providing it expresses the intent to do so through statute.

  2. Delaware River Port Auth. v. Pa. P.U.C.

    145 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1958)   Cited 36 times
    Noting that this Court presumes that the General Assembly, in enacting changes to the common law, will make an express statement

    Historically, in Pennsylvania, non-transportation public utilities have been permitted to occupy highway rights-of-way free of cost, subject and subordinate to the State's police power to control and regulate the highways for the benefit of the public. Delaware River Joint Commission Case, 342 Pa. 119, 19 A.2d 278; Philadelphia Electric Company v. Commonwealth, 311 Pa. 542, 166 A. 892; Scranton Gas and Water Co. v. Scranton City, 214 Pa. 586, 64 A. 84; Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 78 A.2d 46; Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 139 Pa. Super. 529, 12 A.2d 479; Springfield Water Co. v. Phila. Garrettford Ry., 45 Pa. Super. 516. Such utilities obtain no property rights in the highway and can be ordered by a competent state or municipal agency to relocate their facilities at their own expense ( DelawareRiver Joint Commission Case, supra; Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. Lewis, Sec'y., 317 Pa. 387, 177 A. 36; Duquesne Light Co. v. Pittsburgh, 251 Pa. 557, 97 A. 85). The reason obviously is that since these utilities occupy the highways free of cost they should not be entitled to compensation if they are forced to relocate their facilities because of highway improvements. This common law rule, however, can and may be abrogated by a specific statutory mandate directing the payment of relocation costs to the non-transportation utilities involved.

  3. Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of L. A.

    50 Cal.2d 713 (Cal. 1958)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the utility has the obligation to pay relocation expenses absent an express direction from the legislature or a provision in the franchise abrogating this obligation

    This view finds support in cases holding that the Legislature may provide for such compensation. ( In re GillenPlace, Borough of Brooklyn, 304 N.Y. 215 [ 106 N.E.2d 897, 900]; Baltimore Gas Electric Co. v. State Roads Com., 214 Md. 266 [ 134 A.2d 312, 315]; Philadelphia Sub. W. Co. v. PennsylvaniaP.U. Com., 168 Pa. Super. 360 [ 78 A.2d 46, 51-52]; Opinion ofthe Justices, ___ Me. ___ [132 A.2d 440, 443]; Opinion of theJustices, ___ N.H. ___ [ 132 A.2d 613, 614-615]; see ColumbusGaslight Coke Co. v. City of Columbus, 50 Ohio St. 65 [33 N.E. 292, 293, 40 Am.St.Rep. 648, 19 L.R.A. 510].) Perhaps this apparent conflict can be reconciled on the theory that a state Legislature may authorize franchises granting the utility the right to compensation for relocating its lines to make way for governmental uses, but that it will not be held to have delegated such power to a political subdivision in the absence of express language to that effect.

  4. Dept. of Highways v. Pa. P.U.C

    182 A.2d 267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962)   Cited 8 times

    Undoubtedly, under this Law, the department has authority to issue permits and prescribe "conditions, restrictions, and regulations" under which gas, electric, telephone, and water utilities may occupy state highways. Cf. Philadelphia Suburban Water Company v. Pennsylvania PublicUtility Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 365, 78 A.2d 46. However, as between the department and the commission in highway-rail crossing proceedings under section 409 the statutory power is sufficiently explicit and broad to render commission jurisdiction exclusive within these limits and to authorize the order entered in these proceedings. As stated in Department of Highways v. Pennsylvania Public UtilityCommission, 141 Pa. Super. 376, 380, 386, 14 A.2d 611, 612, 615, quoting from earlier decisions: "`The legislature intended to place matters pertaining to the state highway system, its construction and maintenance, under the authority of the Department of Highways, subject to the limitation that where any highway, state, county, or township, is crossed by the facilities of a public utility, then matters pertaining to the crossing are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission': Somerset County v. P.U.C., 132 Pa. Super. 585, 598, 1 A.2d 806. The powers of the commission are plenary with relation to crossing of ra

  5. Equitable Gas Co. v. Pa. P.U.C

    442 A.2d 419 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    Historically, in Pennsylvania, non-transportation public utilities have been permitted to occupy highway rights-of -way free of cost, subject and subordinate to the State's police power to control and regulate the highways for the benefit of the public. Delaware River Joint Commission Case, 342 Pa. 119, 19 A.2d 278; Philadelphia Electric Company v. Commonwealth, 311 Pa. 542, 166 A. 892; Scranton Gas and Water Co. v. Scranton City, 214 Pa. 586, 64 A. 84; Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 78 A.2d 46; Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 139 Pa. Super. 529, 12 A.2d 479; Springfield Water Co. v. Phila. Garrettford Ry., 45 Pa. Super. 516. Such utilities obtain no property rights in the highway and can be ordered by a competent state or municipal agency to relocate their facilities at their own expense (Delaware River Joint Commission Case, supra; Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. Lewis, Sec'y., 317 Pa. 387, 177 A. 36; Duquesne Light Co. v. Pittsburgh, 251 Pa. 557, 97 A. 85). The reason obviously is that since these utilities occupy the highways free of cost they should not be entitled to compensation if they are forced to relocate their facilities because of highway improvements. This common law rule, however, can and may be abrogated by a specific statutory mandate directing the payment of relocation costs to the non-transportation utilities involved.

  6. City of Phila. v. Philadelphia Elec

    473 A.2d 997 (Pa. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    In City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 504 Pa. 312, 473 A.2d 997 (1984) (" City of Philadelphia II"), this Court determined that the Commission's jurisdiction to allocate costs under Section 2704(a) attaches in the absence of voluntary payment pursuant to a cost-allocation agreement among affected parties.

    Before considering the statutory provisions specifically involved in this case, a historical review of this area is informative. Under the earlier case law of the Commonwealth, non-transportation utilities were permitted to occupy highway rights-of-way free of cost, subject and subordinate to the state's police power to control and regulate the highways for the benefit of the public. Delaware River Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, supra; Delaware River Joint Commission Case, 342 Pa. 119, 19 A.2d 278 (1941); Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Commonwealth, 311 Pa. 542, 166 A. 892 (1933); Scranton Gas and Water Co. v. Scranton City, 214 Pa. 586, 64 A. 84 (1906); Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 78 A.2d 46 (1951); Bell Telephone Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 139 Pa. Super. 529, 12 A.2d 479 (1940); Springfield Water Co. v. Philadelphia Garretford Railway, 45 Pa. Super. 516 (1911). These utilities obtained no property rights in the highway and could be ordered by a state or municipal agency to relocate their facilities at their own expense.

  7. State Highway Com'n v. Southern Union Gas Co.

    65 N.M. 84 (N.M. 1959)   Cited 18 times
    In State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co., 65 N.M. 84, 332 P.2d 1007, 1013, legislation attempting to authorize state reimbursement of costs of relocating utility facilities, was attacked on the ground that it was violative of N.M. Const. Art. 9, Sec. 24, prohibiting donations of state funds in aid of a private corporation.

    "[The] common law rule, however, can and may be abrogated by a specific statutory mandate directing the payment of relocation costs to the nontransportation utilities involved. See: Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Commonwealth, 311 Pa. 542, 166 A. 892; Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 367, 78 A.2d 46."

  8. First National Bank, Boston v. Turnpike Auth

    153 Me. 131 (Me. 1957)   Cited 31 times
    Finding no taking because the gas company acquired no exclusive right to the location of its pipes by virtue of the city's grant

    See Transit Commission v. Long Island R.R., 253 N.Y. 345, 171 N.E. 565 (1930). Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania P.U.C., 168 Pa. Super. 360, 78 A.2d 46 (1951). P. 51. "Whether regarded as an exercise of the police power or of the power of eminent domain, the vacation of a highway is not a taking of private property for public use, requiring payment of compensation conformably to the Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 10. Paul v. Carver, 24 Pa. 207. Unless a statute expressly imposes liability for compensation upon the commonwealth for the vacation of a highway, neither damages nor compensation are recoverable."

  9. Jones v. State

    115 A.2d 273 (Md. 1955)   Cited 8 times

    That would be making an Act criminal without fair and effective notice." Assuming, as contended by the appellant, that the word "concerned", as here used, is equivalent to the word "interested" ( Philadelphia Sub. Co. v. Penn. P.U. Commission, 168 Pa. Super. 360, 78 A.2d 46) we think the statute is definite enough to fix an ascertainable standard of guilt. In Foote v. State, 59 Md. 264, the statute provided a penalty for "any person who shall brutally assault" his wife.

  10. Allegheny Co. Port Auth. v. Pa. P.U.C

    217 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1966)   Cited 8 times

    Railways initiated the proceedings for abandonment, and was subject to assessment on subsequent orders as to alteration of the crossing. The Commission may compel public utilities, municipalities concerned, or the Commonwealth, "jointly or in several allotments" to pay the expense for eliminating grade crossings: Westmoreland Chemical Color Co. v. P.S.C., 294 Pa. 451, 144 A. 407; Phila. Suburban Water Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 168 Pa. Super. 360, 369, 78 A.2d 46 (1951). The law does not require that the total expense be prorated among the respective parties upon a percentage basis; the only requirement is that the order be just and reasonable: Erie R.R. v. P.S.C., 271 Pa. 409, 114 A. 357, and of course the party must be concerned.