Court Opinion

ID: 9635400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:49:57.70264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:26.580013
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the “option order” procedure utilized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) in this case is invalid under the Public Utility Code.
I write separately only to reiterate my view expressed in dissent in Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 501 Pa. 71, 459 A.2d 1218 (1983) that the Energy Cost Rate (the ECR) automatic adjustment mechanism developed by the PUC violates principles of due process. Accordingly, I do not subscribe to the majority’s position that under “our recent decision in Allegheny Ludlum, supra, the ECR mechanism of Section 1307(c) of the Code is available to allow utilities expedited *489recovery of increased fuel costs.” Majority Opinion at 1111.
McDERMOTT, J., joins this concurring opinion.