Court Opinion

ID: 9698914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:04:07.07413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:14.816850
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Like the majority, I reject C & P’s contention that we should decline to reach the merits as to OPC’s “rate case” claim on grounds of mootness. See Lynch v. United States, 557 A.2d 580, 582-83 (D.C.1989) (en banc). I also join the majority’s decision (Part III) on the merits of the “rate ease” issue. However, I would decline to consider the issue discussed in Part IV of the majority opinion. PSC awarded the requested $34,000 not under the “rate case” authority but rather under the “other investigations” authority. Payment of that amount was made to OPC. OPC has never sought to return that payment to PSC. Given this posture, I question whether there is a case or controversy requiring judicial resolution.