Bishop v. Public Service Co.

467 F.2d 510, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8344
CourtTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 19, 1972
DocketNo. 1-1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 467 F.2d 510 (Bishop v. Public Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bishop v. Public Service Co., 467 F.2d 510, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8344 (tecoa 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review the case at bar on appel-lee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal or, in the Alternative, to Affirm Judgment of the District Court. In light of the June 1, 1972 revision of 6 C.F.R. § 300.16a(i), 37 Fed.Reg. 10,942-43, relating to public utility increases, we affirm the judgment of the district court, 340 F.Supp. 520.

This case involves the placing into effect of a rate increase promulgated by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The Company had filed a revised tariff with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of New Hampshire which was suspended by the Commission by virtue of the authority vested in it to suspend utility rate tariffs under New Hampshire law. The Company had arranged for its rate increase to become effective as an interim rate increase subject to accounting and refunding ; however, prior to the effective date of this interim rate increase the Price Commission froze all utility rate increases. From the time of initial freeze on utility rates the Company sought on numerous occasions to place its interim rate plan into effect and the Public Utilities Commission, reacting to the various strictures and stipulations of the Price Commission, amended its order approving this action no less than four times.

At the time appellants filed their appeal with this court, there was a question as to whether the Public Service Company of New Hampshire could place an interim rate increase into effect or whether prior to placing such interim rate increase into effect it would be necessary to comply with the “good cause” certification requirements found in the earlier version of 6 C.F.R. § 300.16a(i), 37 Fed.Reg. 5701 (March 18, 1972). In view of the June 1, 1972 amendment to these sections of Part 300 of the Regulations, these questions are no longer before this court.

All public utilities intending to place an interim rate increase into effect, or continue an existing interim rate increase in effect, must now meet the three following criteria prior to the interim rate increase becoming effective:

1. The interim rate increase must either be in existence prior to March 19, 1972, and continue in force on that date or it must be placed into effect on or after that date; and
2. the interim rate must be promulgated prior to the certification of rules of procedure by the Commission ; and
3. the interim rate increase must be in effect prior to June 1,1972.

See 6 C.F.R. § 300.16a(i) (3) (June 1, 1972).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baldwin County Electric Membership Corp. v. Price Commission
481 F.2d 920 (Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
467 F.2d 510, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-public-service-co-tecoa-1972.