349 A.2d 807
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.Argued September 10, 1975
January 6, 1976.
Public utilities — Certificate of public convenience — Extension of electric service — Public necessity — Public Utility Law, Act 1937, May 28, P.L. 1053 — Location of transmission line.
1. In a proceeding under the Public Utility Law, Act 1937, May 28, P.L. 1053, to pass upon an application for a certificate of public convenience to extend electric service to additional territory, the question of the need for the proposed service to the public must be determined, and such a proceeding cannot be used as a forum to challenge the location of the proposed transmission line needed to furnish such service. [538-9]
Argued September 10, 1975, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Page 538
Appeal, No. 208 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Public Utility Commission in case of In Re: Application of Philadelphia Electric Company for approval of the right to begin to offer, render, furnish or supply electric service to the public in portions of Franconia and Upper Hanover Townships, Montgomery County, Milford Township, Bucks County and Lower Milford Township, Lehigh County, Application Docket No. 98291.
Application to Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for certificate of public convenience. Application approved. Protestant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Philip R. Detwiler, with him Butera Detwiler, for appellant.
R. Knickerbocker Smith, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with hi Edward Munce, Assistant Counsel, and Peter W. Brown, Counsel, for appellee.
Donald Blanken, Assistant General Counsel, with him Edward G. Bauer, Jr., General Counsel, for intervening appellee.
OPINION BY JUDGE KRAMER, January 6, 1976:
This is an appeal by Franconia Township from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission which granted a certificate of public convenience to the Philadelphia Electric Company. The certificate, which was granted pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Public Utility Law,[1] authorized the Company to begin to offer, render, furnish or supply electric service in certain additional territory, including part of Franconia.[2] We conclude
Page 539
that there is no controversy between the parties concerning the public need for the proposed service in the additional territory, and, therefore, affirm.
Both in the proceedings below and in this appeal, Franconia has challenged the location of the transmission line proposed by the Company. Franconia has mistaken the nature of this case. This is not a transmission route alignment case[3] in which the Company is seeking PUC approval of its right to exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to Section 322 of the Business Corporation Law.[4] This case does not involve approval by the Commission of a specific location for the Company’s proposed transmission line. If Franconia wishes to challenge the location of the proposed transmission line, it must do so in a different proceeding.
The only question before the PUC in this case was whether the proposed service in the additional territory was “necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.”[5] Franconia admits that the proposed service in the additional territory is necessary for the service of the public and, thus, concedes the validity of the PUC’s decision.
We therefore
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 1976, the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, dated January 20, 1975, granting a certificate of public convenience to the Philadelphia Electric Company, is hereby affirmed.
(1975).
Page 540