1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 546 F.2d
  5. 546 F.2d 1036 (1976)
 

TOWNS OF NORWOOD ET AL., MASS. v. FED. POWER COM'N

Nos. 75-1821, 75-1850, 75-1881.

546 F.2d 1036 (1976)

The TOWNS OF NORWOOD ET AL., MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, Boston Edison Company, Intervenor. Boston Edison Company, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, Municipal Light Boards of Reading and Wakefield, Massachusetts, and the Towns of Norwood et al., Massachusetts, Intervenors. The MUNICIPAL LIGHT BOARDS OF READING AND WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, Boston Edison Company, Intervenor.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided November 24, 1976.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Grace Powers Monaco, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners in No. 75-1821 and intervenors The Towns of Norwood, Concord and Wellesley, Mass., in No. 75-1850. John A. Cameron, Washington, D.C., was also on the brief for intervenors, The Towns of Norwood, Concord and Wellesley, Mass.

Bruder & Gentile, Washington, D.C., with whom Carmen L. Gentile, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioner in No. 75-1850 and intervenor Boston Edison Co. in Nos. 75-1821 and 75-1881.

Robert C. McDiarmid, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioner in No. 75-1881 and intervenors, Municipal Light Boards of Reading and Wakefield, Mass., in No. 75-1850.

Scott M. DuBoff, Atty., Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C., with whom Drexel D. Journey, Gen. Counsel, Robert W. Perdue, Deputy Gen. Counsel and Allan Abbot Tuttle, Sol., Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondent.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

These cases are petitions for review of an order of the Federal Power Commission setting Boston Edison's wholesale electrical rate S-1. The petitioners are Boston Edison Company and several towns and municipal light boards which are its customers. We conclude that the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence and that there was no error of law.

Petitioners challenge a number of factual determinations which the Commission reached...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases