## Facts

- Pennsylvania electric utilities, including Duquesne Light Company and Pennsylvania Power Company, participated in a venture formed to construct multiple nuclear generating units.
- After intervening events, several planned nuclear plants were canceled, leaving the utilities with substantial sunk construction and planning costs.
- Duquesne sought a rate increase from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and permission to recover canceled-plant costs through 10-year amortization; the PUC approved a rate increase including amortized recovery.
- During the rate proceeding, Pennsylvania enacted Act 335, requiring that construction costs for a generating facility not be included in the rate base or otherwise included in rates until the facility is “used and useful in service to the public.”
- On reconsideration, the PUC concluded Act 335 barred placing canceled-plant costs in rate base but still allowed amortized recovery; it reaffirmed its order and issued a similar amortization authorization for Pennsylvania Power.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, construing Act 335 to bar recovery of the canceled-plant costs both through rate base inclusion and amortization, rejected a federal constitutional challenge, and remanded to the PUC to revise the rate orders accordingly.
- The utilities sought U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing that denying recovery of prudently incurred investment in canceled plants effected a taking under the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the state court decision was sufficiently final for U.S. Supreme Court review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 despite a remand to the PUC for implementation.
2. Whether Act 335, as construed to bar recovery of canceled-plant costs through either rate base inclusion or amortization, effected an unconstitutional taking by preventing recovery of prudently incurred investment.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court had conclusively resolved the federal constitutional question and the remand required only implementation of a clear directive in otherwise complete rate proceedings.
- The Court affirmed the judgment upholding Act 335 as applied.
- The Court held that excluding canceled-plant costs from recovery does not itself constitute a taking where the overall rate scheme permits a reasonable return on property used and useful to provide public service.
- The Court rejected the claim that the Constitution requires a “prudent investment” guarantee that all prudently incurred costs must be recoverable from ratepayers.

## Legal Principles

- For constitutional review of utility rates, the controlling inquiry is the overall effect of the rate order; the Constitution does not mandate any particular ratemaking method or formula.
- A state may employ a “used and useful” limitation and may direct regulatory commissions to exclude specified cost categories, provided the resulting rates are not confiscatory.
- A taking is not established by the denial of recovery for particular expenditures; the utility must show that the rate structure, in total effect, deprives it of a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on property devoted to public use.
- A state court judgment may be “final” for purposes of Supreme Court review when it definitively resolves the federal question and leaves only ministerial or straightforward implementation on remand.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Pennsylvania’s statutory choice to bar rate recovery of sunk costs from canceled generating facilities, holding that the Takings Clause is concerned with whether the overall rate outcome is confiscatory rather than whether a utility can recoup every prudently incurred investment.


Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989)