MGMT 520 Week 2 Case Analysis, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York

Central IHudson IGas I& IElectric ICorp Ivs. IPublic ICommission Iof INew IYork 1




Team IEthics ICase IAnalysis

Central IHudson IGas I& IElectric ICorp Ivs. IPublic ICommission Iof INew IYork IFelix IMontesdeoca IJr

Joshua IQuay
I




Debra IRivera

MGMT I520/Legal IPolitical Iand IEthical IDimensions Iof IBusiness

March I29, I2020
I




Professor: IRachid IAmeur




This Istudy Isource Iwas Idownloaded Iby I100000841397762 Ifrom ICourseHero.com Ion I04-14-2022 I00:48:32 IGMT I-
05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/58347112/Wee-2-Case-Analysis-Team-Ethicsdoc/

, Central IHudson IGas I& IElectric ICorp Ivs. IPublic ICommission Iof INew IYork 2




Parties

- Central IHudson IGas I& IElectric ICorp.


- Public IService ICommission Iof INew IYork


Facts


During Ithe I1973 Ioil Iembargo, Iin Ian Ieffort Ito Ireduce Iconsumption, Ithe IPublic IService

Commission Iof INew IYork Iimposed Ia Iban Ion Ipromotional Iadvertisement Iby Iutility Icompanies
I




due Ito Ifindings Ithat I“the Iutility Isystem Iin INew IYork IState Idoes Inot Ihave Isufficient Ifuel Istocks Ior
I




I sources Iof Isupply Ito Icontinue Ifurnishing Iall Icustomer Idemands Ifor Ithe I1973-1974 Iwinter”

I (Oyez,

n.d. Ip. I447). IThe Iinjunction Ibarred Ithe Iuse Iof Iany Ilanguage Ipromoting Ithe Iuse Iof Ielectricity Ifrom

I marketing Imaterials; Iallowing Ionly Ithe Iuse Iof Iadvertisements Iintended Ifor Iinformational

purposes. IBy I1976, Ithe Ioil Icrisis Ihad Isubsided. IHowever, Iin IFebruary I1977 Ithe IPublic IService
I




Commission Iof INew IYork Iissued Ia Ipolicy Iextending Ithe Iban Ion Imarketing Imaterials Iintended Ito
I




generate Isales. IThe ICommission’s Iintention Iwas Ito Icontinue Iconservation Iefforts Ias Imeans Iof
I




I limiting Iunnecessary Igrowth Iof Ielectricity Iuse Iand Ialigne Ithe Istate Iwith Inational Ipolicy Ion Ienergy

conservation.
I




Procedure


Central I Hudson I Gas I & I Electric I Corporation I filed I a I suit I against I the I Public I Service

I Commission Iof INew IYork Iclaiming Iinfringement Ion Itheir IFirst Iand IFourteenth IAmendment

rights. IThe Iutility Icompany Iargued Ithat Ithe ICommission Irestricted Itheir Iright Ito Icommercial
I




speech. IThe INew IYork ISupreme I Court I and I the I New IYork I Court I of IAppeals I ruled I in I favor I of
I




I the I Commission I claiming
This Istudy Isource Iwas Idownloaded Iby I100000841397762 Ifrom ICourseHero.com Ion I04-14-2022 I00:48:32 IGMT I-
05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/58347112/Wee-2-Case-Analysis-Team-Ethicsdoc/