Case ID: a3d_176/html/0235-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HIKO ENERGY, LLC, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent
    No. 314 EAL 2017
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    December 13, 2017
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues,' as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the $1,836,125.00 penalty was so grossly disproportionate to the penalties the Commission has approved for similar or more egregious conduct as to violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.
(2) Whether the $1,836,125.00 penalty impérmissibly punished HIKO for litigating the complaint for a civil penalty instead of settling it.
(3) Whether the' Commission abused its discretion in imposing an unprecedented ,-ciyil penalty, .which was not supported by substantial evidence.