IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PATRICK M. CICERO,

Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY 

COMMISSION,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 568 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

PATRICK M. CICERO

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY 

COMMISSION

PETITION OF: EAST WHITELAND 

TOWNSHIP

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 569 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

PATRICK M. CICERO

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY 

COMMISSION

PETITION OF: AQUA PENNSYLVANIA 

WASTEWATER, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 570 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER
[569 MAL 2023] - 2

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed 

by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission at 568 MAL 2023 is GRANTED. The 

issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Commonwealth Court depart from accepted judicial practices and 

abuse its discretion when it failed to give deference to the Commission’s 

interpretation of 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 1102, 1103 and 1329 and re-weighed the 

evidence presented to the Commission?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court abuse its discretion when it violated the Rules 

of Statutory Construction and issued an Order inconsistent with the intent 

of the General Assembly?

(3) Is the Commonwealth Court Order inconsistent with the controlling authority 

of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Popowsky and the 

Commonwealth Court decision in McCloskey?

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by East Whiteland Township at 569 MAL 

2023 is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) The PUC has a policy of encouraging well-organized, investor-owned 

utilities to purchase smaller, locally-owned and operated water and 

wastewater systems. In 2016, the General Assembly enacted Section 1329 

of the Code, codifying incentives for investor-owned utilities to make fair 

market value purchases of viable locally-owned systems. The law requires 

purchasers to prove that the acquisition is necessary or proper for the 

service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. This Court’s 

prior decisions provide that, in considering applications, the Commission 

should consider rate increases “in a general fashion.” Is the Commission 

required to deny a Section 1329 application merely because customers’ 

rates might increase?

(2) This Court previously stated that the General Assembly did not intend for 

Pennsylvania appellate courts, upon review, to reweigh the various factors 

considered by the Public Utility Commission when granting a certificate of 

public convenience. Rejecting the evidence the Commission credited in its 

opinion, the Commonwealth Court reversed the Commission’s decision to 

award Aqua a certificate of public convenience in connection with its 

proposed acquisition of East Whiteland Township’s system. Was the 

Commonwealth Court allowed to substitute its judgment for the 

Commission’s judgment?
[569 MAL 2023] - 3

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by Aqua Pennsylvania Wastewater, Inc. 

at 570 MAL 2023 is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether, in a case of first impression and statewide importance, the 

Commonwealth Court’s holding that a utility purchaser is not entitled to a 

Certificate of Public Convenience (“CPC”) under Section 1103 of the 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Code and a rate base determination under and 

in accordance with Code Section 1329, notwithstanding that it has proven 

that the CPC is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, 

convenience or safety of the public, that there are substantial affirmative 

benefits from the transaction, is erroneous, particularly in circumstances 

where the Commonwealth Court failed to give appropriate deference to the 

[]PUC’s findings, disregarded long-standing policy and precedent and 

undermined the letter and spirit of the Code sections in question[.]

(2) Whether this Court should accept this appeal to reconcile a conflict between 

the Commonwealth Court’s decision in this case and its decision in 

McCloskey v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 195 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) 

alloc. denied No. 703 MAL 2018 (April 23, 2019) (“McCloskey”), and related 

precedents regarding what a utility purchaser must establish to obtain a 

CPC under Sections 1103 and 1329 of the Code[.]

(3) Whether, as a matter of public policy, this Court should accept this appeal 

to bring clarity and predictability to issues involving the sale and purchase 

of water and wastewater systems affecting utility customers throughout the 

Commonwealth[.]

The Prothonotary is directed to consolidate these cases and to schedule them to 

be argued together.

The Applications for Leave To File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Petitions For

Allowance of Appeal are GRANTED.

The Application to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by Petitioner 

East Whiteland Township is DENIED. Petitioner East Whiteland Township is, however, 

permitted to discuss in its appellate brief those matters raised in its Application to 

Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal.