Opinion ID: 3009746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Framework of the PUC.

Text: The PUC has long been recognized as the appropriate forum for the adju issues involving the reasonableness, adequacy and sufficiency of public util Behrend v. Bell Telephone, 243 A.2d 346, 347 (Pa. 1968). The PUC has the power to 'prescribe as to service and facilities . just and reasonable standards. . . to be furnished, imposed, obser and followed by any or all public utilities . . .' and upon findi . . 'that the service or facilities of any public utility are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, insufficient . . . ' the PUC 'sh determine and prescribe, by regulation or order, the reasonable, s adequate, sufficient, service or facilities to be observed, furni enforced or employed . . . ' Elkin v. Bell Telephone, 420 A.2d 371, 374 (Pa. 1980), see 66 P.S. §§ 1182, (repealed and replaced by 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1504, 1505 (1978). The Pennsylvani Utility Law requires public utilities to file tariffs with the PUC. See 66 § 1302 (Purdon 1979 & Supp. 1995). These tariffs are binding and dispositiv 0 Following oral argument we asked the parties to file supplemental bri issue. 33 rights and liabilities between the customer and the public utility. See 66 §1303 (Purdon 1979). The PUC has enforcement power over its tariffs and re matters that pertain to those tariffs are considered to be within the partic of the PUC. See 66 Pa. C.S.A. § 501, et. seq. (Purdon 1979). Accordingly, [t]he PUC has long been recognized as the appropriate for adjudication of issues involving the reasonableness, adequacy and sufficienc utility services. Elkin, 420 A.2d at 374. At oral argument, Teleconcepts it was challenging the reasonableness, adequacy and sufficiency of Bell's t service, and Bell admitted this point in its supplemental brief to this cour Supp. Brief at 1-2, 7. Thus, it is not disputed that the subject matter of party complaint is within the jurisdiction of the PUC, and that agency is t forum to resolve the issues raised by that complaint. That determination, ho necessary to our analysis, is not sufficient to end our inquiry. Our inquir focus upon whether resolution of Teleconcepts' claim against Bell requires t competence of the PUC. Courts should not be too hasty in referring a matter to an agency, to develop a 'dependence' on the agencies whenever a controversy remotely involves some issue falling arguably within the domain o agency's 'expertise.' 'Expertise' is no talisman dissolving a cour jurisdiction. Accommodation of the judicial and administrative functions does not mean abdication of judicial responsibility. . . Therefore, where the subject matter is within an agency's jurisdiction and where it is a complex matter requiring special competence, with which the judge or jury would not or could not be familiar, the proper procedure is for the court to refer the matte the appropriate agency. . . . Where, on the other hand, the matter not one peculiarly within the agency's area of expertise, but is o which the courts or jury are equally well-suited to determine, the court must not abdicate its responsibility. Elkin, 420 A.2d at 377.