Court Opinion

ID: 9542824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:39:13.870931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:03.484829
License: Public Domain

*288Judge Wilkinson
Opinion by Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part :
I concur with the majority of the Court when it holds that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission did not abu.se its discretion in approving the merger of three telephone companies, parties to this suit. However, I must respectfully dissent from the dismissal of the petition of the Attorney General to intervene. I would allow such intervention.
Section 9 of the Public Utility Law, Act of March 31, 1937, P. L. 160, 66 P.S. 460, specifically creates the office of counsel to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. As indicated by the majority, such counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, with the approval of the Governor, and is compensated at a rate fixed by the Commission, with the approval of the Governor. Clearly, he is not a deputy attorney general. The same section of the Act, wherein it provides for his duties, sets forth: “Such counsel and assistant counsel shall also assist the Attorney General in conducting-all mandamus, injunction, and quo warranto proceedings at law or in equity, instituted by him for the enforcement of the regulations and orders of the Commission, and shall perform such other professional duties as may be required by the Commission.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It seems clear to me that this language makes the office of counsel to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission a completely independent office from the Attorney General with the requirement that he “assist” the Attorney General in the very restricted area when the Attorney General is enforcing the regulations and orders of the Commission.
In Section 906 of the Administrative Code, authority is provided for the Attorney General, with the approval of the Governor, to appoint and fix the com*289pensation of such special deputy attorneys general as may be required for the departments, boards and commissions which may require such services, but specifically provides that the office of counsel to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission shall be retained. See Section 906 of the Act of April 9, 1929, P. L. 177, as amended December 17, 1970, P. L. , 71 P.S. 296. Any possible doubt as to the independent status of the counsel to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission would seem to be removed by this legislation, especially so recently amended. If it is decided, as I would decide, that the counsel for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is independent of the control of the Attorney General, then it would seem to follow that the Attorney General could intervene in any proceedings either before the Commission or on appeal from the Commission under his broad powers of intervention given in the Act of May 28, 1915, P. L. 616, Section 1, 12 P.S. 145.
The question of whether the Attorney General can dismiss the counsel to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is not before this Court and I would not express dictum on it.