Court Opinion

ID: 9636687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:39:08.350043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:55.989816
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s scholarly opinion because I conclude that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) does not now have jurisdiction over this crossing.
As the majority correctly notes, Norfolk filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the Township of Harmar’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because: (1) Pennsylvania Railroad’s 1929 petition requested that the Public Service Commission (PSC) “abandon and close” the Subject Crossing as a public vehicular crossing; (2) the 1930 Order altered the Subject Crossing from a vehicular/pedestrian crossing to a four-foot pedestrian crossing; (3) the PUC currently has no jurisdiction over a pedestrian crossing; and, (4) any prior assertion of jurisdiction and assignment of maintenance responsibilities by the PSC is, therefore, without effect. I agree with the majority that the 1929 petition requested to “abandon and close” the crossing; that the PSC granted in its 1930 order an “alteration” that changed the crossing from vehicular/pedestrian to pedestrian only; and, that the PUC does not have jurisdiction over pedestrian-only crossings. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that, *1253due to various provisions transferring the powers and duties of the PSC to the PUC, the PUC has jurisdiction over this pedestrian-only crossing today.
First, I do not think it is clear whether the PSC, itself, had jurisdiction over a pedestrian-only crossing. Of course, it could not pass on to its successor, the PUC, jurisdiction it did not have. However, even if the PSC did have jurisdiction over a pedestrian-only crossing, I do not think that the PUC retained that jurisdiction after May of 1937.
Section 13(f) of the Act of March 31, 1937, P.L. 160 (March 1937 Act),1 which created the PUC and abolished the PSC, provided that
All certificates of public convenience, orders and rules and regulations made or issued by the [PSC] prior to, and in force and effect upon, the effective date of this act, shall remain in full force and effect until revoked or modified by the [PUC],
However, Section 13(h) of the March 1937 Act,2 limits this grant of authority to matters within the jurisdiction of the PUC by specifying that:
Whenever the term Public Service Commission occurs in any law, contract or document, or whenever in any law, contract or document reference is made to such Public Service Commission, such term or reference shall be deemed to refer to and include the Public Utility Commission created by this act so far as such law, contract or document pertains to matters which are within the jurisdiction of such Public Utility Commission.
(Emphasis added.)
When the March 1937 Act was enacted, it directed that the PUC “shall have the power and its duty shall be to administer and enforce” the 1913 Act. Section 12 of the 1913 Act had given the PSC jurisdiction to relocate, alter or abolish grade crossings where the tracks of a railway were constructed across a public “highway” or vice versa. Neither the 1913 Act nor the March 1937 Act contained a definition of “highway”; however, on May 28, 1937, the legislature passed the Public Utility Law,3 which, for the first time, contained a definition of “highway” as used in public utility law. That provision defined “highway” to mean “every way or place, of whatever nature, open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular traffic.” Section 2(12) of the Public Utility Law.4 (Emphasis added.) In my view, upon passage of the Public Utility Law, the two-month old Public Utility Commission lost any jurisdiction it may formerly have enjoyed over a pedestrian-only crossing and, therefore, under subsection (h) of the March 1937 Act, the PUC no longer retained jurisdiction over the matter because the subject crossing did not involve a “highway” as that term was defined.
This position is in accord with our opinion in County of Bucks v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 684 A.2d 678 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), where we held, after reviewing the statutory authority of the PSC and its successor, the PUC, that the PUC did not have jurisdiction over a pedestrian-only crossing, notwithstanding any prior *1254grant of jurisdiction the PSC may have had. Unlike the majority, I believe that County of Bucks is applicable to this case.
In County of Bucks, the PSC, in a 1917 order, directed that an at-grade highway crossing be abolished and ordered that; before the railroad abolished the crossing, it had to construct and maintain an above-grade pedestrian bridge at the same location. In 1985, the railroad petitioned the PUC for permission to abolish the crossing where the pedestrian bridge crossed over the tracks. At that time, the railroad and the Township of Bristol agreed that the pedestrian bridge was a hazard.
The PUC granted the petition and ordered the railroad to bear the cost, in the first instance, to remove the stairway to the bridge and barricade it to pedestrians. The PUC also determined that a hearing was needed to determine the allocation of costs and expenses for the closing and removal of the structure. At the hearing, the PUC, the railroad and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation filed a stipulation recommending that the Township and County of Bucks bear the costs for closing the bridge, as well as all future maintenance costs. Also at the hearing, the railroad changed the relief it sought and requested only the permanent closure of the bridge, rather than the abolishment of the crossing, so that it would not need to restructure its catenary system.
The Administrative Law Judge observed that the railroad was federally exempted from paying the allocated closing costs and assessed those costs upon the Township (25%) and the County (75%). The PUC adopted this determination, rejecting the County’s and Township’s exceptions. The County appealed to this Court and the Township intervened.
On appeal, the County and Township contended that the PUC did not have jurisdiction to close or allocate the costs of closing a pedestrian-only bridge. We agreed, noting, “the PUC’s authority to allocate the costs in a highway-rail crossing must be found within the [Public Utility] Code ... and no such authority exists. ...” Id. at 682. The PUC contended that it had jurisdiction because, its forerunner, the PSC, had ordered the bridge to be built. Our opinion noted that the issue of the PSC’s jurisdiction had apparently not been raised when it ordered the abolishment of the highway crossing and its jurisdiction may have been assumed. We explained, however, that:
Once the highway bridge was abolished, as ordered by the Public Service Commission, there was no basis for the PUC’s assertion of jurisdiction based on any purported jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. Even if the Public Service Commission had been given jurisdiction over pedestrian bridges by the 1913 law, it is within the powers of the General Assembly to narrow or redefine the PUC’s jurisdiction as it sees fit.
Id. Further, we noted that, “[t]he plain language of the present [Public Utility] Code limits the PUC’s jurisdiction to highways for vehicular traffic[,] which excludes the pedestrian bridge at issue here without regard to any prior assertion of jurisdiction.” Id.
Here, as in County of Bucks, a highway crossing had been changed to pedestrian-only by an action of the PSC and the question of costs and ongoing maintenance is in issue. Although in County of Bucks the PSC order directed that the crossing in issue be “abolished” and replaced with a pedestrian bridge, the order in our case has the same practical effect. By altering the subject crossing from a vehicular/pedestrian crossing to a four-foot pedestrian crossing, the order eliminated vehicular traffic and permitted only pedestrian traffic; thus, as it had done in County of *1255Bucks, the PSC created a pedestrian-only crossing. As of May 1937, the PUC did not have jurisdiction over a pedestrian-only crossing. Therefore, I would conclude, as we did in County of Bucks, that the Commission lacked jurisdiction, and its order must be reversed.
Finally, I observe that the present provision in the Public Utility Code, Section 2702(b), 66 Pa.C.S. § 2702(b), authorizes the PUC to require a railroad to control the growth of brush and weeds on its property within 200 feet of a crossing “to insure proper visibility by motorists.” (Emphasis added.) This Section arguably does not apply here because there is no reasonable evidence that motorists use the crossing.
For these reasons, I would reverse the order of the PUC.

. Formerly 66 P.S. § 464(f), repealed by Section 2 of the Act of July 1, 1978, P.L. 598.

. Formerly 66 P.S. § 464(h), repealed by Section 2 of the Act of July 1, 1978, P.L. 598.

. Act of May 28, 1937 P.L. 1053, formerly 66 P.S. §§ 1101-1562.

. Formerly 66 P.S. § 1102.