Court Opinion

ID: 9767284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:15:28.196276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.052273
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the appellants sustained their burden by proving they were not responsible for the excessive usage. The statutory burden [see 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 332(a) ] is satisfied when a complainant offers evidence that his consumption of power during the time segment in question did not cause the excessive usage in dispute. The error of the Commonwealth Court and the majority’s opinion today is that they implicitly place the obligation upon the complainant of proving an act or an omission of the utility as being responsible for the *439excessive use. In other words, the thrust of today’s opinion requires the complainant to identify the cause of the excessive usage. Such a burden goes beyond the statutory directive and is clearly unfair.
I, therefore, dissent and would reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.
LARSEN and HUTCHINSON, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.