Court Opinion

ID: 9753539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:17:32.265618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:37.294261
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
The majority renders a decision that is of critical significance to the operations of a Public Utility Commission, ie., in what sequence and in what forum a utility’s challenge to its assessment should be litigated. It concludes that the single way for a utility to challenge its assessment is by initiating litigation against the Public Utility Commission in an original jurisdiction action before this Court.
Section 510(d) of the Public Utility Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 510, says what it says, and I do not quarrel with the majority’s description thereof. However, the majority does not address the important and ancillary *1248statutory construction question of whether the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-508, 701-704, augments the procedure established in Section 510 of the Public Utility Code. The majority decision implies, but does not state expressly, that the Administrative Agency Law is irrelevant to utility assessment challenges. Both parties proceeded below in the belief that Mercury Trucking’s grievance could be resolved, in the first instance, by a formal administrative hearing before the Public Utility Commission governed by the Administrative Agency Law.
I realize this Court may question its jurisdiction sua sponte. However, I do not believe that this Court should announce a ground breaking decision, such as this one, without allowing the parties an opportunity to brief or argue the dispositive issues.
I believe we should order the parties to brief on these jurisdictional and statutory construction questions and have the matter argued en banc.