§ 1312. Refunds.
(a) General rule.--If, in any proceeding involving rates, the commission shall determine that any rate
received by a public utility was unjust or unreasonable, or was in violation of any
regulation or order of the commission, or was in excess of the applicable rate contained
in an existing and effective tariff of such public utility, the commission shall have
the power and authority to make an order requiring the public utility to refund the
amount of any excess paid by any patron, in consequence of such unlawful collection,
within four years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint, together with
interest at the legal rate from the date of each such excessive payment. In making
a determination under this section, the commission need not find that the rate complained
of was extortionate or oppressive. Any order of the commission awarding a refund shall
be made for and on behalf of all patrons subject to the same rate of the public utility.
The commission shall state in any refund order the exact amount to be paid, the reasonable
time within which payment shall be made, and shall make findings upon pertinent questions
of fact.
(b) Suit for refund.--If the public utility fails to make refunds within the time for payment fixed by any
final order of the commission or court, any patron entitled to any refund may sue
therefor and the findings and order made by the commission shall be prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated, and that the amount awarded is justly due the plaintiff
in such suit, and the defendant public utility shall not be permitted to avail itself
of the defense that the service was, in fact, rendered to the plaintiff at the rate
contained in its tariffs in force at the time payment was made and received, nor shall
the defendant public utility be permitted to avail itself of the defense that the
rate was reasonable. Any patron entitled to any refund shall be entitled to recover,
in addition to the amount of refund, a penalty of 50% of the amount of such refund,
together with all court costs and reasonable attorney fees. No suit may be maintained
for a refund unless instituted within one year from the date of the order of the commission
or court. Any number of patrons entitled to such refund may join as plaintiffs and
recover their several claims in a single action, in which action the court shall render
a judgment severally for each plaintiff as his interest may appear.
(c) Condition for suit.--No action shall be brought in any court for a refund, unless and until the commission
shall have determined that the rate in question was unjust or unreasonable, or in
violation of any regulation or order of the commission, or in excess of the applicable
rate contained in an existing and effective tariff, and then only to recover such
refunds as may have been awarded and directed to be paid by the commission in such
order.
Cross References. Section 1312 is referred to in sections 1308, 3019 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Pettko v. Pennsylvania Am. Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 3× “*484 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a). As stated above, the term “rates” is defined by Section 102 of the Code as “every .”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 647 A.2d 302 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Should the rates charged by Public Service and MPW be determined to be *699 unreasonable, the PUC has authority pursuant to Section 1312 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312, to order refunds. Thus, the PUC argues, the interests of the customers are fully protected.”
Nat'l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 464 A.2d 546 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Perhaps recognizing this difficulty with the Commission’s August 28, 1980, refund order as written, neither the Commission’s legal staff nor the Office of the Consumer Advocate now seriously argue that the May 21, 1978, Commission order or Section 1307(e) of the Code justify the…”
Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 625 A.2d 719 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “t the real or proximate cause of the shutdown; (2) that the PUC erred in concluding that DLC acted imprudently where all the contemporaneous evidence confirms that the NRC considered DLC’s responses to its inquiries to be reasonable; (3) that the PUC erred in disregarding…”
Cnty. of Erie v. Verizon North, Inc., 879 A.2d 357 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“In addition, the PUC possesses the authority to order appropriate remedies; it can direct Verizon to make refunds, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312, and to terminate any illegal practices, 66 Pa.”
Morrow v. Bell Tele. Co. of Pennsylvania, 479 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1984).
“66 Pa.C.S. § 1312. Because the administrative remedies are adequate to remedy any wrong which appellant may have sustained, “the case is exclusively within the PUC’s jurisdiction and no recourse to the courts, outside of the normal appellate process, is warranted.”
Springfield Twp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 676 A.2d 304 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “ALJ denied the Township’s request for a refund and dismissed the complaint, concluding that under Section 1303 of the Code, a public utility must have actual notice of service conditions before it is required to compute bills under a more advantageous rate and that the Township…”
Exxon Pipeline v. La Pub. Serv. Com'n, 728 So. 2d 855 (La. 1999).
“1996)(applying 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a), a hybrid limitations provision which limits a customer's claim to a refund of payments made within four years of the date of filing a complaint); Duquesne Light Co.”
DiSanto v. Dauphin Consol. Water Supply Co., 436 A.2d 197 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).
“§ 1153 (now 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312), and order Dauphin to discontinue its practice of requiring that its own contractors install water service lines instead of other capable independent contractors who agree to install the lines according to required specifications, and further, to…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1312(a) — 20 cases
Pettko v. Pennsylvania Am. Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“*484 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a). As stated above, the term “rates” is defined by Section 102 of the Code as “every .”
Exxon Pipeline v. La Pub. Serv. Com'n, 728 So. 2d 855 (La. 1999).
“1996)(applying 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a), a hybrid limitations provision which limits a customer's claim to a refund of payments made within four years of the date of filing a complaint); Duquesne Light Co.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1312(c) — 1 case
Pettko v. Pennsylvania Am. Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“*484 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a). As stated above, the term “rates” is defined by Section 102 of the Code as “every .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.