§ 315. Burden of proof.
(a) Reasonableness of rates.--In any proceeding upon the motion of the commission, involving any proposed or existing
rate of any public utility, or in any proceedings upon complaint involving any proposed
increase in rates, the burden of proof to show that the rate involved is just and
reasonable shall be upon the public utility. The commission shall give to the hearing
and decision of any such proceeding preference over all other proceedings, and decide
the same as speedily as possible.
(b) Compliance with commission determinations and orders.--In any case involving any alleged violation by a public utility, contract carrier
by motor vehicle, or broker of any lawful determination or order of the commission,
the burden of proof shall be upon the public utility, contract carrier by motor vehicle,
or broker complained against, to show that the determination or order of the commission
has been complied with.
(c) Adequacy of services and facilities.--In any proceeding upon the motion of the commission, involving the service or facilities
of any public utility, the burden of proof to show that the service and facilities
involved are adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable shall be upon the public utility.
(d) Justification of accounting entries.--The burden of proof to justify every accounting entry questioned by the commission
shall be upon the public utility making, authorizing, or requiring such entry, and
the commission may suspend any charge or credit pending submission of such proof by
such public utility.
(e) Use of future test year.--In discharging its burden of proof the utility may utilize a future test year or a
fully projected future test year, which shall be the 12-month period beginning with
the first month that the new rates will be placed in effect after application of the
full suspension period permitted under section 1308(d) (relating to voluntary changes
in rates). The commission shall promptly adopt rules and regulations regarding the
information and data to be submitted when and if a future test period or a fully projected
future test year is to be utilized. Whenever a utility utilizes a future test year
or a fully projected future test year in any rate proceeding and such future test
year or a fully projected test year forms a substantive basis for the final rate determination
of the commission, the utility shall provide, as specified by the commission in its
final order, appropriate data evidencing the accuracy of the estimates contained in
the future test year or a fully projected future test year, and the commission may
after reasonable notice and hearing, in its discretion, adjust the utility's rates
on the basis of such data. Notwithstanding section 1315 (relating to limitation on
consideration of certain costs for electric utilities), the commission may permit
facilities which are projected to be in service during the fully projected future
test year to be included in the rate base.
(Feb. 14, 2012, P.L.72, No.11, eff. 60 days)
2012 Amendment. Act 11 amended subsec. (e).
Cross References. Section 315 is referred to in section 332 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 869 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 10× “[20] The Consumer Advocate contends that the Wastewater Charge is nothing but a form of piecemeal ratemaking that violates the matching principle embedded in the test year concept. 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(e). [21] Only one element of the base rate, i.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 642 A.2d 648 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Section 315(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(a). In this case, no rate case had been filed and the purpose of PP & L’s filing of a request for declaratory order was to postpone filing a general rate case while getting a determination of how the accrual costs of OPEBs would be…”
Carnegie Nat. Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 433 A.2d 938 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
· cites it 2× “perience a substantially greater income tax expense than it would experience under normal circumstances, may the commission, for ratemaking purposes, disallow a utility’s actual income tax expense and impute to the utility an income tax expense based upon a hypothetical capital…”
Metro. Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 22 A.3d 353 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
“In rate case proceedings, such as this case, Section 315 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa.C.S. § 315, places the burden of proof on the utility to establish the reasonableness of its rates.”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1985).
“That burden includes an obligation to prove that the tax expense included in the rates charged to the consumer bears a fair and substantial relationship to the actual tax expense or that the denial of *512 normalization accounting would in fact penalize ratepayers.”
Zucker v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 401 A.2d 1377 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
“598; a similar provision is now found in the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §315. Bell unsuccessfully attempted to increase the charge for private number telephone service in a general rate increase filed November 15, 1974.”
Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 613 A.2d 74 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
“In fulfilling its burden to prove that rates requested are just and reasonable, the utility is permitted to file also a projection of its anticipated expenses and revenues for a period of one year beginning the day after the end of the historic test year — the future test year.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 315(a) — 25 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 869 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“[20] The Consumer Advocate contends that the Wastewater Charge is nothing but a form of piecemeal ratemaking that violates the matching principle embedded in the test year concept. 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(e). [21] Only one element of the base rate, i.”
Carnegie Nat. Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 433 A.2d 938 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
“perience a substantially greater income tax expense than it would experience under normal circumstances, may the commission, for ratemaking purposes, disallow a utility’s actual income tax expense and impute to the utility an income tax expense based upon a hypothetical capital…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1985).
“That burden includes an obligation to prove that the tax expense included in the rates charged to the consumer bears a fair and substantial relationship to the actual tax expense or that the denial of *512 normalization accounting would in fact penalize ratepayers.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 642 A.2d 648 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
“Section 315(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(a). In this case, no rate case had been filed and the purpose of PP & L’s filing of a request for declaratory order was to postpone filing a general rate case while getting a determination of how the accrual costs of OPEBs would be…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 315(b) — 3 cases
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 315(c) — 2 cases
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 315(d) — 1 case
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 315(e) — 5 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 869 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“[20] The Consumer Advocate contends that the Wastewater Charge is nothing but a form of piecemeal ratemaking that violates the matching principle embedded in the test year concept. 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(e). [21] Only one element of the base rate, i.”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 642 A.2d 648 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
“Section 315(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(a). In this case, no rate case had been filed and the purpose of PP & L’s filing of a request for declaratory order was to postpone filing a general rate case while getting a determination of how the accrual costs of OPEBs would be…”
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.