§ 332. Procedures in general.
(a) Burden of proof.--Except as may be otherwise provided in section 315 (relating to burden of proof) or
other provisions of this part or other relevant statute, the proponent of a rule or
order has the burden of proof.
(b) Admissibility of evidence.--Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the commission shall as a matter
of policy provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious
evidence. No sanction shall be imposed or rule or order be issued except upon consideration
of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party and as supported
by and in accordance with the reliable, probative and substantial evidence.
(c) Submission of evidence.--Every party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence,
to submit rebuttal evidence and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required
for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The commission may, by rule, adopt procedures
for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.
(d) Record, briefs and argument.--The transcript of a public input hearing, the transcript of testimony and exhibits,
together with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive
record for decision, and shall be available for inspection by the public. Briefing
and oral argument shall be held in accordance with rules established by the commission.
For the purpose of this section, a public input hearing is a hearing held in the service
area at which the ratepayers may offer testimony, written or otherwise, relating to
any matter which has a bearing on the proceeding.
(e) Official notice of facts.--When the commission's decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing
in the evidence in the record, upon notification that facts are about to be or have
been noticed, any party adversely affected shall have the opportunity upon timely
request to show that the facts are not properly noticed or that alternative facts
should be noticed. The commission in its discretion shall determine whether written
presentations suffice, or whether oral argument, oral evidence, or cross-examination
is appropriate in the circumstances. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the application
by the commission in appropriate circumstances of the doctrine of judicial notice.
(f) Actions of parties and counsel.--Any party who shall fail to be represented at a scheduled conference or hearing after
being duly notified thereof, shall be deemed to have waived the opportunity to participate
in such conference or hearing, and shall not be permitted thereafter to reopen the
disposition of any matter accomplished thereat, or to recall for further examination
of witnesses who were excused, unless the presiding officer shall determine that failure
to be represented was unavoidable and that the interests of the other parties and
the public would not be prejudiced by permitting such reopening or further examination.
If the actions of a party or counsel in a proceeding shall be determined by the commission,
after due notice and opportunity for hearing, to be obstructive to the orderly conduct
of the proceeding and inimical to the public interest, the commission may reject or
dismiss any rule or order in any manner proposed by the offending party or counsel,
and, with respect to counsel, may bar further participation by him in any proceedings
before the commission.
(g) Decision of administrative law judge.--In all on-the-record proceedings referred to an administrative law judge under section
331(b) (relating to powers of commission and administrative law judges), hearings
shall be commenced by the administrative law judge within 90 days after the proceeding
is initiated, and he shall render a decision within 90 days after the record is closed,
unless the commission for good cause by order allows an extension not to exceed an
additional 90 days.
(h) Exceptions and appeal procedure.--Any party to a proceeding referred to an administrative law judge under section 331(b)
may file exceptions to the decision of the administrative law judge with the commission,
in a form and manner and within the time to be prescribed by the commission. The commission
shall rule upon such exceptions within 90 days after filing. If no exceptions are
filed, the decision shall become final, without further commission action, unless
two or more commissioners within 15 days after the decision request that the commission
review the decision and make such other order, within 90 days of such request, as
it shall determine. The Office of Trial Staff and the chief counsel shall be deemed
to have automatic standing as a party to such proceeding and may file exceptions to
any decision of the administrative law judge under this subsection.
(i) Review of testimony.--Any party of record in an investigation or inquiry by or hearing before the commission
or its representative whose testimony is recorded electronically and subsequently
transcribed shall, upon request, be permitted to review the recording to ensure that
it has been transcribed accurately. The commission may impose a fee in an amount not
exceeding the actual costs involved for making the recording available. Any request
to review the recording must be made within the time prescribed by commission regulation,
and such request shall not be used to unreasonably delay commission proceedings. This
section shall not be construed to require the electronic recording of testimony. The
official record of a proceeding shall be the written transcript.
(Nov. 26, 1978, P.L.1241, No.294, eff. 60 days; Oct. 10, 1985, P.L.257, No.62, eff.
60 days; July 10, 1986, P.L.1238, No.114, eff. imd.; Apr. 21, 1989, P.L.11, No.3,
eff. imd.)
1989 Amendment. Act 3 added subsec. (i). Section 3 provided that Act 3 shall apply to any action pending
before the commission or any action taken by the commission within 180 days prior
to the effective date of Act 3.
1986 Amendment. Act 114 amended subsec. (h).
1985 Amendment. Act 62 amended subsec. (d).
1978 Amendment. Act 294 added subsecs. (g) and (h).
Notes of Decisions
Philboro Coach Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 423 A.2d 751 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
· cites it 9× “On appeal protestants contend that the commission erred by not giving retroactive effect to Section 332(h) of the Public Utility Code (Code), as amended, 66 Pa. C. S. §332 (h) which now requires that the ALJ rule on exceptions to his initial decision.”
HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 163 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 66 Pa. C.S. §332(a). Factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence, which is “such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 521 A.2d 75 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Section 332(g) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C. S. §332(g), pertaining to procedures before the Commission, provides in pertinent part: [H]earings shall be commenced by the administrative law judge within 90 days after the proceeding is initiated, and he shall render…”
Retail Energy Supply Ass'n v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 185 A.3d 1206 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“3d at 1106-07 (citing 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a).) We concluded, as previously discussed, that substantial evidence supported PUC's decision to reject the proposed PECO price ceiling, but that PUC's decision to reject the prohibition on early cancellation and termination fees was not…”
Pub. Serv. Water Co. v. Commissionpennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 645 A.2d 423 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 3× “2d 75 (1987), this court concluded that the language in 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(g), the section preceding § 332(h), which states that the administrative law judge “shall render a decision within 90 days” (emphasis added) after the record is closed in a case, is directory and not…”
Womack v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 83 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“On appeal to this Court, West Penn argued that the ALJ’s adjudication was null and void, because it was not issued within the time period required by the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(g), which provides: In all on-the-record proceedings .”
Tanya J. McCloskey, Acting Consum. Advocate v. PA PUC, 195 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“Additionally, Section 1103(a) of the Code provides that the acquiring utility must prove that granting it a Certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public, as well as allowing the Commission to place conditions on the…”
Borough of Ridgway v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 480 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 2× “4 The trial staff of the PUC, which has automatic party standing and may file exceptions to any decision by an administrative law judge, Section 332(h) of the Code, 66 Pa. C. S. §332 (h), also filed exceptions herein.”
Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 521 A.2d 105 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “[2] The administrative law judge interpreted his November 8, 1985 order as an interim order, hence precluding the filing of exceptions pursuant to 66 Pa. C. S. §332(h). Interlocutory appeals to the Commission are permitted by 66 Pa.”
Aronson v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 740 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
“Section 332(a) of the Public Utility Code, as amended, 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(a). In reviewing the PUC’s decision, this Court must defer to the interpretation of the governing statutes, regulatory pronouncements and terms of the tariffs rendered by the PUC that has the particular…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 332(a) — 33 cases
HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 163 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“” 66 Pa. C.S. §332(a). Factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence, which is “such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Retail Energy Supply Ass'n v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 185 A.3d 1206 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“3d at 1106-07 (citing 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a).) We concluded, as previously discussed, that substantial evidence supported PUC's decision to reject the proposed PECO price ceiling, but that PUC's decision to reject the prohibition on early cancellation and termination fees was not…”
Tanya J. McCloskey, Acting Consum. Advocate v. PA PUC, 195 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“Additionally, Section 1103(a) of the Code provides that the acquiring utility must prove that granting it a Certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public, as well as allowing the Commission to place conditions on the…”
Aronson v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 740 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
“Section 332(a) of the Public Utility Code, as amended, 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(a). In reviewing the PUC’s decision, this Court must defer to the interpretation of the governing statutes, regulatory pronouncements and terms of the tariffs rendered by the PUC that has the particular…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 332(c) — 3 cases
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 332(g) — 6 cases
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 521 A.2d 75 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Section 332(g) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C. S. §332(g), pertaining to procedures before the Commission, provides in pertinent part: [H]earings shall be commenced by the administrative law judge within 90 days after the proceeding is initiated, and he shall render…”
Womack v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 83 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“On appeal to this Court, West Penn argued that the ALJ’s adjudication was null and void, because it was not issued within the time period required by the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(g), which provides: In all on-the-record proceedings .”
Pub. Serv. Water Co. v. Commissionpennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 645 A.2d 423 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
“2d 75 (1987), this court concluded that the language in 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(g), the section preceding § 332(h), which states that the administrative law judge “shall render a decision within 90 days” (emphasis added) after the record is closed in a case, is directory and not…”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 332(h) — 13 cases
Philboro Coach Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 423 A.2d 751 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
“On appeal protestants contend that the commission erred by not giving retroactive effect to Section 332(h) of the Public Utility Code (Code), as amended, 66 Pa. C. S. §332 (h) which now requires that the ALJ rule on exceptions to his initial decision.”
Pub. Serv. Water Co. v. Commissionpennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 645 A.2d 423 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
“2d 75 (1987), this court concluded that the language in 66 Pa.C.S. § 332(g), the section preceding § 332(h), which states that the administrative law judge “shall render a decision within 90 days” (emphasis added) after the record is closed in a case, is directory and not…”
Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 521 A.2d 105 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“[2] The administrative law judge interpreted his November 8, 1985 order as an interim order, hence precluding the filing of exceptions pursuant to 66 Pa. C. S. §332(h). Interlocutory appeals to the Commission are permitted by 66 Pa.”
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.