Pa. Cons. Stat. » 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. (PUBLIC UTILITIES) / Chapter 5
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 523 (2026)

 Performance factor consideration.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 523.  Performance factor consideration.

(a)  Considerations.--The commission shall consider, in addition to all other relevant evidence of record, the efficiency, effectiveness and adequacy of service of each utility when determining just and reasonable rates under this title. On the basis of the commission's consideration of such evidence, it shall give effect to this section by making such adjustments to specific components of the utility's claimed cost of service as it may determine to be proper and appropriate. Any adjustment made under this section shall be made on the basis of specific findings upon evidence of record, which findings shall be set forth explicitly, together with their underlying rationale, in the final order of the commission.

(b)  Fixed utilities.--As part of its duties pursuant to subsection (a), the commission shall set forth criteria by which it will evaluate future fixed utility performance and in assessing the performance of a fixed utility pursuant to subsection (a), the commission shall consider specifically the following:

(1)  Management effectiveness and operating efficiency as measured by an audit pursuant to section 516 (relating to audits of certain utilities) to the extent that the audit or portions of the audit have been properly introduced by a party into the record of the proceeding in accordance with applicable rules of evidence and procedure.

(2)  Action or failure to act pursuant to section 514 (relating to use of coal) to upgrade capability to use coal for electric utilities.

(3)  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of generating capacity for electric utilities.

(4)  Action or failure to act to encourage development of cost-effective energy supply alternatives such as conservation or load management, cogeneration or small power production for electric and gas utilities.

(5)  Action or failure to act to encourage cost-effective conservation by customers of water utilities.

(6)  Action or failure to act to contain costs of constructing new generating units consistent with sections 515 (relating to construction cost of electric generating units) and 1308(f) (relating to voluntary changes in rates).

(7)  Any other relevant and material evidence of efficiency, effectiveness and adequacy of service.

(July 10, 1986, P.L.1238, No.114, eff. imd.)

 

1986 Amendment.  Act 114 added section 523.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: Pennsylvania Indus. Energy Coalition v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 653 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pennsylvania Indus. Energy Coalition v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 653 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “It also contends that incentives (or penalties) outside of a general *1351 base rate case are not permitted by the Code which sets forth a specific procedure for awai’ding utilities for cost-effective conservation programs, citing Section 523 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 523. To…”
NRG Energy, Inc. v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). “The Competition Act 11 NRG further asserts that the Commission erred in relying on Section 523(a) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 523(a), to impose the burden on it to prove the reasonableness of its proposed allocation methodology.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 523(a) — 1 case
NRG Energy, Inc. v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). “The Competition Act 11 NRG further asserts that the Commission erred in relying on Section 523(a) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 523(a), to impose the burden on it to prove the reasonableness of its proposed allocation methodology.”
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.