CHAPTER 7
PROCEDURE ON COMPLAINTS
Sec.
701. Complaints.
702. Service of complaints on parties.
703. Fixing of hearings.
Enactment. Chapter 7 was added July 1, 1978, P.L.598, No.116, effective in 60 days.
Cross References. Chapter 7 is referred to in sections 2603, 2609 of this title.
§ 701. Complaints.
The commission, or any person, corporation, or municipal corporation having an interest
in the subject matter, or any public utility concerned, may complain in writing, setting
forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility in violation,
or claimed violation, of any law which the commission has jurisdiction to administer,
or of any regulation or order of the commission. Any public utility, or other person,
or corporation likewise may complain of any regulation or order of the commission,
which the complainant is or has been required by the commission to observe or carry
into effect. The Commonwealth through the Attorney General may be a complainant before
the commission in any matter solely as an advocate for the Commonwealth as a consumer
of public utility services. The commission may prescribe the form of complaints filed
under this section.
Cross References. Section 701 is referred to in sections 1358, 2205, 2807, 3014 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 875 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Thus, the ALJ determined that the PUC possessed two independent bases for exercising its jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to its enabling statute, the Public Utility Code (Code): [9] (1) the PUC's right to enforce its orders under section 701 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 701;…”
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The complaint asserted the PUC could entertain it under Sections 701 and 703 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 701 and 703, and that tile orders in question violated PURPA.”
PECO Energy Co. v. Twp. of Upper Dublin, 922 A.2d 996 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
“Moreover, 66 Pa.C.S. § 701 authorizes any person, corporation or municipal corporation to file a written complaint regarding any act by a public utility in violation of the Public Utility Code or PUC regulation.”
GPU Indus. Intervenors v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 628 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
“§ 701, which permits any person with an interest in the subject matter to complain in writing concerning anything done or omitted to be done by any public utility in claimed violation of law or order of the PUC. The complaint challenged the legality of levelized payments to QFs…”
Mun. Auth. of the Borough of West View v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 41 A.3d 929 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“66 Pa.C.S. § 701. In order to have standing to pursue a formal complaint before the PUC under Section 701 of the Code, the complainant “must have a direct, immediate, and substantial interest in the subject matter of the controversy.”
Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Seder, 106 A.3d 193 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“An informal complaint is a “document or communication to the Commission seeking action on a matter that lacks the legal or other requirements of a formal complaint under 66 Pa.C.S. § 701 and does not involve a legal proceeding before a presiding officer or mediator.”
Lehigh Valley Power Comm. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 563 A.2d 557 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).
“A customer claiming that an approved rate is excessive may file a complaint with the commission pursuant to section 701 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 701, seeking a prospective change in the rate pursuant to section 1309, 66 Pa.”
Country Place Waste Treatment Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 654 A.2d 72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “As acknowledged by the Initial Decision, the Commission has no standards concerning odor or ambient air quality, and the ALJ’s “exhaustive research has failed to uncover any reported commission decision defining with more specificity the standard of service to be rendered by a…”
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.