Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703 (2026)

 Fixing of hearings.

✓ 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

§ 703.  Fixing of hearings.

(a)  Satisfaction of complaint or hearing.--If any party complained against, within the time specified by the commission, shall satisfy the complaint, the commission shall dismiss the complaint. Such party shall be relieved from responsibility only for the specific matter complained of. If such party shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, and it shall appear to the commission from a consideration of the complaint and answer, or otherwise, that reasonable ground exists for investigating such complaint, it shall be the duty of the commission to fix a time and place for a hearing.

(b)  Notice of hearing.--The commission shall fix the time and place of hearing, within or without this Commonwealth, if any is required, and shall serve notice thereof upon parties in interest. The commission may dismiss any complaint without a hearing if, in its opinion, a hearing is not necessary in the public interest.

(c)  Hearing and record.--All hearings before the commission, or its representative, shall be public, and shall be conducted in accordance with such regulations as the commission may prescribe. A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings had before the commission, or its representative, on any formal hearing, and all testimony shall be taken down by a reporter appointed by the commission, and the parties shall be entitled to be heard in person or by attorney, and to introduce evidence.

(d)  Informal hearings.--The commission may, in addition to the hearings specially provided by this part, conduct such other hearings as may be required in the administration of the powers and duties conferred upon it by this part and by other acts relating to public utilities. Reasonable notice of all such hearings shall be given the persons interested therein.

(e)  Decisions by commission.--After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall make and file its findings and order with its opinion, if any. Its findings shall be in sufficient detail to enable the court on appeal, to determine the controverted question presented by the proceeding, and whether proper weight was given to the evidence. A copy of such order, certified under the seal of the commission, shall be served by registered or certified mail upon the party or parties against whom it runs, or his attorney, and notice thereof shall be given to the other parties to the proceedings or their attorney. Such order shall take effect and become operative as designated therein, and shall continue in force either for a period which may be designated therein, or until changed or revoked by the commission. The commission may grant and prescribe such additional time as, in its judgment, is reasonably necessary to comply with the order, and may, on application and for good cause shown, extend the time for compliance fixed in its order.

(f)  Rehearing.--After an order has been made by the commission, any party to the proceedings may, within 15 days after the service of the order, apply for a rehearing in respect of any matters determined in such proceedings and specified in the application for rehearing, and the commission may grant and hold such rehearing on such matters. No application for a rehearing shall in anywise operate as a supersedeas, or in any manner stay or postpone the enforcement of any existing order, except as the commission may, by order, direct. If the application be granted, the commission may affirm, rescind, or modify its original order.

(g)  Rescission and amendment of orders.--The commission may, at any time, after notice and after opportunity to be heard as provided in this chapter, rescind or amend any order made by it. Any order rescinding or amending a prior order shall, when served upon the person, corporation, or municipal corporation affected, and after notice thereof is given to the other parties to the proceedings, have the same effect as is herein provided for original orders.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Arippa v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 792 A.2d 636 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
Arippa v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 792 A.2d 636 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). · cites it 5× “§ 1397, the predecessor to the present Section 703 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703, which is nearly identical to the present language in Section 703(g).”
In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. of Permanent & Temp. Rights of Way for the Transp. of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, & other Petroleum Prods. in the Twp. of North Middleton, Cumberland Cnty., PA ~ Appeal of: R.S. Martin, 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “PUC Orders and Tariffs Sunoco on May 21, 2014 filed an application pursuant to Section 703(g) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(g), 12 to clarify an August 29, 2013 PUC Order granting Sunoco authority to suspend and abandon its provision of east-to-west gasoline and distillate…”
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). · cites it 2× “66 Pa.C.S. § 703(e). The PUC decision met this standard.”
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “West Penn also contends an order granting rescission of the prior orders is not preempted by federal law.”
Lehigh Valley Power Comm. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 563 A.2d 548 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). · cites it 3× “The Commission is vested with the discretion to dismiss a complaint under Section 703 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703. A decision to dismiss a complaint without *266 holding hearings will be reversed by this Court only if there was an abuse of discretion.”
Metro. Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 22 A.3d 353 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “The OSBA asserts that the Commission violated Section 703(e) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(e) (requiring that the Commission’s findings be sufficient to enable a court on appeal to determine questions at issue and whether the Commission gave proper weight to the evidence), when…”
City of Lancaster v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 769 A.2d 567 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “When AT & T argued on appeal that the PUC had erred in granting the petitioner reconsideration rather than a rehearing without petitioner's having alleged any new evidence for the PUC to consider, the Court observed that "[w]hile rehearing petitions must allege newly discovered…”
Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 778 A.2d 785 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “8 Wheeling Railway further contends that the PUC’s decision is not a reasoned and articulate decision because the PUC ignored the evidence supporting its position and failed to discuss the issues in detail.”
Tripps Park Civic Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 415 A.2d 967 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). · cites it 2× “As to the merits: Tripps Park alleges that the October 2, 1978 order is (1) violative of Section 703 (g) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. §703(g), and of Tripps Park’s due process rights in that the PUC adopted it without giving notice and opportunity to be heard,-…”
At & T Commc'ns v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 568 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). · cites it 2× “3 AT & T next argues that the PUC failed to set forth its findings in sufficient detail as required by Section 703(e) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(e), in that it (1) gave no explanation supporting its conclusion and (2) gave no explanation of the relationship between the…”
UGI Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 410 A.2d 923 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). “OCA’s Appeal — Contention That The Commission Failed To Make Sueeicient Findings oe Fact OCA contends that the Commission completely ignored the three issues raised by OCA in this appeal despite OCA’s presentation of evidence on these issues.”
Bell Atl.-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 763 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “Chapter 30 affects, but does not repeal, the PUC’s powers under the Public Utility Code to amend its previous orders, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 703(e), 703(g), pursuant to notice and hearing.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703(a) — 2 cases
Schellhammer v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 629 A.2d 189 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
E. Walden v. PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703(b) — 8 cases
Lehigh Valley Power Comm. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 563 A.2d 548 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). “The Commission is vested with the discretion to dismiss a complaint under Section 703 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703. A decision to dismiss a complaint without *266 holding hearings will be reversed by this Court only if there was an abuse of discretion.”
GPU Indus. Intervenors v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 628 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
Higgins v. Pub. Sch. Employes' Ret. Sys., 736 A.2d 745 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “West Penn also contends an order granting rescission of the prior orders is not preempted by federal law.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703(e) — 27 cases
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util., 706 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1997). “66 Pa.C.S. § 703(e). The PUC decision met this standard.”
Metro. Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 22 A.3d 353 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “The OSBA asserts that the Commission violated Section 703(e) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(e) (requiring that the Commission’s findings be sufficient to enable a court on appeal to determine questions at issue and whether the Commission gave proper weight to the evidence), when…”
Arippa v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 792 A.2d 636 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “§ 1397, the predecessor to the present Section 703 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703, which is nearly identical to the present language in Section 703(g).”
Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 778 A.2d 785 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “8 Wheeling Railway further contends that the PUC’s decision is not a reasoned and articulate decision because the PUC ignored the evidence supporting its position and failed to discuss the issues in detail.”
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703(f) — 5 cases
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “West Penn also contends an order granting rescission of the prior orders is not preempted by federal law.”
United States Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 450 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982).
Philadelphia Gas Works v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
Red Lion Mun. Auth. v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
N. Hess v. PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
— 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 703(g) — 23 cases
In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. of Permanent & Temp. Rights of Way for the Transp. of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, & other Petroleum Prods. in the Twp. of North Middleton, Cumberland Cnty., PA ~ Appeal of: R.S. Martin, 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “PUC Orders and Tariffs Sunoco on May 21, 2014 filed an application pursuant to Section 703(g) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(g), 12 to clarify an August 29, 2013 PUC Order granting Sunoco authority to suspend and abandon its provision of east-to-west gasoline and distillate…”
Arippa v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 792 A.2d 636 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “§ 1397, the predecessor to the present Section 703 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703, which is nearly identical to the present language in Section 703(g).”
City of Lancaster v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 769 A.2d 567 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “When AT & T argued on appeal that the PUC had erred in granting the petitioner reconsideration rather than a rehearing without petitioner's having alleged any new evidence for the PUC to consider, the Court observed that "[w]hile rehearing petitions must allege newly discovered…”
Tripps Park Civic Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 415 A.2d 967 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). “As to the merits: Tripps Park alleges that the October 2, 1978 order is (1) violative of Section 703 (g) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. §703(g), and of Tripps Park’s due process rights in that the PUC adopted it without giving notice and opportunity to be heard,-…”
West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). “West Penn also contends an order granting rescission of the prior orders is not preempted by federal law.”
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.