CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY v. PUBLIC UTILITY
Citation | 822 A.2d 146 |
Parties | CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 28 April 2003 |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Richard D. Procida, Media, for petitioner.
Stanley E. Brown, Harrisburg, for respondent.
BEFORE: COLINS, President Judge, and SMITH-RIBNER, Judge, PELLEGRINI, Judge, FRIEDMAN, Judge, COHN, Judge, SIMPSON, Judge, and LEAVITT, Judge.
OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON.
In its appeal from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Chester Water Authority (CWA) asks us to consider whether the PUC erred when it granted Philadelphia Suburban Water Company's (PSW) motion for judgment on the pleadings and PSW's application for a certificate of public convenience.1 Concluding factual disputes exist and a hearing is required to determine if PSW satisfies the statutory criteria necessary to obtain a certificate of public convenience, we vacate and remand.
In August 2001, PSW applied to the PUC for a certificate of public convenience to service a different territory pursuant to Section 1102(a)(1)(i) of the Public Utility Code (Code).2 PSW sought certification to supply water service to the "Cherry Farm" tract, the site of a new residential development in Thornbury Township, Delaware County. CWA responded by filing a protest3 that averred, in pertinent part:
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 19a-20a. (Emphasis added.)
In response to CWA's protest, PSW filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The PUC granted PSW's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The next day, the PUC entered an order which granted the certificate of public convenience without a hearing. This action was affirmed by letter, from which CWA appealed.4
A decision to dismiss a complaint or protest without conducting a hearing will be reversed by this Court only if there was an abuse of discretion. Lehigh Valley Power Comm. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 259, 563 A.2d 548 (1989).
Pursuant to Section 5.102(a) of the PUC regulations, a participant in a PUC proceeding may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but within a time so as not to delay the hearing. 52 Pa.Code § 5.102(a). Further,
[t]he judgment sought will be rendered if the pleadings ... show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that the moving participant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. If a motion is granted, the presiding officer will do so in the form of an initial or recommended decision which shall be subject to exceptions.
52 Pa.Code § 5.102(c)(1) (emphasis added).
In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all of the non-movant's well-pled allegations are accepted as true, and only those facts specifically admitted by the non-movant are considered against it. Ridge v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 690 A.2d 1312 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). Judgment on the pleadings is proper only where the pleadings show there are no material facts in dispute, such that a hearing is unnecessary. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Castegnaro, 565 Pa. 246, 772 A.2d 456 (2001). When determining whether to grant the motion, only the pleadings and any documents properly attached to them may be considered. Id.
Here, CWA raised issues of material fact. Specifically, CWA averred its rates are significantly lower than those of PSW. It also averred it has a water supply line adjacent to the Cherry tract. Further, CWA averred the developer of the tract stated a preference for its services. Judgment on the pleadings precluded CWA from the opportunity to prove or offer proof of facts related to rate amount, proximity and developer preference. These facts are material to determining whether the public interest will be properly served. 66 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a); Highway Express Lines v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 195 Pa.Super. 92, 169 A.2d 798 (1961) ( ). As such, the PUC abused its discretion by granting judgment on the pleadings. Greer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 475 Pa. 448, 380 A.2d 1221 (1977) ( ).
Moreover, we cannot approve the PUC's procedure in ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. As its name implies, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is directed to the pleadings. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. Thus, only the pleadings, and any documents properly attached thereto, may be considered. Id.
The PUC abused its discretion in looking beyond the pleadings to support its determination. Specifically, the PUC relied on a letter, in which the developer stated a preference for PSW's service. R.R. 64a. In addition, the PUC found PSW will charge its existing tariffed rates applicable to customers in the West Chester Division. R.R. 59a. No document evidencing rate amount in the West Chester Division, however, is within the pleadings. Therefore, the PUC abused it discretion by failing to properly confine its inquiry to the pleadings. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the PUC's order granting PSW's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
PSW and the PUC argue a public hearing is not necessary because CWA failed to aver facts relevant to the mandate in Section 1103(a) of the Code.5
Sections 1103(a) and (b) of the Code, which govern the procedure for obtaining a certificate of public convenience, provide:
66 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), (b) (emphasis added).
The primary object of the Code is to serve the public interest. Phila. Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 425 Pa. 501, 229 A.2d 748 (1967) ( ); Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 199 Pa.Super. 158, 184 A.2d 111 (1962) ( ); Pittston Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 190 Pa.Super. 365, 154 A.2d 510 (1959) ( ).
To obtain a certificate of public convenience, an applicant must prove there is a need for the proposed services; the existing services are inadequate; and it is fit to satisfactorily meet the need. Seaboard Tank Lines, Inc., v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 601, 502 A.2d 762 (1985).6 Although the directive of Section 1103(a) of the Code is broad, the PUC must still determine whether granting a certificate satisfies the statutory criteria. Id. Issuance of a certificate without such a determination is contrary to the principle that the primary objective of the law in this area is to serve the public interest. Middletown Township v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 85 Pa.Cmwlth. 191, 482 A.2d 674 (1984).
What may constitute "need" for service depends on the locality involved and the particular circumstances of each case. Warminster Township Mun. Auth. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 185 Pa.Super. 431, 138 A.2d 240 (1958). An applicant need not establish a present demand for service in every square mile of the territory to be certificated; proof of necessity within the general area is sufficient. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 99 Pa. Cmwlth. 420, 512 A.2d 1359 (1986).
The averments in CWA's protest challenge PSW's ability to meet public need. Specifically, CWA averred it can provide lower rates to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chester Water Auth. v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'N
...Authority was initially addressed by a Commonwealth Court panel, which issued a divided, unpublished opinion. See Chester Water Auth. v. Pennsylvania PUC, 822 A.2d 146 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). The majority concluded that the Commission properly granted judgment on the pleadings relative to the aut......
-
IN RE A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BY SOUTH
...... In response to water drainage problems, Engineers for Condemnor recommended ... was made by Condemnor that construction within the public right of way was "reasonably impracticable."3 They argued ... of the Township Code provides Condemnor with the authority to condemn private property for storm water facilities, ......
-
Chester Water Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. [J-201-2004] (PA 2/23/2005)
...§ 1103(b). The majority also analogized the PUC certification process to proceedings on the adoption of zoning ordinances, see Chester Water, slip op. at 7 (citing Appeal of Kurren, 417 Pa. 623, 208 A.2d 853 (1965)), and the sale of public property. See id. at 8-9 (citing In re Petition of ......