Lehigh Valley Transportation Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
56 A.3d 49
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- J & J sought to add call and demand taxi services to its existing certificate with the Pennsylvania PUC after protests by Lehigh Valley Transportation Services and Quick Service Taxi Company.
- Protests contended the record did not show a present public need or that J & J had the propensity to operate safely and legally.
- An ALJ approved the addition and the PUC declined to modify, with both sides appealing.
- The review focused on Section 1103(a) of the Public Utility Code and Section 41.14 of the PUC regulations, balancing public need against fitness to operate.
- The PUC adopted the ALJ’s findings, concluding there was a present need and no demonstrated lack of propensity, and Lehigh’s exceptions were denied.
- J & J presented evidence of a broad operation, training, safety measures, and customer need; Lehigh challenged the sufficiency of the need and the propensity standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a present public need for the proposed service | J & J showed a representative public demand | Lehigh contended need was speculative and not tied to actual users | Yes, present need established |
| Whether J & J lacked the propensity to operate safely and legally | J & J had continuing fitness as an established certificate holder | J & J had isolated misconduct and tariff issues showing propensity to violate rules | No, record supported fitness; lack of propensity not shown |
| Whether the PUC properly applied evidentiary standards and burden of proof | J & J bore burden to prove fitness and public need by preponderance | Protestants could rebut existing presumption of fitness with evidence of misconduct | PUC correctly applied standards and weighed credibility; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ace Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 935 A.2d 75 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (proof of public need may be shown through credible public witnesses)
- Blue Bird Coach Lines, Inc., 72 Pa.P.U.C. 262 (1990) (presumption of fitness and evaluating safety propensity)
- Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 673 A.2d 1015 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (public demand proof by representative sampling)
- Limelight Limousine, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 580 A.2d 472 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1990) (regarding consideration of misconduct in propensity evaluation)
- Gettysburg Tours, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 400 A.2d 945 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1979) (unauthorized rendition considerations not dispositive where other evidence supports grant)
- Loma, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 682 A.2d 424 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (misconduct not pervasive; likelihood of future compliance)
- Ace Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 935 A.2d 75 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (public need proven by actual or imminent user needs)