Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 55 A.3d 1056

Background

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the Commission) sought to collect an annual operations fee from Mercury Trucking for July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006.
Mercury failed to file its 2004 actual revenue by March 31, 2005; the Commission estimated Mercury’s 2004 revenue and used it to calculate Mercury’s 2005 assessment ($32,210 paid in full).
Mercury contended its 2004 actual revenue was $5,264,627, far below the Commission’s estimated $8,492,767, and sought a recalculation/refund of about $12,242.98.
An ALJ initially favored Mercury by finding the revenue estimate excessive and granting a partial refund; the Commission later reversed and denied Mercury’s refund request.
Commonwealth Court initially vacated the Commission’s order and Mercury appealed; the court later transferred the matter to its original jurisdiction, treating it as a complaint at law for a refund.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that review should proceed under the Administrative Agency Law (AAL) and that the Commission’s adjudication is appealable in Commonwealth Court, with the Commission’s direct appeal quashed and the appeal treated as a petition for allowance of appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper forum for review of assessment objections	Mercury advocates original-jurisdiction action for refund under § 510(d).	Commission argues AAL appeal in Commonwealth Court is exclusive and § 510(d) provides the remedy.	AAL review governs; exclusive § 510(d) action not applicable; appeal proper in Commonwealth Court.
Direct appeal vs. discretionary review by Supreme Court	Mercury and Commission both seek direct review by the Supreme Court given original-jurisdiction transfer.	Supreme Court review is discretionary and governed by § 723/§ 724 after an appeal to Commonwealth Court.	Supreme Court review is discretionary; after improper transfer, the matter proceeds via petition for allowance of appeal.
Whether Mercury is entitled to a refund under § 510(b)-(d)	Mercury proved the revenue estimate was excessive vs. actual revenue and sought a refund.	Section 510(b) binding-estimate cannot be defeated by late actual-revenue figures; refunds under § 510(d) are exclusive and misapplied here.	The Commonwealth Court erred; the statutory text supports a refund under appropriate § 510(d) grounds only where the reassessment is excessive, erroneous, unlawful, or invalid.
Effect of 'binding' revenue estimates in § 510(b)	Binding nature of the estimate should allow reconsideration based on actual revenue via objections.	Binding estimate is binding for purposes of calculation and objections do not alter the initial rate.	Binding est. under § 510(b) is not absolute; objections may lead to relief consistent with the statute and overall legislative intent.
Construction of the relationship between AAL and § 510(d)-(e)	AAL should govern; § 510(d)-(e) is obsolete vestige not to override the AAL.	§ 510(d)-(e) reflects an exclusive remedy provision and survives despite later statutes.	AAL prevails; § 510(d)-(e) is not exclusive and the AAL process controls judicial review.

Key Cases Cited

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 789 A.2d 353 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (origin of transfer/district-choice issue in review of assessment decisions)
Lindberg, 469 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 1983) (appeal available and adequate; original jurisdiction not used)
O’Brien v. Commonwealth, State Empls’ Retirement Sys., 503 Pa. 414 (Pa. 1983) (collateral review of agency determinations; economy of resources)
Stackhouse v. Pa. State Police, 832 A.2d 1004 (Pa. 2003) (substance over form in jurisdictional analysis)
Maritime Mgmt., Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 611 A.2d 202 (Pa. 1992) (interplay between statutes not conflicting with AAL)
Mar Mgmt., Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 611 A.2d 202 (Pa. 1992) (treats similar jurisdictional concerns in administrative review)
Kowenhoven v. County of Allegheny, 901 A.2d 1009 (Pa. 2006) (due process in agency proceedings; administrative review framework)
Rogers v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999) (constitutional right to appeal from administrative agency decisions)
Suburban Lines, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 377 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (early control of appellate review of agency actions)
Maritime Mgmt., Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 611 A.2d 202 (Pa. 1992) (context for exclusivity and review interplay)